114
The controversy rages on.
Many say global warming is putting the Earth at risk, that the North Pole will have an ice-free summer by 2100, that if it isn't stopped, it will change the world as we know it forever.
And hardly anyone, least those who I know, disputes that.
However, there must be a form of balance in this dispute. That lies in climatology.
Haven't you noticed that all these things about the detrimental effects of global warming have been said, and written, by scientists, as well as influential personalities like Al Gore? Not that I am against their views, but what do the climatologists have to say? Isn't it that, as some say, asking a scientist about climatology is akin to asking a brain surgeon about the respiratory system? Maybe they would know a little of that, but nevertheless, that is not their specialisation.
Scientists talk of the human contribution to global warming, and mention little else of the other contributing factors. Climatologists, however, focus more on the latter, less-talked about facets of this aspect of their profession.
This increase in global temperatures, they say, is attributed more to the natural climate cycle, which states that such temperatures rise naturally before falling (like a balance) and causing a worldwide cooling, in which we know in the form of major ice ages of old, and other such phenomena than humans. And so our actions cannot be said to be conclusive of the detrimental effects of global warming.
In any case, what the scientists have stirred up has indeed brought about an improvement in the way we live. Green energy points to the future (although still in its infancy), and there have been pressure to reduce our carbon footprint in every way possible. In urban establishments, we enjoy fresher air and cleaner surroundings, and why not? Whether or not it would make a real impact in stemming global warming, at least for us living in towns and cities, we can breathe easy, literally.
The real debate between scientists and climatologists does not lie here. I only write about the two sides of this story, to make people aware that, in fact, there are people who believe this isn't our fault. After all, there will always be two faces to a coin.
Where is the debate, then? It could be in the international tribunals, numerous dialogues, or even simple arguments of loggerheads in a chatroom over the internet. The truth to that debate, however, lies in time.
One side has to be right.
Till then~