One of the most hotly disputed subjects these days is climate change.There are those who believe the world is getting warmer and the further increase in temperature – combined with related changes in precipitation, sea levels, mountain glaciation, polar ice cap coverage and thickness etc. – they expect to occur throughout the rest of this century will have the most profound and negative consequences in the history of mankind.
Others will tell you the current warming trend ended in 1998 or thereabouts and there is nothing to worry about.

Undoubtedly, there are other opinions that don’t quite fit into either of these categories, but for the most part, public, governmental and scientific opinion is divided into these two camps. Both sides are convinced science backs up their arguments.

One other issue divides the two sets of opinions: most of the scientists and politicians who believe climate change/global warming poses a serious threat to our existence also believe much of this warming is anthropogenic i.e. caused by human activity. Industrial activity, exhaust from transport using fossil fuels, combustion of heating and cooking materials and the deliberate burning of fields and forests are activities that many scientists in particular are convinced causes global warming through what is often referred to as the “greenhouse effect” whereby gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, absorb infrared radiation emitted by the earth when sunlight reaches the surface. These scientists believe human activity has greatly increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases and, thus, has led to the increased warming of our planet.

Those who dispute this theory tend to either dispute the warming is actually taking place or contend that human activity is not responsible.

Contrary to what people from either camp may say, the science is not settled. Those who propose mankind is causing climate change can point to a great deal of evidence to back up what they say, but there are enough anomalies in the data to cause reasonable doubt and demand further impartial study. Those who deny human activity is causing climate change overlook an extremely important historical fact: human activity has caused climate change in the past, primarily through deforestation.

There is one set of facts that has not been adequately addressed to date: polar ice caps have not existed for approximately 90% of the history of our planet. Admittedly, this includes a substantial period in which there was no surface water on earth, but it is an indisputable  that polar ice caps have not existed for most of the time. This means the overall climate has been warmer for a matching period. It follows that the global climate during recorded history has been abnormally cool. While there is no 100% cast-iron guarantee this means the global climate must get warmer, it seems reasonable to me to suppose it will happen sooner or later. Without any input from human activity. Put another way, global warming is very likely to occur, but not necessarily anthropogenic global warming.

If that is the case, then denial is not a good option. Denying global warming is taking place right here, right now is one thing. Saying it will not happen. Period. That attitude defies common sense.

On the other hand, if global warming and climate change are inevitable due to forces of nature beyond our understanding, let alone control, what is the point is spending trillions (yes, trillions, not billions) of dollars on preventive action that has no chance of success? Some of the projects proposed to tackle climate are good for other reasons - they reduce pollution and lead to crops that are able to thrive in warmer temperatures - but other proposals are nothing more than a cynical fund raising exercise for people to finance pet projects and reward followers.

If climate change is inevitable, it makes sense to devote resources to adapting to new circumstances and taking measures to alleviate some of the worst side effects.

Climate change is usually regarded as an issue future generations will have to tackle because it is a stealth threat - the problem gets progressively worse over the course of decades or even centuries, and finally the situation becomes unbearable. Just as too many governments in the early 21^st century seem unfazed by the fact they have borrowed more money then their successors in several decades time should be asked to repay, the attitude towards climate change is equally irresponsible.

Countries, and even empires, have fallen because of crushing debt that could no longer be repaid. This was certainly a major factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The debts incurred by Louis XIV led inexorably to revolution in France 75 years after his death. When the burden of debt becomes to much for the debtor to bear, there is usually the option of default or bankruptcy and then starting over. The equivalent scenario with climate change is to abandon a place and for its inhabitants to migrate to new lands. That was hard enough thousands of years ago, and many of the world's wars were fought between migraters and people defending the land the newcomers wanted for themselves. Where could entire nations migrate to in the 21^st century and beyond?

Climate change has caused the downfall of civilisations before, and in at least one case, the "change" has been a sharp fall in average temperatures. With the possible exception of Australasia, there have been instances on every continent of at least one "civilisation" being destroyed by climate change. Some of the cultures affected were more advanced than others. In some cases, the people who were afflicted were the cause of their own downfall, but not in every case. This is why the argument over anthropogenic climate change misses the point at times. It's true that if human activity is the root cause of the problem then amending that behaviour might be the solution. But as climate change has been occurring for billions of years, it stands to reason human activity is not the only - or even primary - cause of that change.

If you are searching for a classic example of a civilisation coming to an end because of climate change, you need look no further than Central America. This region is influenced by what we now call "El Nino" and "La Nina" which can cause periods of intense droughts or flooding. The Maya is a collective name for various tribes who shared a linguistic heritage. The land they ruled was split into many city states, rather like Ancient Greece or medieval Italy. The Maya "inherited" their land and much of their culture - including the famous "Mayan" calendar - from the Olmecs. The first major Mayan city state was Teotihuacan, which was founded in the first century AD. This was a well-planned city, built to a grid system and covering approximately eight square miles. Its two most notable landmarks were the two pyramids - one dedicated to the sun and the other to the moon - connected by the "Avenue of the Dead". At its peak Teotihuacan was home to about 200,000 people. The city started to go into decline by the middle of the sixth century, and was partially destroyed and vandalised before being abandoned around 750 AD. The neighbouring city of Colula was also abandoned around the same time. Records have shown there was an extremely severe drought during the mid-eighth century covering an area from what is now the southern United States to Peru.

The following picture from Wikimedia Commons shows Mayan king T'ah 'ak' Cha'an:

The collapse of Mayan authority created a power vacuum that was quickly filled by the Toltecs. They had been forced by the same drought to migrate to central Mexico, where they established a capital called Tula, and ruled the region until the middle of the twelfth century. Once again drought struck and the state collapsed. The coup de grace was administered by an invading force that quickly discovered there wasn't enough food for them, so much of their army subsequently perished. Mayans retained control over most of the Yucatan Peninsula and new cities arose. The most famous of these was Chichen Itza. The picture below, taken by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen, shows the great pyramid at Chichen Itza:

The city experienced its share of wars and famine, but survived beyond the arrival of the Spanish in the 16^th century. Other cities were not so fortunate. The history of civilisation in Central America is one of "boom and bust" kingdoms that thrived when the climate was amenable and fairly quickly disintegrated when one of the periodic major droughts started. The Mayans had a habit of inscribing the date on their new buildings, and as their calendar was so accurate, it has made the job of timing events that happened to them fairly easy, once their script had been deciphered. The Mayans alone suffered four separate periods when they had to abandon some of their cities. The first period was around 150-200 AD. The second was from 530-590 AD. The third period was the entire eighth and ninth centuries, which was when the Mayan civilisation as a whole went into steep decline. After its recovery, there was a final period of abandonments around 1450 AD. Mayan records of a severe drought from 1441 to 1461 have been discovered.

The downfall from when a city was a bustling trading centre with a ruling elite, artisans and a religious caste supported, plus a standing army to a vandalised, ghost town usually took less than a century, and sometimes happened within a single generation.

This pace of destruction should be enough in itself to concentrate the minds of those in power around the world to confront the threat posed by climate change. But climate change does not always take decades or centuries to affect a region. Sometimes, an event caused by a change in climate can be so devastating it can destroy a huge area in a single day. I'm not talking about volcanoes, which have destroyed places like Pompeii and (thanks to tsunamis they caused) the ancient cities in Crete in a day - but a force even more devastating, and with even worse short, medium and long term implications. Worse than even the most powerful earthquake.

There is at least one recorded instance of an entire region being totally destroyed by a natural disaster caused by climate change. There are also numerous mythical accounts of great cultures being wiped out in the same time span. In the case of Atlantis, I have set out to show how much of Plato's description of the place might have been extremely accurate (although certain aspects of his story were definitely wrong). Specifically, I have set out to demonstrate how there might have been a place called Atlantis where and when he said it was and that the disaster that struck where Atlantis could have been was also caused by climate change.

To find out more, you will have to buy the book, which is available from Amazon. Please go to http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007RIG8T0

I realise some people who wish to read the book may not have funds to spare for reading. There are two ways you can read the book for free. Amazon has a lending system in place and there are more details at my book page. Also, I am a member of goodreads.com and you are welcome to read my book in your web browser if you visit the following page http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13599009-the-atlantis-precedent

Feel free to contact me at: info@theatlantisprecedent.com