Everyone seems to believe that global warming is real, which is interesting as there’s pretty much only conjecture and limited scientific research to support it. There’s certainly no dispute that the climate is changing.
However, the climate on earth has changed constantly for millions of years, along with the axis and shape of the planet, all of which has a contributing factor on today’s weather.
The dispute centers around whether any of this is man made or whether it is naturally occurring, or even natural with some man made assistance. According to Dr. Fred Singer in his book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, ” global warming cycles occur every 1,500 years for a million years and precedes the industrial revolution. Natural factors such as sunspots, volcanic activity, changes in Earth orbit have warmed/cooled the world climate even before mankind had a presence here. Geological records document the 1,500-year cycle for at least 1 million years.
The issue of global warming elicits an emotional response because it conjures up both skepticism and apprehension. This issue has been around for a while now since the environmentally conscious seventies. There are currently no visible or direct impacts to the everyday lives of most people due to global warming, therefore those who advocate taking immediate action to prevent global warming are asking people to (a) trust the experts and (b) make changes to their daily lives that may be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and expensive.
For most people, this is an issue of belief, not one actually based on scientific knowledge, because, in fact, the scientific issues involved are mostly too difficult for the average person. Thus, the argument devolves into a socio-economical/political one, and such issues are always divisive, especially where money is involved. Not only are most people unaware of the science required to understand the issue, they are often even ignorant of some of the basic causes. In fact, what would mainly cause global warming, if it is occurring, are the burning of fossil fuels, not pollution. This is not to say that pollution has no effect (decrease of ozone layer allows more UV in, depletion of rain forests takes less CO2 out), but that its effect is minor, if not negligible. Finally, while much of the current energy use is in the US and Europe, much of the future projected energy use on which the computer simulations are based is in the developing world, where increased energy consumption will help these countries to grow. So, when these simulations are discussed with say India and China who are expected to use a lot of energy to meet their rapid GDP growths, they pay no attention to this since there’s no viable alternative on the table.
Today, many equate small scale or regional climate changes with global warming, even though it is patently false. Some environmentalists believed that hurricane Katrina was an indirect result of global warming.
A Harris Pool survey on attitudes and awareness of people about this issue was quite interesting. The study stated that 2/3 of U.S. adults (65%) believe humans are contributing to an increase in global temperatures, this was less than the British (77%), Italian (87%) and French and Spanish (88% each) who believe this. Only 5 percent of US adults said that they were active environmentalists while 55 percent said that they were sympathetic to environmental causes. Republicans were more likely to say they were neutral (43%) while Democrats were more likely to say they were sympathetic to Environmental causes (63%).
In any case, this is an issue of contention today and we need to look at it objectively to understand the real reasons why this is taking place.
