[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

List of climate change controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 19 November 2006 (→‎Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory: restore ref to sci op article rather than ext links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.

The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) concur with the assessment that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[1]. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.

There is considerable opposition from parts of the political and business communities both to the conclusion that humans are causing climate change, and to the need to take action to reduce human effects on climate. Chiefly, opposition arises because of claims that these actions would cause enormous expense and disruption to the current geopolitical and economic situation, with no obvious recognizable short-term benefits.

This is a public and political debate. While the climate projections involved in the discussion are constrained by basic physical principles (though they depend on assumptions about emissions), political and economic effects of both global warming and mitigation are more difficult to quantify. As an example, in asking whether the costs of reducing fossil fuel dependency compare with the costs of not taking action, one is confronted by the fact that it is difficult to anticipate social or technological changes that affect such costs.

This article is about that controversy. The description and scientific explanation of global warming is spread over several other articles:

Controversy over the theory

Over the past several decades, as scientific evidence for global warming has mounted, the debate has entered the public arena. Some leading political figures have taken up the issue, such as former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore, author of Earth in the Balance and narrator of the film An Inconvenient Truth. In U.S. politics, global warming is a partisan political issue. Republicans generally (though not universally) oppose action against a threat they regard as unproven, while Democrats tend to support actions to reduce global warming and its effects. Recently, the balance has begin to shift, and bipartisan measures have been introduced. The Sierra Club has sued the federal government over failure to raise its CAFE standards, which would improve fuel efficiency of cars and trucks; thus lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

Global warming is an even more central and sustained issue for the EU. In fact, both 'global warming' and the more politically-neutral 'climate change' were listed in the political buzzwords or catchphrases of 2005. [2]

While there is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming amongst mainstream published climate scientists, there is an ongoing debate about global warming theories in the popular media and on a policy level. Non-scientists debate whether there is a scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify action to attempt to ameliorate its effects. Those who believe such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol that are intended to have some near-future climate effects and to lead eventually to further measures. Still others believe that the environmental damage will have such severe impact that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, even if the immediate economic costs of doing so are substantial.

Critics of the global warming theory similarly offer a wide spectrum of opinions. Some, such as Patrick Michaels, accept that human influence has warmed the atmosphere but dispute the conclusion of the IPCC that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". Others point out that observations of global temperatures over much larger time spans, thousands of years rather than decades, show global temperatures fluctuated long before the industrial revolution. Some critics assert that it is not possible to ascertain any definitive global temperature trend from the limited temperature record often cited, while others theorize that global temperature change may be induced by natural causes such as volcanism and solar activity.

The controversy is made up of separate issues relating to global warming which are sometimes mixed together by proponents of one view or another.

  1. Whether the climate is changing beyond natural variations (historical temperature record).
  2. Whether human/industrial activity is responsible for the change (attribution of recent climate change) and if so, to what extent.
  3. What the consequences of climate change will be.
  4. How large future changes will be.

Scope of the controversy

The controversy over anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is multi-layered; at its most basic level, it is an argument about whether any of the observed warming of the earth's climate over the past 150 years is due to human activity, and if so, how much. Air pollution and production of greenhouse gases are cited as possible influences on global climate, as are factors such as Solar variation and natural cycles.

Since the earth's climate changes over time, scientists must try to understand not only whether the earth's atmosphere is warming, but how much of this is attributable to humans, how much natural events contribute to this, and how the climate will be affected in the future. There is controversy on virtually all of these points among climate and other scientists, especially about future climate modelling.

Kevin E. Trenberth provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena:

The SPM was approved line by line by governments... The argument here is that the scientists determine what can [be] said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia. This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what should be uncontroversial text... The most contentious paragraph in the IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much debate the following was carefully crafted: "In the light of new evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." [3]

The arguments over global warming are viewed differently in different parts of the world. In Europe, for example, the global warming theory has gained wider acceptance than in other parts of the world, most notably the United States.

Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory

Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:

  • The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.
  • Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years [4], with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. [5]
  • The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[6] and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels.
  • The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
  • The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution. [Peterson, T.C. 2003. "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found." Journal of Climate, Vol. 16, No.18.]
  • The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
  • Climate change attribution studies using both models and observations find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.
  • Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included. [7]
  • The IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science.
  • There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science (see scientific opinion on climate change)
  • Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future [8].
  • Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms[citation needed], drought and heat waves, etc.) in the future.
  • Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.[9]
  • The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.
  • Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.[citation needed]

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint (though with considerable differences over details and, especially, over what action should be taken). Only 2 of the 120 lead authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced serious objections.[citation needed] For example, an opinion essay in Science magazine's Society and Science section reported the analysis of 928 peer-reviewed scientific abstracts on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). The analysis found none that challenge the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

Reasons given by opponents of the global warming theory

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:

  • IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
  • Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. [10]
  • Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
  • Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity. [11]
  • Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1% [12]
  • Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms (see GIGO).
  • Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
  • Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [13]
  • The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.

Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.

Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.

Opponents frequently characterise supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasise what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.

Many opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:

  • Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
  • A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
  • There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [14].

Counting experts / Petitions and attacks on them

Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the global warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-US media often claim virtually unanimous support for the global warming theory from the scientific community. Some opponents maintain that it is the other way around, claiming that the majority of scientists either consider global warming "unproven" or even dismiss it altogether. Other opponents decry the dangers of consensus science, which appears to imply that they do believe there may actually be a consensus while also downplaying any import attached to it. This may be a sign of growing towards acceptance, or a sign of realizing the nature of the debate itself.

A 2004 essay in the journal Science [15] reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed research articles related to global climate change in the ISI database. Out of over 900 such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling". A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal [16] challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest... that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[1]

Global warming skeptics sometimes dispute the claim that (or relevance of) a consensus of scientists supports the view of global warming presented by the IPCC, and say that not even all the IPCC authors support the reports. However, of the lead authors of the TAR, almost none are known to have officially commented on the reports as not accurately describing the consensus. The adherents of a consensus say the statements of those who expend the effort to comment negatively on that consensus is moving in the opposite direction, towards more agreement.[citation needed] Others dispute this.

To support the claim of a lack of support, the website of S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four separate petitions:

  • The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming" ("...Such policy initiatives [those concerning the Earth Summit scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.") [17]
  • The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992)
  • Singer's own "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997)
  • The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz.

According to SEPP associate Candace Crandall, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing." [18] However, those who have examined the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that:

  1. The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists" is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.
  2. The Heidelberg Appeal actually does not say anything about global warming.
  3. Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declarations are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
  4. Many of the signers of the Oregon Petition are also non-scientists or lack relevant scientific backgrounds.

In April 2006, sixty scientists signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate". The opinion or qualifications of the signatories has also been disputed.

Global warming and carbon dioxide

One argument against anthropogenic global warming questions the contention that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) correlate with—and thus have caused—global warming. Proponents of the view that greenhouse gases have caused recent global warming respond that correlation is not a significant part of the evidence. See attribution of recent climate change.

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station (present time at the left).
  • Correlation is not causation. Indeed, studies of ice age temperature variations show carbon dioxide levels increasing after warming rather than before. [19], [20] This assumes that current climate change can be expected to be like past climate change. While it is generally agreed that past (ice age) variations are timed by astronomical forcing; the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2 (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions).
  • Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly even though carbon-dioxide levels went up. This is largely attributed to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols.
  • The small amount of carbon dioxide (accounting for 0.0381% of the Earth's atmosphere)
  • The Earth has been in an ice age with a much higher level of CO2. The Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, the earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 at 4400ppm (or .44% of the atmosphere).

As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, which some insist strongly points to the importance of GHGs, as does attribution of recent climate change.

Urban heat islands

Main article: Urban heat island

Global warming skeptics question the accuracy of the temperature records. They say if the monitoring stations are located in more populated areas, they must be influenced by the increased heat generated by the city as a whole (known as the "Urban heat island effect"). Those who believe in the accuracy of the records point out their consistency with the unaffected marine record; the lack of a difference between the warmings observed in urban and rural areas; and various studies which have examined the records and found no bias.

Global warming and solar activity

Main article: Solar variation theory

Another point of controversy regarding anthropogenic global warming is the investigation of temperature correlations with the solar variation.

Beneficial or detrimental

There is also disagreement on whether the effects of global warming will be beneficial or detrimental. Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7 °C. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts such a warming is likely within the 21st century, unless severe measures are taken (see Kyoto Protocol).

Other researchers feel that up to 1.5 °C of warming would increase crop yields and stabilize weather. Many of these doubt a larger warming is likely. In response, some advocates of strong early measures (well beyond Kyoto) note that the belief in beneficial effects and the doubt that a large warming is possible should be independent if these conclusions were in fact neutrally derived from scientific research.

An unstable world

Recent findings suggest that Earth's climate system is inherently unstable, and that global warming could thus precipitate non-linear sudden climate shifts, as have been discovered to have occurred within the earth's past. Ocean circulation, believed to be the key to such climate shifts, has been observed to be slowing, causing alarm among oceanographers. Some scientists fear that the Gulf Stream, which conveys warm water from the Caribbean Sea across the Atlantic Ocean and is partly responsible for the relative mildness of northern Europe's climate (though other factors also predominate: [21]), could be reduced or stopped altogether by the decreased salt content of sea water resulting from global warming. This could cause temperatures in northern Europe to drop.

The US National Academy of Sciences issued a report on this phenomenon in 2002, titled Abrupt Climate Change - Inevitable Surprises. [22] "It is important not to be fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change," it stated. "Societies have faced both gradual and abrupt climate changes for millennia and have learned to adapt through various mechanisms, such as moving indoors, developing irrigation for crops, and migrating away from inhospitable regions. Nevertheless, because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly."

Supporters of the global warming theory

Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include:

It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual position, represent the mainstream position (consensus) that is the scientific opinion on climate change.

Opponents of the global warming theory

Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. Several of the most prominent are the following:

Some prominent opponents from outside the climate science community have been:

Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views:

Many of these opponents to anthropogenic global warming theory have links to the fossil fuels industry. For example, Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute--Michaels as a "visiting scientist" and Seitz as "Chairman Emeritus.".[27] The Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil and from petroleum-related organizations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation. [28][29][30]Similarly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received several large grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and from ExxonMobil.[31][32]The CEI website lists both S. Fred Singer and Robert Balling as "experts," while Ross McKitrick headed up a CEI project called the Cooler Heads Coalition.[33][34] Many observers critical of these connections between global warming contrarians and the petroleum and coal industries as suggestive of a conflict of interest, if not of outright corruption, since many policies which might be used to combat human-caused global warming might adversely affect the profits of these corporations.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

Scientists critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors dispute the validity of this guilt by association argument, and the scientists are also themselves part of government, state college and university systems, the scientific organizations listed in the proponents section, or some mix. Most have been considered skeptics or at least somewhat skeptical of certain points since long before the funding was provided. For example, according to the Forbes story [42] listed above, The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, CO (IREA) funded Patrick Michaels because according to their GM "'We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,'" and said although he "...believes global warming is real just not as big a problem as scientists claim, <he> acknowledged this is a special interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use." In that same article, Donald Kennedy of Science said " 'skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers' " and that " 'I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical,' " and that " ...donations to skeptics amounts to 'trying to get a political message across.' " This tends to further refine the entire dispute as being one of a political nature.

Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation [43]. They complain that the ACCF presented an appendix that focused only on the uncertainties of a 2001 NAS report when the ACCF testified in front of the U.S. Senate. Mother Jones’ complaint seems to be only that although the ACCF usually focuses on economic critiques of policies, this time they wrote something one-sided about the science involved in the debate to support their economic position on the Kyoto Protocol. Doing that, according to Mother Jones, puts them in the skeptic camp.

Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their opposition. For example, in April 2005 David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking—a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[44] Similarly, before starting JunkScience.com, Steven Milloy belonged to an organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was paid by tobacco companies to cast doubt on studies about the dangers of secondhand smoke.[45][46] However, most of the authors of these editorials, their websites, or the publications themselves are almost universally extremely critical of the role of industry and government in environmental matters and focus almost entirely on negative aspects of the debate [47] [48] [49] [50].

Betting over global warming

Skeptics and proponents of global warming both accept that due to natural variability, average temperatures in any given year in the future could be either warmer or colder than at the present.[2][3] Global warming proponents generally accept that after ten years, temperatures are much more likely to have increased than decreased, with odds of an increase being significantly greater than 1:1. Skeptics who expect no trend in temperatures would give 1:1 odds of an increase, while skeptics anticipating cooling temperatures would give less than 1:1 odds.

With the exception of two Russian physicists betting $10,000 that temperatures would drop instead of increase in ten years,[4] all other skeptics have either refused to bet on terms that pay out before the year 2100,[5] have refused all bets, or, like Richard Lindzen, have only accepted odds that indicate temperatures are much more likely to increase rather than decrease.[6]

Controversy about responses to global warming

Even among those who agree that global warming is real there are further controversial issues:

  1. What are the best responses to climate change.
  2. Whether decisions require less uncertainty.

Much of the discussion centers on the effect of emissions of carbon dioxide related to human activity ranging from burning fossil-fuels to industrial activity (see above). But this alone would be a scientific argument confined to the scientific press. The point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon dioxide emissions) should be taken now or in the near future and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.

Because of the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those who feel strongly that, even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature. In contrast, others feel strongly that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.

Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change and also highly controversial. It has been argued both that it goes too far in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases and also that the cuts in emissions it would introduce are far too small. Other areas of controversy are the fact that India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement. Furthermore it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the US than those of other countries and so it would provide an unfair economic advantage to some countries. Additionally, the high costs of decreasing emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are not covered under the treaty, such as India and China. As these countries are less energy efficient, this could cause additional carbon emissions.

Public perceptions

Public perceptions about the global warming theory were slow to evolve, but have moved substantially in recent decades.[51] A Taylor Nelson Sofres poll reported by ABC News in 2006 reported that 85 percent of Americans believed in 2006 that global warming "probably is occurring," as opposed to 80 percent who believed so in 1998. Under 40 percent were "very sure" of it, however. In 1998, 31 percent of the public said global warming was "extremely" or "very important" to them personally; in 2006; 49 percent said so. [52]

According to a report [53] on August 16, 2006 by Dr. David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation, the general public has a poor understanding of global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the film "An Inconvenient Truth". One problem is a confusion between global warming and ozone depletion. (See under Relationship to ozone depletion in the article on global warming.)

On July 20, 2006 [54], Dr. David Suzuki commented that public opinion on climate change and the film was being deliberately twisted by an expensive campaign of public relations. However, James Hoggan, the president of James Hoggan and Associates, a large public relations firm, attempts to correct public perception about the issue in his blog at http://www.desmogblog.com/.

Political pressure on scientists

Climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the man who is credited by many with first introducing the global warming theory to the public in Congressional testimony in 1988, complained in a widely-cited New York Times article [55] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal and official government views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints[56]; once again, government officials said they were enforcing longstanding policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums. The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."[7]

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like 'catastrophic', 'chaotic' and 'irreversible' had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric." [8]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact."
  2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html
  3. ^ http://www.reason.com/rb/rb060805.shtml
  4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html
  5. ^ http://www.longbets.org/180
  6. ^ http://www.reason.com/rb/rb060805.shtml
  7. ^ BBC Panorama: Bush's climate of fear
  8. ^ BBC: Chaotic world of climate truth

External links

Politics

Science

  • A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
  • The Global Warming Debate: Fundamental differences in opinion about climate change.
  • CO2 or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
  • Roger Pielke, Jr., Daniel Sarewitz (2002). "Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate". Issues in Science and Technology. 19 (2): 27–30.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
  • False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann's famous graph.
  • National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 degrees F below 20th century average.

Other

Printed media

  • Eilperin, Juliet (August 4 2006, page A3). "More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming: U.S. and European Researchers Call Long Hot Spells Likely". Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)- Report on findings presented at an international conference on climate science at Gawatt, Switzerland the week of July 21 - 28, 2006.
  • News Services (July 28 2006, page A8). "Global-Warming Skeptic Funded by Coal Utilities". Washington in Brief. Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)- Brief article stating that prominent human-caused global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels, received $150,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association.
  • Struck, Doug (July 29 2006, page A1 & A12). "On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice: Retreat of Once-Mighty Glacier Signals Water Crisis, Mirroring Worldwide Trend". Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)- Newspaper article reporting on decrease in size of glaciers worldwide and resulting shortage of water.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_climate_change_controversies&oldid=88856071"