Global Warming Controversy

Tweet

Please take time to go through the info below and tell me what you think of it..... The global warming controversy is a debate about the causes of observed global warming since the mid-20th century, as well as the expected magnitude and consequences of future warming. A major part of the debate centers around what actions, if any, society should take in response to the prospect of future warming. Earlier the global warming debate focused on whether mean global air temperature was rising. Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists in climate-related fields (see scientific opinion on climate change), the controversy focuses on the causes of recent warming, likelihood and magnitude of future warming, and what actions, if any, should be taken in response. Some of the main areas of controversy include: Whether the climate is changing beyond natural variations in the historical temperature record Whether human/industrial activity is responsible for the change and if so, to what extent The effect of predicted depletion of fossil fuels, both individually as e.g. oil runs out and users turn to the higher polluting coal and overall as to whether there are sufficient available reserves to cause the more extreme climate change scenarios The effectiveness of policies to reduce CO2 emissions The size of future changes in climate The regional effects of climate change The consequences of climate change Among climate scientists there is little disagreement that global warming is primarily anthropogenic, but the debate continues in the popular media and on a policy level. Questions include whether there is a scientific consensus on the extent and rate of anthropogenic global warming, and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify immediate and far-reaching actions 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 which are intended to reduce the magnitude of future global warming. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions, even if the precise results are unknown, and even if there are substantial economic costs to doing so. One example of an attempt to force action is the Sierra Club suing the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions. Another part of the debate relates to political or policy decisions and their rationales. For example, one such argument relates to the above mentioned Kyoto Protocol—developing countries such as China or India are exempt from the rules. If another country they are competing with economically is not exempt, what is the appropriate course of action in that case for the competitor? Thus, the entire issue becomes one that is not constrained by the bounds of science or facts or proof; it becomes one that is about politics and policy. Money and funding enter the equation too. Critics express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Balling, Lindzen,[2] Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (Soon, Baliunas, Carter), ocean currents (Gray), solar activity (Shaviv, Veizer), cosmic rays (Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (Leroux). Outside the scientific community, there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved", dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science (a view expressed by novelist Michael Crichton[9]). Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[15] Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "none contradicted" the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing “ Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. (National Post, 17 May 2005) ” In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indexes,[16][17] and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed.[18] In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review, instead asserting,[19] “ An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing. ” Peiser also stated: “ ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.[20] ” Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."(Canada Free Press, February 5, 2007) A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science journal 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."[21][10] Lindzen wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,[22] “ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. ” To support their claim of a lack of consensus, the Web site of prominent skeptic S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing."[23] The petitions are: 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.")[24] Critics point out this is more than a decade old and only has 46 signatories. The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992). Critics point out that the Heidelberg Appeal makes no mention at all of climate or climate change, much less global warming. Singer's own "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997) Critics point out that most of the signatories lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.[11] Followup interviews found that many of the purported signers denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it. The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz. Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology.[25][26] The petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.[12] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. Predictions of temperature rises There is some debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic S. Fred Singer has stated:[19] “ Let me deal first of all with the question of the future levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The fact is that people disagree about this. Some good experts believe that carbon dioxide will never even double [in/near] t