Difference between revisions of "Global warming"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Arguments: toned down just a shade)
m (spelling fix)
Line 45: Line 45:
 
* '''2006-06-12''' [http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe] by Tom Harris (warning: popups)
 
* '''2006-06-12''' [http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe] by Tom Harris (warning: popups)
 
* '''2006-04-12''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Climate of Fear] by Richard Lindzen: "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence"
 
* '''2006-04-12''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Climate of Fear] by Richard Lindzen: "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence"
 
 
==Reference==
 
==Reference==
 
* Wikipedia: |[[wikipedia:Global warming|Global warming]]|[[wikipedia:Global warming controversy|Global warming controversy]]|[[wikipedia:Sea level rise|Sea level rise]]|
 
* Wikipedia: |[[wikipedia:Global warming|Global warming]]|[[wikipedia:Global warming controversy|Global warming controversy]]|[[wikipedia:Sea level rise|Sea level rise]]|
Line 76: Line 75:
 
==Humor==
 
==Humor==
 
* '''2006-08-24''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/2006/grants.html Grant money]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
* '''2006-08-24''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/2006/grants.html Grant money]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
 
==News Articles==
 
==News Articles==
 
* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).
 
* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).
Line 92: Line 90:
 
** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html Cold, Hard Facts]: op-ed by Peter Doran,  a polar researcher whose paper on the Antarctic climate has often been misinterpreted (by e.g. [[Michael Crichton]]) as strong evidence of global cooling, or at least evidence against global warming
 
** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html Cold, Hard Facts]: op-ed by Peter Doran,  a polar researcher whose paper on the Antarctic climate has often been misinterpreted (by e.g. [[Michael Crichton]]) as strong evidence of global cooling, or at least evidence against global warming
 
** [http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/07/leaked-memo-reveals-coal-industry.html Leaked Memo Reveals Coal Industry Propoganda Plan]
 
** [http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/07/leaked-memo-reveals-coal-industry.html Leaked Memo Reveals Coal Industry Propoganda Plan]
* '''2006-07-20''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008676 The Heat Is On] by [[Peggy Noonan]] seems to be blaming scientists for not having a firm [[scientific consensus|consensus]] on the issue. Is this the signalling shot for a [[conservative]] attempt to shift the blame as the reality becomes inescapable?
+
* '''2006-07-20''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008676 The Heat Is On] by [[Peggy Noonan]] seems to be blaming scientists for not having a firm [[scientific consensus|consensus]] on the issue. Is this the signaling shot for a [[conservative]] attempt to shift the blame as the reality becomes inescapable?
 
*: A response from Stefan Jones on [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/then-there-is-t-word.html Contrary Brin]:
 
*: A response from Stefan Jones on [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/then-there-is-t-word.html Contrary Brin]:
 
{{quoteon}}For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?{{quoteoff}}
 
{{quoteon}}For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?{{quoteoff}}

Revision as of 17:54, 14 March 2007

Overview

Global warming refers to the idea that the Earth's average temperature could significantly increase to the point where it will have noticeable (and probably detrimental) effects on how people live.

Also known as: climate change

Related Articles

  • If humans are at all responsible for global warming (a point currently under debate, as described here), then by definition global warming is a sustainability issue.

Debate

The following points of debate have pretty much been resolved (see #News for details regarding the answers):

  • whether or not the Earth is currently on a general warmining trend – yes
  • whether or not this will have significant effects on anyone – yes
  • whether or not those effects will be bad – in the short term, yes; beyond that depends on a lot of unknown factors

There continues to be debate on the following points:

  • whether or not this trend, if it is real, will continue
  • whether or not the warming is being caused by humanity (strong circumstantial evidence that it is)
    • Could be caused by random climatic drift
    • Could be caused by changes in any of countless variables, e.g. the sun's energy output
  • whether it is in humanity's best interest to attempt countermeasures (as opposed to "letting nature take its course")
  • what sorts of countermeasures should be taken (e.g. should we try to counteract the warming trend itself, or just be prepared to deal with the changing climate and rising sea levels as they happen?)

There appears to be some considerable political pressure to deny that there is a dangerous warming trend.

Difficulty of Resolution

Part of the problem is that the issue has become heavily politicized, largely because direct countermeasures (attempts to counteract the warming trend) tend to be unpopular amongst those who would need to implement them, and those who would need to implement them are generally large businesses with significant amounts of political clout and ability to drive the discussion in directions favorable to them.

Another part of the problem is that determining whether or not the phenomenon is of genuine concern requires the integration of large amounts of data – over long timespans and a large number of different geographical locations – in order to notice subtle real effects without raising false alarms due to temporary or local effects.

Contrary Opinions

Although the majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and is caused by humanity, a few disagree; each of these few generally express one of the following positions:

  • The Earth is not warming: surface records seem to show a warming trend, but satellite and weather balloon records do not.
  • The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown
  • The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes
  • Global warming is occurring but not as much as feared

(Reference: wikipedia:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus)

Arguments

Arguments against global warming:

Editorials

Reference

Discussion

Related Articles

  • James Hansen, "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the Bush Administration has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming

Significant Points

  • Al Gore at the TED 2006 conference has some good overviews on the Global Warming situation: "There's no real disagreement about global warming – a survery of peer reviewed papers showed 928 supporting a theory of global warming and 0 opposing it. But there's a powerful lobby that is producing doubt, and suceeding – a survey ... reveals that 53% of popular press articles have some doubt about global warming."
  • 2005-05-04 ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics: doesn't automatically invalidate global warming skepticism, but any argument which starts with "many authorities seem to agree that it's not happening" should be aware that the balance may have been tilted a bit.

Possible Solutions

  • "stabilization wedges": No single solution will be efficient enough fast enough, but in combination they may be enough
  • 2006-09-01 A Road Map to U.S. Decarbonization by Reuel Shinnar and Francesco Citro, Science magazine: "Alternative energy sources could replace 70% of fossil fuels in America within 30 years at a cost of $200 billion per year."

Humor

  • 2006-08-24 Grant money: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, I Drew This

News Articles

For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?
Also, the claim that there is no scientific consensus on global warming is a myth; see The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Bad Reporting

  • The 2006-10-27 report that the Atlantic current came to a halt for 10 days in 2004 was a severe misrepresentation of what actually happened, as explained here: a new monitoring array is recording more precise data on the current than has previously available, and one of the things it noted was a "very weak" flow during those 10 days in 2004. However, due to the newness of the data set, scientists don't yet know if this is unusual, part of an accelerating trend, or perfectly normal. As yet, it has no known implications for the climate of Britain or Europe.