Global warming, fiction, the dispute is nearing an end as environmental health scientist narrow the data down to scientific evidence, and, whichever side prevails, this data will give humanity the information we need to exercise some control over earth and our own destiny.
When former president George W. Bush's administration called into question the validity of global warming, the science community, with few exceptions, angrily revolted as scientist do, with contempt, disparagement, and vindictive, no doubt, rightfully so, pointing out that his so-called leader had barely managed to graduate from college (how well he understood the influence of power and money though!), was recognized as nearly illiterate, and had dared not read a book over five hundred pages, and so was unlikely to render a believable conclusion on anything scientific, perhaps on anything at all that required disciplined thought. While this interference with science did boggle the progress the rest of the world was attempting to achieve through emission control treaties, as predicted, this irresponsible, perhaps even selfish meddling with the fate of humanity has been brought-like most of the other influences of Bush's presidency-into the clear light of sober refection and shown to be pure foolishness.
Thirty years before Bush proposed his myopic vision of the perils facing the earth through global warming, a much more esteemed thinker, the chemist, Charles F. Baes , Jr. of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy institution, sounded the alarm, pointing to the rising Leviathan of global warning, the reality of the greenhouse effect, and the unconsciousness of man to the coming disaster that would follow as effect. No self-respecting scientist today denies that the activities of humans, from the burning of fossil fuels to deforestation, are significant, contributory causes of global warming and the deterioration of environmental health. New data is revealing the intricate relationship between human activities and the biosphere, but common sense tells us that if a man sets a forest on fire and burns it down, carbon dioxide is increased in the atmosphere, ecosystems are destroyed, animals of every variety are killed, and, at least in that former forest, the micro-climate is altered. Now, in addition to common sense, the light of science breaks through the black clouds that dark men, for reasons of power and profit, have breathed over our cherished earth. Science continues to bring us out of ignorance and the arrogance of selfish men.
Today, and for the last ten years, our scientist are experimenting with grasslands and forests, measuring carbon dioxide levels, temperatures, precipitation, and actually varying these in order to determine the responses of life forms and ecosystems. With this data, we will be able to establish environmental health boundaries and requirements, to predict possible dangers, and enact measures to control and restore the damage our activities have done. Using scientific method, using theory, experiment, observation, reason, and results, our environmental health scientist are providing us with something we should never look to political forces to disclose: science is revealing the truth, the truth about our affects on the earth, on life, from the worm to the lark, on the generations of humans that will come after us, and on our responsibilities to all of these. Thanks science!
0 Response to "The truth about environmental health will not come from politicians,"
Post a Comment