The Global Warming debate
Global warming is the buzzword that is echoed around the world. This topic is never free from its share of debates, discussions and controversies. Until some years ago you could come across environmentalists who pleaded you to join them in fight against Global warming. But today you may find environmentalists who will ask you to ignore the very concept of Global warming and to focus on more important things. So its largely your decision whether you should stand by the topic or concentrate on more important topics.
Most of the time Global warming debate steers towards the direction that “Global warming is not real.” But still the people who go against the existence of Global Warming don't deny that temperature of earth, temperature of the water and melting of the ice had certainly occurred but the reason for global warming cannot be made to rest on human shoulders. Changes are inherent part of the nature. Even if there is no release of carbon dioxide by human activities temperatures will change. The controversial Global warming skeptic Bjorn Lomborg however confirms the existence of some global warming facts but he adopts little bit tricky track to follow the issue when he says “Global warming is real and caused by Carbon dioxide. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming”. Some skeptics have further made the issue very confusing which generates an impression amongst the common man that “Global warming is not real.” Their viewpoints are:
- There is no concrete evidence to show the global warming.
- Even if there are no emissions of Carbon dioxide changes could be observed in measured temperature which is the part of natural cycle.
- If the Kyoto Protocol is implemented in its full measure then that will cause economical striations in world. The losses will be large and gains very little.
- More people are dying of Global cooling than Global warming so if temperature increases by couple of degrees then it can save more lives than before.
- Money which is invested in such treaties and protocols should be directed to solve more inherent social problems like malnutrition, poverty, AIDS etc.
While browsing through Television channels one can come across various celebrities, politicians, meteorologists, weather experts voicing their opposition to the global warming and adding some controversial conclusions towards Global warming debate. Some experts argue that even the most talked about documentary of 2007 called An Inconvenient Truth misguided the people over some facts. An Inconvenient Truth was declared as one sided and containing scientific errors by British Judge. An Inconvenient Truth shared Nobel Prize for peace with IPCC. Even IPCC openly rejected some of the points highlighted in the documentary like increase sea level. According to documentary 20 feet increase in sea level is expected at the turn of century whereas in reality scientists say only 3 feet increase is noted in the sea level at the end of the century. Gore also speaks about melting of icecaps which will contribute towards another inch of increase in sea level.
Although there have been suggestions which when applied will lessen our harm on environment like going for natural energy sources than depending on the conventional energy sources. Similarly adopting environmental friendly electricity sources. The economical impact of embracing these changes will be very high.
Some skeptics have also termed the Global warming debate as scam. They say that Global warming is the source of raising money for environmental organizations and so called Environmental groups. Someone may think I have contributed to environmental support group so there ends my responsibility and commitment with the nature but in reality paying hefty amounts towards fees doesn't ends your responsibility towards nature. Instead adopt ways which are less harmful to the nature.