Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
Global warming controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article focuses on the controversies surrounding global warming. For the basic scientific description of
the issue, see global warming. For the political controversy, see Politics of global warming.
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.
Contents
1 Issues
2 History
3 Debate over the existence of a consensus
4 Temperature measurements
4.1 Urban heat islands
5 Causes
5.1 Attribution to carbon dioxide
5.2 Solar Activity
6 Predictions of temperature rises
6.1 Regional effects
7 Political and social aspects of the controversy
7.1 Kyoto Protocol
7.2 Is global warming beneficial or detrimental?
7.3 Funding for opponents
7.4 Political pressure on scientists
7.5 Global warming litigation
7.6 Betting over global warming
8 Assertions by supporters and opponents
8.1 Assertions by supporters
8.2 Assertions by opponents
9 Supporters and opponents
10 See also
11 References
11.1 External links
11.1.1 Politics
11.1.2 Science
11.2 Printed media
Issues
Historically, the main controversy in the global warming debate has been over whether there is evidence of
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
rising temperatures. Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists involved 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.
The main areas of controversy can be summarised as:
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 effect of climate change
The consequences of climate change
There is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists, 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 effects, and in particular whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify immediate and far-reaching actions to ameliorate those 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.[1]
Another part of the debate relates to political or policy decisions and their rationals. 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 the primary cause of
global warming has not yet been ascertained (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).
See also: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
History
In the European Union, global warming has been an even more central and sustained issue. Both "global
warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed as political buzzwords or catch phrases
in 2005.[3] However, in Europe, the global-warming theory has gained wider acceptance than in many other
parts of the world, most notably the United States.[4][5]
In U.S. politics, global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans generally (though not universally)
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproved, while Democrats tend to support actions that they
believe will reduce global warming and its effects. Recently, the balance has begun to shift, and bipartisan
measures have been introduced.[6]
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.[7]
”
Public perceptions about the global-warming theory were slow to evolve, but have moved substantially in recent
decades.[21] (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm) 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. Less than 40 percent were "very sure" of it,
however. In 1998, 31 percent of the public said global warming was "extremely important" or "very important"
to them, personally; in 2006, 49 percent said so.[22] (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming
/story?id=1750492&page=1)
According to a report on August 16, 2006, by Dr. David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation, the general
public has a poor understanding of global warming.[23] (http://www.enn.com/comment.html?id=474) 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 Relationship to ozone depletion in the article on
global warming.)
On July 20, 2006, Dr. David Suzuki commented that public opinion on climate change and the film was being
deliberately twisted by an expensive campaign of public relations.[24] (http://www.enn.com
/comment.html?id=472) 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/
(http://www.desmogblog.com/) .
As scientific evidence for global warming mounted, the debate entered the public arena and leading political
figures took up the issue.
Debate over the existence of a consensus
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[8]). Still, others maintain that opponents of
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
the theory 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.[25] (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306
/5702/1686) 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) (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis
/NationalPost.htm)
”
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,[26] (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid
/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php) [27] (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts
/ep38peiser.pdf) and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed.[28]
(http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/) In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further
reference to his review, instead asserting,[29] (http://www.timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser2
/?PHPSESSID=d0cfaf16f871e150b238fe84253f70b6)
“
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.[30]
(http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf)
”
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)
(http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
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."[31] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra
/?id=110008597) [9] Lindzen wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006, {{cquote|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.
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis.[[32] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220) }}
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."[33] (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm
/ccwtltr.html) 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.")[34]
(http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html)
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.[10] 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.[35]
(http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E84A9809EC588EF21) [36] (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8ad66-bba0fa15e61f) 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 (http://www.canada.com
/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605) 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. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained
by deception regarding the content of the letter.[37] (http://www.desmogblog.com/signatory-bails-on-anticlimate-science-petition)
Temperature measurements
Urban heat islands
Many skeptics, such as John Daly and Vincent Gray, questioned the accuracy of the temperature records on the
basis of the Urban heat island effect, contending that stations located in more populated areas could show
warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise.[11] The IPCC Third
Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than
0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.[12] More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the
warmings observed in urban and rural areas.[13]
Causes
Attribution to carbon dioxide
One argument against anthropogenic global warming questions the contention that rising levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) 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.)
Correlation does not imply causation: that temperatures have
risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution does not
directly imply that Industrialisation has caused the change in
temperature.[38] (http://www.co2science.org/scripts
/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp) Indeed,
studies of ice age temperature variations show carbon dioxide
levels increasing after warming rather than before.[39]
(http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm) This
argument assumes that current climate change can be
expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is
420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok,
generally agreed that prehistoric variations are mostly timed
Antarctica research station (present time at
by astronomical forcing,[40] (http://www.aip.org/history
the left).
/climate/cycles.htm) 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.[41] (http://ams.allenpress.com
/perlserv/?request=get-document&
doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%281997%29010%3C0245:OMOGWB%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small, 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 estimated at 4400ppm (or .44% of the
atmosphere). However, a recent study suggests the Ordovician period began with a reduction in CO2.[42]
(http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm)
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.
Solar Activity
The observed global warming may be explained by increased solar activity, the present level of solar activity is
historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solanki et al. (2004 - Max Planck Institute,
Germany) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years;
Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
the last few thousand years.[14] Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that "solar activity
reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable
Sun." "Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease
over the next 50 years.
400 year history of sunspot numbers.
Last 30 years of solar variability.
Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature
with solar variation.[43] (http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial
/space_weather/) An article in The Telegraph about a 2004 study[15] at the Max Planck Institute for Solar
System Research in Germany quoted Sami Solanki saying "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time
during the past 1,000 years" and although "the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been
enough to cause the observed climate changes, the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on
cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself."[16] According to the Stanford Solar
Center, at most 25% of recent global temperature variation can be attributed to solar irradiance. When the
11-year sun cycle is accounted for, there still remains a significant, 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) increase in recorded global
temperatures.[44] (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)
The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar
radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m2 since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m2 for the net anthropogenic
forcing.[45] (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of
the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two,
and possibly the past four, decades."[46] (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf) The AR4 makes no direct
assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.
Predictions of temperature rises
There is some debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption:
“
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] the atmosphere. They believe that the so-called decarbonization of
our economy, which has been ongoing for some time, will continue. That is, we will use less and
less fossil fuels to produce a unit of GNP. (Dr Fred Singer (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming
/debate/singer.html) )
”
The Stern report like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO2 emissions and economic
growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO2 levels.
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
The report states:
“
Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of
hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of
CO2 well beyond 750ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.[17]
”
Similarly, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory suggest, "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4
degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet’s available fossil fuels by the year 2300."[18] However
others believe the climate will reach a "tipping point" leading to run away global warming as e.g. warming
causes sea ice to melt reducing the area of reflective ice.[47] (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05
/0916-09.htm)
There is also debate over whether the atmosphere is capable of self limiting the amount of CO2:
“
there's a debate over what humans actually could--if you had everybody on earth consuming the
amount of fossil fuels that we do in the United States, for example--how much CO2 you would
ultimately end up with in the air. There is one body of thought that says that the mechanisms of
the planet--the biosphere--that because it responds positively to more CO2, which is the
Greening of the Planet Earth thesis, that the biosphere will soak this up so that you really don't
have much of a risk of ever getting above--much above--1,000 parts per million.(Fred Palmer
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html) )
”
This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it (http://en.wikipedia.org
/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&action=edit) .
Regional effects
This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it (http://en.wikipedia.org
/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&action=edit) .
Political and social aspects of the controversy
As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further
controversial issues, including:
1. The social and environmental impacts
2. The appropriate response to climate change
3. Whether decisions require less uncertainty
The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:
“
we talk about a few degrees warming, most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change
my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine. The trees over there on the north side of the slope are
already 5 degrees cooler than the trees on the south side of the slope." Of course, if you look
carefully, you find they have different trees on the north side and the south side. So the point is
that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era
of human civilization. There haven't been--globally averaged, we're talking--fluctuations of more
than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of
the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two.
”
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
9 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
(Stephen H. Schneider (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/schneider.html) )
The other 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.
Due to 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.[48] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate
/palmer.html)
“
The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the United States is as clear as it
can be. And it is required for the way we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and
for our future. Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer (http://www.pbs.org
/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html) )
”
Conversely, 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.[49] (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
/media/3F8/81/ch_7_projecting_growth_of_ghg_emissions.pdf)
One response to global warming is to shift some of the tax burden from income of consumers, to the fossil-fuel
industry. If introduced gradually, the overall effect on an economy is likely to be minimal; in the long term, such
policy would be beneficial, as the life of existing gas- and oil-reserves would be extended (delaying price
increases due to supply shortages).
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent, international agreement on climate change, and is also highly
controversial. Some argue that it goes too far in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases;[19] others argue that
the cuts in emissions it would introduce are far too small.[20] Another area of controversy is the fact that India
and China, the world's two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but 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 U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic
advantage to some countries.[21] 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.[22] As these
countries are less energy efficient, this could cause additional carbon emissions. In 1998, U.S. Senator Robert
Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and in turn the U.S.
Senate voted 95 to 0 against the treaty.
The only major developed nations which have not signed the Kyoto protocol are the USA and Australia.
However, on November 30, 2006, The Hon Greg Hunt MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the
Environment and Heritage for Australia said: "First, climate change is both real and soluble. The deniers are
wrong: that is, those who argue there is insufficient evidence. The doomsayers are also wrong: that is, those who
argue that we are coming to an unavoidable and catastrophic end."[50] (http://www.cis.org.au/) The New York
Times reports that in the U.S., "The climate here has definitely changed. Legislation to control global warming
that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are
increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls
on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed."[51] (http://www.nytimes.com
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
/2007/01/18/washington/18climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th) The countries with no official
position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or oil producing
countries.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories)
Is global warming beneficial or detrimental?
Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 2 to 4.5 °C (3.6 to 8.1 °F), which the IPCC
projects is likely[23] within the 21st century unless strong, early mitigation measures are adopted.
Other researchers feel that up to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) of warming would increase crop yields and stabilize weather.
Many of these doubt a larger warming is likely. In response, some note that the belief in beneficial effects and
doubt of extreme warming should be independent if these conclusions were in fact neutrally derived from
scientific research.
Funding for opponents
Some global warming skeptics, like the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their alleged links
to fossil fuel companies.[24]
On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated[25][26] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent
letters[27] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental
payments in return for essays that with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC
process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Scientists, critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors, dispute the validity of this guilt by
association or ad hominem argument. For instance, Donald Kennedy of Science said, "I don't think it's unethical
any more than most lobbying is unethical," and, " ...donations to skeptics amounts to 'trying to get a political
message across'" (see the Forbes story listed above[53] (http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/07/27
/ap2910768.html) ). This tends to further refine the entire dispute as being one of a political nature.
Political pressure on scientists
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the man who is
credited by many with the introduction of the global-warming theory to the public in Congressional testimony in
1988, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article[54] (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth
/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all) in 2006 that his
superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying
that 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;[55] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html) 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."[28]
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
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
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."[29]
According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,
"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed
at downplaying the threat of global warming.
"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a
questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their
meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told
to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[56] (http://www.cbsnews.com
/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml)
Critics however claim that the survey [57] (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Fullsurvey-instrument-with-responses.pdf) was itself unscientific.[58] (http://www.opinionjournal.com
/best/?id=110009609)
Global warming litigation
Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection
Agency (case 05-1120 pending before the United States Supreme Court), was filed to force the Federal
Government to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit (California v. General Motors Corp.) to force car
manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by
Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for
damages caused by global warming.[30]
Betting over global warming
A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market
consensus on climate change.[31] Few skeptics have been willing to bet against the IPCC consensus position,
however. British climate scientist James Annan proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether
future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev,
accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than
during 1998-2003 [59] (http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=james+annan+sceptic&sp-c=10&
sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=NATURE&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&
sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all) . Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been
willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds
of 50-1 against falling temperatures. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling.[32] Annan and
other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that
were not accepted. [33]
Assertions by supporters and opponents
Listed here are some of the assertions made by supporters and opponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
12 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
global warming not discussed above. Assertions are included solely because they have been made by one side or
the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.
Assertions by supporters
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.[34]
Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back
more than eight hundred thousand years,[35] with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic
evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.[36]
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands
of years[37] 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.[38]
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.[39]
The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.
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 to come.[40]
Climate models predict more warming, sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat
waves, spread of tropical diseases, and other climactic effects in the future.
The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will
reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse
gases.[41]
Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.
The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.
Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus
represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what
action should be taken).
Assertions by opponents
Some of the assertions made in opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of
cloud physics in the climate models.[60] (http://www.techcentralstation.com/020604C.html) [61]
(http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/%7Eclimate/)
The influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann has been shown to contain errors .
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion.
Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with
the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [62]
(http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220)
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic
activity, [63] (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/07/22/are-multi-decadal-climate-forecasts-
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
13 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
skillful/) changes in sea temperature [64] (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11
/021113070418.htm) , and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth
[65] (http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connectionto-climate) , and take into account other recently discovered feedback mechanisms.
Water vapor, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas. Depending on the referenced source, water vapor
and water droplets account for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 accounts for 9-26%.
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 but on a global scale, where earth's
atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber.
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The
concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. Therefore, the concern about global warming is
equally alarmist.
The Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, had above-average
temperatures for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the
Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that
carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around.
[66] (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3)
Climatic changes equal to or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other bodies
within this solar system, including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton. [67] (http://www.prisonplanet.com
/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm)
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 of the major questions about global climate.
Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing 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
do it 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 [68]
(http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/files/Durban%20workshop%20notes.pdf) .
Supporters and opponents
Scientific organisations that have stated support of the current scientific opinion on climate change
Scientists opposing the consensus
Skeptical organizations and individuals
Former skeptics
See also
Global cooling
Scientific skepticism
Environmental skepticism
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
14 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
Part of a series on Global Warming
Subtopics
Scientific opinion • Attribution of causes • Effects • Mitigation • Adaptation • Controversy • Politics • Economics
Related articles
Climate change • Global cooling • Global dimming • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gases
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Kyoto Protocol • Peak Oil • Renewable energy • Temperature data
References
1. ^ Sierra Club v. Johnson, D.D.C., No. 01-15378/2/06 [1] (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR
/2005/August/Day-12/a16037.htm) [2] (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf)
2. ^ Robert Balling,, A.B. in Geography from Wittenberg University in 1974, M.A. in Geography from
Bowling Green State University in 1975, Ph.D. in Geography from University of Oklahoma in 1979[3]
(http://geography.asu.edu/people/people_detail.php?id=1)
3. ^ The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006: Macaca, Global Warming Denier, Herstory and Flip
Chart Top Annual List (http://www.languagemonitor.com/)
4. ^ More in Europe worry about climate than in U.S., poll shows (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01
/04/news/poll.php) Jan 4, 2006 article in the International Herald Tribune
5. ^ Little Consensus on Global Warming -Partisanship Drives Opinion (http://people-press.org/reports
/display.php3?ReportID=280) - 2006 Public opinion poll by the Pew Research Center for the People &
the Press
6. ^ Safe Climate Act of 2006. Summary of the Bill (http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm)
7. ^ The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE
/ipcc2001.html)
8. ^ Aliens Cause Global Warming (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html) Jan
17, 2003 lecture by Michael Crichton at Caltech
9. ^ "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."
10. ^ Cool to the warnings of global warming's dangers Series - David Olinger [St. Petersburg Times], July
29, 1996 [4] (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/22741240.html?dids=22741240:22741240&
FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+29%2C+1996&author=DAVID+OLINGER&
pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&
desc=Cool+to+the+warnings+of+global+warming%27s+dangers+Series%3A+COLUMN+ONE)
11. ^ The cause of global warming (http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm) Nov 22, 2000 article by
Vincent Gray for john-daly.com
12. ^ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm
13. ^ Peterson,, Thomas C. (2003), "Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the
contiguous United States: no difference found. Journal of Climate" (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv
/?request=get-abstract&
doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941%3AAOUVRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2) , Journal of
Climate 16(18): 2941-2959, DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C2941:AOUVRI%3E2.0.CO;2
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941:AOUVRI%3E2.0.CO;2)
14. ^ Muscheler et.al., Nature, How unusual is today's solar activity? (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund
/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf) , 2005. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
15. ^ Solanki, Sami K.; Ilya G. Usoskin & Bernd Kromer et al. (2004), "Unusual activity of the Sun during
recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal
/nature02995.pdf) , Nature 431: 1084-1087, DOI:10.1038/nature02995 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
15 of 18
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
/nature02995)
^ The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (http://www.telegraph.co.uk
/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html) article in the Telegraph.co.uk
^ stern report (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3F8/81
/ch_7_projecting_growth_of_ghg_emissions.pdf)
^ Nov. 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate[5] (http://www.llnl.gov
/PAO/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-11-01.html)
^ International Institute for Sustainable Development "A Guide to Kyoto: Climate Change and What it
Means to Canadians" - section "Does the Kyoto treaty go far enough... or too far?" [6]
(http://www.iisd.org/pdf/kyotoprimer_en.pdf)
^ Kyoto protocol status(pdf) (http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application
/pdf/kpstats.pdf) . UNFCCC. Retrieved on 2006-11-07. (Niue,The Cook Islands,Nauru consider
reductions "inadequate")
^ The Whitehouse (June 11, 2001). President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html) . Press release. Retrieved on 5
November 2006.
^ Hoover Institute Climate Policy—From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond -[7]
(http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=essay)
^ IPCC 4AR SPM (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf)
^ Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story
/0,12996,1399585,00.html) Jan 27, 2005 article in The Guardian
^ Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story
/0,,2004399,00.html) , Feb 2007 article in The Guardian
^ Climate Controversy and AEI: Facts and Fictions (http://www.aei.org/publications
/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) - American Enterprise Institutes response to The Guardian article
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
^ letter (http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf) from the
American Enterprise Institute
^ BBC Panorama: Bush's climate of fear (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama
/5005994.stm)
^ BBC: Chaotic world of climate truth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm)
^ Global Warming in the Courts, Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute, Georgetown
University Law Center - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issue [8]
(http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf)
^ [9] (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161)
^ Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story
/0,,1552092,00.html) Aug 19, 2005 article in The Guardian
^ [10] (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html)
^ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
^ Deep ice tells long climate story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm) , by Jonathan
Amos, BBC, 4 September 2006
^ Vostok Ice Core Data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html)
^ New Research in Science Shows Highest CO2 Levels In 650,000 Years (http://www.aaas.org
/news/releases/2005/1128ice.shtml) , by Daniel B. Kane, 28 November 2005
^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/07/010704092014.htm
^ Simulated annual global mean surface temperature (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE
/ipcc2001_figs/fig3.gif)
^ Global Warming is Happening (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/trenberth.html) , by
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
^ Romm, Joseph, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, Morrow, 2007
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
16 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
External links
The external links in this article may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content
policies.
Please improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&action=edit) by
removing excessive or inappropriate external links. Please remove this tag when this is done. (talk)
Politics
Paul D. Thacker "Environmental Science & Technology, 31 August 2005, "How the Wall Street Journal
and Rep. Barton celebrated a global warming skeptic" (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthagw/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html)
Ode to Kyoto: The energy industry's stealth campaign to confuse the public and stop Kyoto
(http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index_012304.html) — Broadcast 23 January 2004 on PBS' NOW with
Bill Moyers (RealVideo format).
Environmental Defence - Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer (http://www.environmentaldefense.org
/go/paidskeptics) — How ExxonMobil funds scientists and media pundits to "de-bunk" the science of
climate change
Greenpeace: Industry And The Climate Debate (http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/archive/kpresspack
/debate.html)
What planet are you on, Mr Bush? (and do you care, Mr Blair?) (http://news.independent.co.uk
/environment/article331083.ece)
"Skeptics get a journal" (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy
/pt_skeptics.html) by Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science & Technology
Misusing figures about global warming in testimony to the United States Congress
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)
The Cosmos Myth: An Insidious Masterpiece. The Real Truth about the Revelle-Gore Story
(http://home.att.net/%7Eespi/Cosmos_myth.html) — by Justin Lancaster, with related affidavits and
sworn deposition of S. Fred Singer
The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506
/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf) House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (PDF)
Speech by Senator James Inhofe (http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759) , former
Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
CNN Anchor cites Hollywood movie to defend science reporting (http://epw.senate.gov
/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308)
Ad hoc committee report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction (http://meteo.lcd.lu
/globalwarming/Barton/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf) - a report to U.S. Congress on flaws and
problems with Mann's "HockeyStick" analysis and conclusions.
Exxonsecrets - how Exxonmobil funds the climate change skeptics (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/)
An online magazine (http://www.desmogblog.com/) discussing public relations controversies associated
with global warming.
"Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics"
(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&
ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528) — by Marc Morano reacting to Heidi
Cullen (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html)
AntiEcohype: Climate Critical Commentaries (http://www.ecotrop.org/climate.html)
Science
A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming (http://www.pitt.edu/%7Egordonm/) : Dr. James E.
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
17 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
The Global Warming Debate (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) : Fundamental differences in
opinion about climate change.
Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org
/index.php?ide=2)
CO2 or Solar? (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar) 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
(http://www.issues.org/issues/19.2/p_pielke.htm) ". Issues in Science and Technology 19 (2): 27-30.
ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
(http://www.climateaudit.org/)
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8) : Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre
and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann's famous graph.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006
/s2720.htm) , September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7
degrees F below 20th century average.
TCS Daily Article by Roy Spencer (http://www.techcentralstation.com/020604C.html) : principal research
scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville and previous Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama questions cloud model accuracy.
PrisonPlanet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm) SUV's On
Jupiter? - Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the
sun?
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. 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. - Brief article stating that prominent humancaused 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. - Newspaper article reporting on decrease in size of glaciers worldwide and resulting
shortage of water.
Singer, S. Fred; Dennis T. Avery (October 28, 2006). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years
(http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=unstoppable+global+warming&
Search_Code=TALL&PID=8734&SEQ=20070130131047&CNT=25&HIST=1) . USA: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. 978-0742551176. Editorial review from Science Daily: [69]
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&
ItemId=0742551172) "Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific
evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a
natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous,
and why we can't stop it anyway."
Lee, Dixie R.; Lou Guzzo (April 1994). Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
(http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&
Search%5FArg=environmental%20overkill&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8734&
SEQ=20070130131252&SID=6) . USA: Perennial. 978-0060975982. - "...challenges the environmental
9/15/2008 9:48 AM
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
18 of 18
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Yuh-Lang%20Lin/My%20Doc...
prophets of doom and gloom with penetrating searing truth. Environmental Overkill is a bright light that
exposes the fraud and deceit being perpetrated against an unknowing public." -- Rush Limbaugh
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy"
Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements |
Articles with sections needing expansion | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2007 | Wikipedia
external links cleanup | Climate change assessment and attribution | Debates | Global warming skeptics |
Environmental skepticism
This page was last modified 22:12, 27 February 2007.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for
details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3)
tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
9/15/2008 9:48 AM