Will Global Warming Cause The Next Ice Age?
A major problem in the climate change debate is the general lack of knowledge on the subject. People do not usually think about the origin of electricity, gasoline or toilet paper. Part of this acceptance comes from the way the industry separates products from the production process … When we turn on the lights in Los Angeles, we don’t see the plants and coal mines that generated the power … connections. Another part of the problem is that we are reluctant to question the science, which is so prestigious that people rarely stop to question who is funding the research and whether that could compromise the findings. (Gibson 17)
Most people don’t understand how the global warming theory works either. They think that a really cold winter is evidence that global warming is a myth. However, scientists supporting the ideas of global warming refer to long-term climate change. Climate refers to environmental patterns over a long period of time. Weather refers to events of short duration and can have isolated extremes. One of the predictions of many scientists is that global warming will lead to more extreme weather: hotter summers, longer droughts, colder winters, and stronger storms. According to their theories, Europe could be thrown into another ice age due to global warming, not turned into a tropical paradise. This is due to the effect that global warming could have on ocean currents.
Skeptics will often find the opportunity to attack the opinions of scientists based on some isolated meteorological event or the lack of such an event. If scientists predict an increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, skeptics will point out that this last hurricane season was extremely mild, with the only intense storms to hit Mexico. The ultra-conservative commentator, Rush Limbaugh, not only views global warming as a myth; he calls it a hoax and a religion. “It has salvation, it has everything. It has the main ingredient of all religion: faith. Because none of that can be proven” (Limbaugh 4). Limbaugh also disagrees with the use of the word “consensus” by global warming activists, and is right to do so. “Consensus and science, I was saddened to say this, cannot and cannot coexist with each other” (Limbaugh 4). If scientists had reached some kind of consensus, this would be a dead topic. Most scientists agree that the earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing, but that does not mean that they agree on the possible causes or consequences.
A survey of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries showed that 82% of scientists agreed that global warming is taking place. Only 2.6% said they “totally disagree”. When asked whether current scientific knowledge can allow a reasonable assessment of greenhouse gases, two-thirds of scientists in disagreement with the statement.
The question most people are most interested in asking climate scientists is probably “Do you agree or disagree that climate change is primarily the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes?” Slightly more than half (55.8%) of the climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2% were unsure and 30% did not. Interestingly, there are more scientists “strongly disagreeing” than “strongly agreeing” that climate change is primarily the result of anthropogenic causes. The survey clearly shows that the debate on why Climate is changing is still going on, and nearly half of climate scientists disagree with what is often said to be the “consensus” view. (Bast 4)
The study goes on to clarify that the question was not whether humans have no effect on climate, but if they are mainly to blame. Certainly it is quite possible that humans are having at least some effect on the weather, but nothing can be proven with certainty.
Some skeptics believe that humanity is too insignificant and could not have as much influence on the environment. S. Fred Singer is a known climate change skeptic. He has been trying to gain support for the theory that climate change is a natural cyclical process. He believes that the earth has a heating and cooling cycle of 1,500 years, with smaller ice ages interspersed with interglacial periods. Singer states that his research shows that this cycle dates back at least a million years, often with abrupt changes. At one time, Greenland was quite green, with crops and livestock. The warm waters abounded with fish and seals. There were two thriving settlements, but they were eventually lost due to glaciers, malnutrition, and starvation. Dairy farmers were even forced to eat their cows. This was due to a 1.5 degree Celsius drop in average temperatures between 1100 and 1400. “Denmark would not re-colonize Greenland until 1721, when the Little Ice Age was losing its grip on the huge island. Today, 150 years after the Modern Warming Greenland has 50,000 inhabitants “(Singer xii). Singer believes that these cycles are caused by solar changes, not greenhouse gases. He is skeptical of activists who “call on society to renounce most of its use of fossil fuel-generated energy and accept radical reductions in living standards to” save the planet “(Singer 3). Activists, not being willing to sacrifice an air conditioner or SUV, if it is really necessary, seems selfish and defiant.