Global Warming Reality or a myth?
A big question with two equally big answers, there seems to be a split vote on who or what is to blame for global warming and depending upon where you live there seems also to be a huge divide in opinion.
In certain countries with lavish lifestyles, a huge dependency on the burning of fossil fuels for energy generation and personal transport there is little appetite for change and certainly no intention of giving up that lifestyle any time soon. So it is reasonably logical to assume that the people of such countries are going to subscribe to the myth side of the argument.
Only when it is far too late to do anything will the champions of this school of thought change their minds and scream Blue Murder that Somebody Should Do Something !
Their Government knows the truth but are powerless to make the changes necessary for fear of the fact that they won’t be allowed to stay in Government. So they are trying to buy their way out of the problem by paying other nations to pollute less.
On the other hand there are many of us that truly believe Global Warming is a natural occurrence but it can also be influenced and accelerated by mankind.
If you simply look at the mathematics of world population growth in last two hundred years or since the Industrial Revolution, in the year 1800 the world population was less than one billion people. By 1930 it had more than doubled to two billion and it had doubled again by 1980’s to four and a half billion.
This year 2010 it will approach seven billion and will be nearly ten billion by the year 2050.
The simple question I have for any doubters out there is this; “How is it possible for you to believe that that amount of people is not a serious contributing factor in what is happening to the atmosphere that surrounds our planet ?”
It is possible that we the believers maybe wrong, that is a possibility, but by taking positive action to stop and even reduce pollution we are at least doing no harm while the scientific jury is still out.
Bu t if the doubters are wrong, and that too must be considered possible, their negative approach will only make the problem worse.
So again I ask an obviously simple question; “Doesn’t it make sense to err on the side of caution and hope we are right, rather than to do nothing and find out we were wrong ?