Sunday, November 22, 2009

Environmental Debate reaches CATACLYSMIC Proportions

There is indeed a debate going, a debate of CATACLYSMIC PROPORTIONS -just so we get into the environmental lingo-. The debate could be labelled as the “debate for environmental concerns” and it had been taken to several differing -contrasting levels. It is discussed in politics, economics and academic research (nothing unusual about that).

However, we see the debate had reached other rather dissonancing grounds: such as school groups where kids are asked to join save-the-environment-groups if they want to show they’re moral beings. The entertainment industry had identified it as a major source of getting mass attention and we hear how almost every single entertainer who claims to defend the “right things” is an environmentalist. You can get a glimpse of that as they go errands around Tinseltown running their environmental-friendly-cars. They’re also very vocal about their concern and let you know through concerts, public speeches, marches, charity events, galas, movie premiers…the list is endless.

However, taking the debate to its more fundamental grounds, it seems it is not even near to be clear out. For a lot of years now, there are scientists who claim the planet will perish to the hands of the ruthless destroying behaviour of human beings. And there are those scientists (the minority) who claim the earth had gone through dramatic climate change throughout all its history and the impact of human beings is very infinitesimal.

These two sides are clearly identified in two videos. One is the massive promoted video by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and the other is the BBC produced “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (TGGWS). The first states as a major claim that the alarming increased levels of CO2 had been produced by the contaminating industries of irresponsible industrialists. While the TGGWS rejects this and states CO2 is just a very-tiny-part of the green-house gases and that most of it is produced by natural processes (decomposition, breathing…mind you).

So, we have the public left without really knowing which side is telling the story right. To spice up the debate a little bit, the Wall Street Journal reported how “Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor” and it states “In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with”. Ohhh, how very interesting, the reports continues “the tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.”

Read the story for a full scoop here

1 comment:

  1. The sad part is even if you argue for the environment coming from a camp that is not theirs (i.e. supporting nuclear power plants), well, you're just as bad as all the other, evil envirosceptics.

    Now, with so many voices speaking out, and politicians and movie starts getting their (non?)educated guesses into the picture, it's hard to know who is you and who is being sincere.

    Government is locking down the options to discuss these issues by passing legislation favoring the "pro"-environment camp, therefore, ruling out the possibilities of other solutions.

    And as we all know, no law has yet to beat the market.