We know enough about the greenhouse effect and have enough evidence of the physical and biological response to that warming to be sure of the current climate change event. Is it inefficient use of resources for biologists to research on ever smaller scale of impact?
“It’s just about where we put our resources. We already know that climate change, that CO2 emissions, is leading to global warming, and we also know on a lot of local scales that biological impacts are related to temperature change.
“We just argue that going directly from the local scale on a particular impact on biology to global CO2 emissions is unnecessary. It’s basically been done. And also the amount of effort that we need to do, if we want to do that very rigorously, takes a lot of effort and money. And we should be investing that money in trying to understand what adaptation options might be suitable,” Dr Richardson argues.
Later, Dr Richardson makes a very good point that at the finer scale, it becomes increasingly difficult to define what is and what is not the result of climate change (or to what degree) with such dynamic systems.
I personally have to agree with him and take the next step in saying that it is probably detrimental to conservation efforts. Those convinced are already convinced and those who are not, will only argue that at the finer scale, the signal is impossible to distinguish. We are more likely to get greater “bang for our buck” on the broader scale, which then can be translated to local planning efforts.