Global warming is the buzzword that is echoed around the world. This topic is never free from its share of debates, discussions and controversies. Until some years ago you could come across environmentalists who pleaded you to join them in fight against Global warming.  But today you may find environmentalists who will ask you to ignore the very concept of Global warming and to focus on more important things. So its largely your decision whether you should stand by the topic or concentrate on more important topics.

Most of the time Global warming debate steers towards the direction that “Global warming is not real.” But still the people who go against the existence of Global Warming don’t deny that temperature of earth, temperature of the water and melting of the ice had certainly occurred but the reason for global warming cannot be made to rest on human shoulders. Changes are inherent part of the nature. Even if there is no release of carbon dioxide by human activities temperatures will change. The controversial Global warming skeptic Bjorn Lomborg however confirms the existence of some global warming facts but he adopts little bit tricky track to follow the issue when he says “Global warming is real and caused by Carbon dioxide. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming”. Some skeptics have further made the issue very confusing which generates an impression amongst the common man that “Global warming is not real.” Their viewpoints are:

* There is no concrete evidence to show the global warming.

* Even if there are no emissions of Carbon dioxide changes could be observed in measured temperature which is the part of natural cycle.

* If the Kyoto Protocol is implemented in its full measure then that will cause economical striations in world. The losses will be large and gains very little.

* More people are dying of Global cooling than Global warming so if temperature increases by couple of degrees then it can save more lives than before.

* Money which is invested in such treaties and protocols should be directed to solve more inherent social problems like malnutrition, poverty, AIDS etc.

While browsing through Television channels one can come across various celebrities, politicians, meteorologists, weather experts voicing their opposition to the global warming and adding some controversial conclusions towards Global warming debate. Some experts argue that even the most talked about documentary of 2007 called An Inconvenient Truth misguided the people over some facts. An Inconvenient Truth was declared as one sided and containing scientific errors by British Judge. An Inconvenient Truth shared Nobel Prize for peace with IPCC. Even IPCC openly rejected some of the points highlighted in the documentary like increase sea level. According to documentary 20 feet increase in sea level is expected at the turn of century whereas in reality scientists say only 3 feet increase is noted in the sea level at the end of the century. Gore also speaks about melting of icecaps which will contribute towards another inch of increase in sea level.

Although there have been suggestions which when applied will lessen our harm on environment like going for natural energy sources than depending on the conventional energy sources. Similarly adopting environmental friendly electricity sources. The economical impact of embracing these changes will be very high.

Some skeptics have also termed the Global warming debate as scam. They say that Global warming is the source of raising money for environmental organizations and so called Environmental groups. Someone may think I have contributed to environmental support group so there ends my responsibility and commitment with the nature but in reality paying hefty amounts towards fees doesn’t ends your responsibility towards nature. Instead adopt ways which are less harmful to the nature.

www.globalwarming-prevention.comThe Global Warming debate
Article Source

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer

It’s been known for a long time that fossil fuel burning has had, and is continuing to have, a great impact on the planet. Climate change is happening all around us and could have very serious implications in the future. Many countries across the globe have set themselves to the task of tackling climate change, though the ways by which we do so have spawned great debates.

Naturally, it’s a fantastic idea to switch from burning fossil fuels to natural, reusable sources when it comes to getting our energy. The UK is lucky enough to have a huge resource when it comes to wind power – and harnessing that power could make a huge difference in the country’s attitude to sourcing energy.

However, in order to capture the wind’s power, we need to set up wind farms – and this is the main point of contention for many Britons. Many people argue that, like electricity pylons, wind farms spoil the view of the country’s natural landscape. To install a wind farm at a point of natural beauty, many would say, is crushing to the value of Britain’s countryside and a way by which beauty spots could be ruined.

On the other hand, however, many people see the turbines located on wind farms as an attractive addition to the countryside. It seems as though this area is merely down to a matter of opinion.

Those against the wind farms also claim that the revolving turbines are a threat to birds. This could be true, though the RSPB reported in 2005 that it had not seen any adverse effects on birds from such farms, so these claims may be unfounded. Turbines do not revolve particularly fast and it is unlikely that birds would fly into them.

However, the wind farms have also been accused of turning over little energy relative to how much space they take up. Wind powers do generate less energy than conventional power stations, but it is an unmistakable truth that they are, unlike power stations, sources of renewable, eco-friendly energy. And as it is crucial that, if we want our planet to conserve any of its beauty at all, we begin using more of these sources for our electricity – so perhaps the case is that sacrificing a little natural beauty for the sake of the rest of the planet isn’t so bad.

The debate continues to rage on, each side with powerful points. However, as long as we arrive at a point where getting our energy no longer hurts the planet, it is unlikely such discussions will cease.

Andrew Regan writes for a digital marketing agency. This article has been commissioned by a client of said agency. This article is not designed to promote, but should be considered professional content.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/the-wind-farms-debate-1755828.html

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer