The whole debate on climate change seems strange.
You may find plenty of peer reviewed publications on everything ranging from bleaching of coral, tide measurements, reduction in the polar ice caps, changes in the behaviour of the North Atlantic pump and changes in migratory behaviour of birds and insects. There are plenty of exceptions to; this should help improve the model and hence prove or disprove the hypothesis that climate change is occuring.
I'd say the MAIN issue is whether it is man made or natural.
Irrespective of peoples beliefs regarding climate change, there was a realisation that uncontrolled consumption of the Earth's resources was 'a bad thing'.
We have started on the path of conserving energy, looking at the reduction of waste, and recycling. The perceived threat of climate change through human activity has been another catalyst for us to recognise the effect of humans on the planet, just as the issues of CFCs, overfishing etc.
I'm sure scientists might take liberties with the statistics to make their models fit, so lets hope peer reviews by those in the field, and not skewed, uneducated reviews by journalists, politicians and capitalists, prove or disprove the theory of climate change.
It is very likely that the majority of cynical folk will continue to love their 4.7l V8 Holden, refuse to swap from incandescents to Fluoro or LED, recycle, compost, insulate their homes, drink recycled water, buy biodegradable cleaning products, spend 4 minutes in the shower.
You get the picture. Are you going to join them?
No comments:
Post a Comment