As little as 30 years ago scientists were still puzzling over the effect humans had on the earth and what was in store for future generations. It was then not until 1990 that the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment was completed and certainty was expressed concerning the warming effect of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide emissions. Needless to say, climate change science is rife with disputes and confusion. At first, populations struggled with accepting that their daily energy consumption could be dominating the climate system of our own planet Earth, causing global temperatures and sea level to gradually eclipse natural fluctuations.
But is it too much to ask the public to accept that now their actions are causing major changes in the Earth’s crustal properties that could result in an increased frequency of geological hazards? It seems like nothing in today’s environment is immune to climate change, but can this atmospheric force wield enough power to influence tectonics and seismicity beneath our carbon footprints? The reading I have done prior to starting this blog has illuminated that this field of climate science is considerably split by a large divergent boundary.
On one side are those who see the concept to be a mere fabrication by the so-called global warming alarmists who seek to plaster climate change propaganda over every global disaster. The recent suggestions that the Japanese tsunami and the Haiti quake could be linked to climate change have been met with laughter amongst climate sceptics. Up until now, climate change cannot be accused of causing any direct casualties; perhaps a reason why its threat is scorned by so many. Studies have shown that whilst public acceptance of climate change is high, many still lack concern over a problem that is ‘too distant’ to affect them. It is much harder however to come to terms with the fact that your actions have indirectly taken the lives of millions of victims on the other side of the globe.
In an online article Paul Joseph Watson mocks:
“Earthquakes are called natural disasters for a reason – they are not caused by emissions of that deadly, poisonous, toxic, hateful gas known as carbon dioxide, the life-giving substance that humans exhale and plants breathe.”
Stereotypically, advocates of climate change have an inflating archive of exaggerated claims as Watson sarcastically alludes to. Whilst it is easy to disregard this theory as yet another apocalyptical manifestation, I implore you to examine the mounting scientific evidence that indicates that human induced geological hazards are not imaginary. Is it time to accept that hazards aren’t as natural as they used to be?
Currently my position within the debate is firmly central. Despite beginning initially unconvinced, my first plunge into the literature has unearthed several convincing studies, which I will address in my next post. Conclusively, this blogumentary will follow my exploration into this emerging environmental topic which I hope will be enjoyably pursued by budding climate scientists to those of you who are keen to know if the survival techniques learnt in the film 2012 will ever be put to use.
Controversial and very interesting topic. I look forward to seeing the evidence, for and against the assertions.
ReplyDeleteA really interesting post, I think the issue of " anthropogenic" geological hazards is often missing from the framing of the debate, yet this and "abrupt climate change" are the key factors (the latter is always cited) on any public imagination of "climate change" or what it ought to be.
ReplyDelete