Have you noticed lately there's been a rather big shift in attitudes towards climate change?
Two years ago, there was a huge groundswell of support for the theory that global Warming equals climate change. It's been a time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change almost unanimously agreed climate change is happening and humans are making a significant contribution.
But there have been a lot of opposing views from equally credible sources, so for a lot of us it's become very confusing. Who and what do we believe?
One thing is for sure, climate change is nothing new. It's been going on since time began and this is yet another spanner in the works.
A good example happened in our own backyard not that long ago. In 1991, Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted and created a sulphuric acid haze that reached into the stratosphere.
Immediately, it spread further through the atmosphere and within two months, the ash was affecting most of the world.
It actually impacted Australia, with more vivid and dramatic sunsets and sunrises. That happens when light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and scatters off the added particles, creating brighter colours.
But the real impact was felt over a much larger area. It's thought for two years after the Mt Pinatubo eruption, the world's climate actually cooled, because the large ash clouds refected heat back into space.
So in theory, the climate changed, but unlike the current thinking, it was without any human intervention.
History has many similar tales to tell. In 1783, Benjamin Franklin noticed after a vocanic eruption in Iceland, sunlight directed through a magnifying glass no longer set fire to a piece of paper.
In 1815, after a huge eruption near Borneo, they went through a period known as "the year without summer", again because of the cooling affect of the volcanic ash.
So the debate goes on, but in many ways a lot of this is certainly nothing new.
Comments
Have to say, this is among the stupidist piece of journalism I've seen in a long time, who is paying your sources John? Maybe do a little more research before you put your professional credibility on the line. This sort of lazy, misinformation about such an important topic is nothing short of media terrorism. Hang up your laptop John, you would make a more informed contribution by asking if I would like fries with that.
Jan 8 07:38 pmLooks like 2009 will the year of re-assessment . Why? COST! In 12 months ,No Emissions Trading[cost,jobs],yep less cars[cost],etc .Who do you believe? The ATM.
Jan 9 12:52 amPJ
the media has always sensationalised stories to generate fear which translates into sales for them - climate warming and the greenhouse effect are no different in this respect. If we have two consecutive years of cooler than average summers locally - will the media retract their claims of global warming, or will they blame the two or three scientists they managed to cajole into making sensationalist statements while they conveniently (at that time) ignored equally as many scientists against it!
Jan 9 09:23 am"aletadp", right on man! - Politicians get pressurized from very small intense lobbying groups, who really have no idea, but are very glib with twisting the truth about "global warming" syndrome. Man cannot do much for GLOBAL warming, but must look to make living healthier and safer from toxic Chemicals and Pollutants in his own environment, but not because the Earth got 2 degrees warmer! That man causes only 3% maximum pollution and Nature does the rest is the real issue. Li
Jan 9 06:19 pmLive with the facts that 97% of pollution is natural causes, man cannot change it ever. However, mean - time, money is diverted from REAL needs, to speculative wants, and Health treatment, roads and safety obviously suffers cuts in funding, and THAT is hypocritical! BUT WE VOTED for the morons that are pushing "Global Warming" fightback to the tune of Billions of unnecessary $. VOTE FOR SOMEONE NEW if you want more rational and realistic results!
Jan 9 06:24 pm