The ACTUAL Debate Surrounding Climate Change Explained
In discussing climate change, journalists and pundits are either unwilling or unable to separate it from political agenda. The science community is not without its own version of politics, which means that while they may not disagree on how the climate got to where it is, there remains some disagreement over what that means for the future.
There are myriad variables fueling the differing theories about where the climate is heading and what can be done about it. For example, there remains some question as to the role the ocean plays in it all. The ocean absorbs heat and carbon dioxide, but other times it also reflects heat and radiates CO2 back into the atmosphere. How or why it does this, remains a matter of some debate, so it only makes sense that leads to very different predictions about what it all means.
Essentially, scientists are divided on the issue of what will happen much in the same way we hear about in the media once the one side exhausts all of their “it isn’t real” talking points. Some scientists believe that nature will adapt in a way that is not in the least bit catastrophic and humanity will be inconvenienced but will certainly survive. Whereas others, typically those most vocal in the media and policy areas, believe that not only will it threaten the entire ecosystem of Earth, that it could happen much sooner than previously thought.
While this might seem like further evidence that climate science is as much guesswork as meteorology, it isn’t. This also doesn’t indicate that those who are “alarmists” about global warming are in any way being deceptive. To those folks, the science is settled because they were the ones who did it.
While those who dismiss the more severe prediction models of where the climate is headed, they could just as likely be dead wrong. If those who predict that climate change could possibly render the planet inhabitable to humans in century or less are correct, by the time we realize it really will be too late.