Difference between revisions of "Global warming"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Reference: debunking myths: 1970s prediction of new ice age is a myth)
(Shery Crow & Laurie David get the Rove brush-off on GW; reorg of page)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
* James Hansen, "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the [[2000-2007 US Presidential Administration|Bush Administration]] has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming
 
* James Hansen, "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the [[2000-2007 US Presidential Administration|Bush Administration]] has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming
 
* Prominent deniers of global warming include [[Bjorn Lomborg]]
 
* Prominent deniers of global warming include [[Bjorn Lomborg]]
 
 
==Debate==
 
==Debate==
 +
===Resolved Points===
 
The following points of debate have pretty much been resolved (see [[#News]] for details regarding the answers):
 
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 the Earth is currently on a general warmining trend – '''yes'''
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
There appears to be some considerable political pressure to deny that there is a dangerous warming trend.
 
There appears to be some considerable political pressure to deny that there is a dangerous warming trend.
==Difficulty of Resolution==
+
===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.
 
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.
 
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==
+
===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:
 
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:
  
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
(Reference: [[wikipedia:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus]])
 
(Reference: [[wikipedia:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus]])
===Arguments===
+
====Arguments Against====
 
Arguments against global warming:
 
Arguments against global warming:
 
* [[Global warming is junk science]]: There are claims that scientists "proving" global warming are purposefully lying and modifying data or at least using questionable analytical methods.
 
* [[Global warming is junk science]]: There are claims that scientists "proving" global warming are purposefully lying and modifying data or at least using questionable analytical methods.
Line 44: Line 44:
 
** [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling] by Amy Ridenour of the conservative [[wikipedia:National Center for Public Policy Research|National Center for Public Policy Research]]
 
** [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling] by Amy Ridenour of the conservative [[wikipedia:National Center for Public Policy Research|National Center for Public Policy Research]]
 
*** [http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003381 response to Ridenour]
 
*** [http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003381 response to Ridenour]
====Editorials====
+
====Editorials Against====
 
* '''2007-05-02''' [[From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits Is Global Warming a Sin?]] by Alexander Cockburn
 
* '''2007-05-02''' [[From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits Is Global Warming a Sin?]] by Alexander Cockburn
 
* '''2006-07-02''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 Don't Believe the Hype]: "Al Gore is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on global warming."
 
* '''2006-07-02''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 Don't Believe the Hype]: "Al Gore is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on global warming."
Line 50: Line 50:
 
* '''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"
 
* [http://bellsouthpwp2.net/b/e/benichou/Global_Warming.html Global Warming: Mankind's Greatest Threat] by Phil B.
 
* [http://bellsouthpwp2.net/b/e/benichou/Global_Warming.html Global Warming: Mankind's Greatest Threat] by Phil B.
 
+
==Links (other than Against)==
==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]] |
 
* [[oneworld:Global warming|OneWorldWiki]]: mostly a duplicate of Wikipedia, as of 2007-03-21
 
* [[oneworld:Global warming|OneWorldWiki]]: mostly a duplicate of Wikipedia, as of 2007-03-21
Line 64: Line 64:
 
* [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278 The Royal Society (UK)] index of articles and statements on climate change
 
* [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278 The Royal Society (UK)] index of articles and statements on climate change
 
* [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic]: an excellent collection of skeptical arguments-and-responses
 
* [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic]: an excellent collection of skeptical arguments-and-responses
===debunking myths===
+
===Articles & Blog Entries===
 +
* '''2007-04-22''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/karl-rove-gets-thrown-und_b_46501.html Karl Rove Gets Thrown Under the Stop Global Warming Bus] by [[Laurie David]] and [[Sheryl Crow]] (related: [[Karl Rove]])
 +
===Debunking Myths===
 
* [http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70s? No] "If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here."
 
* [http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70s? No] "If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here."
 
+
===Discussion===
==Discussion==
 
 
* [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/global.html Chaos Manor Special Report]: collection of short & long pieces, some very detailed; does not seem to be parroting anyone's party line
 
* [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/global.html Chaos Manor Special Report]: collection of short & long pieces, some very detailed; does not seem to be parroting anyone's party line
 
** [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail421.html#Friday Subject: Climate change and Richard Lindzen]
 
** [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail421.html#Friday Subject: Climate change and Richard Lindzen]
==Significant Points==
+
===Significant Points===
 
* [http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004139.html 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."
 
* [http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004139.html 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''' [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256 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.
 
* '''2005-05-04''' [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256 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===
==Possible Solutions==
 
 
* "[http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003861.html stabilization wedges]": No single solution will be efficient enough fast enough, but in combination they may be enough
 
* "[http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003861.html stabilization wedges]": No single solution will be efficient enough fast enough, but in combination they may be enough
 
* '''2006-09-01''' [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5791/1243 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."
 
* '''2006-09-01''' [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5791/1243 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===
==Humor==
 
 
* '''2007-04-17''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20070417.html cold outside]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
* '''2007-04-17''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20070417.html cold outside]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
* '''2006-08-24''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20060824.html grant money]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
* '''2006-08-24''' [http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20060824.html grant money]: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, ''I Drew This''
 
+
===News Articles===
==News Articles==
 
 
* '''2007-05-15''' [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070515/sc_afp/wwfclimateenergy_070515141454;_ylt=AnUvfQ4dXSyOtzBdseDyKthrAlMA World faces 5-year deadline for decisions on climate change, says World Wildlife Federation]: "Governments need to take key decisions within five years on how to tackle climate change to cope with an expected doubling of energy demand over the next 50 years, the environmental group WWF said Tuesday."
 
* '''2007-05-15''' [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070515/sc_afp/wwfclimateenergy_070515141454;_ylt=AnUvfQ4dXSyOtzBdseDyKthrAlMA World faces 5-year deadline for decisions on climate change, says World Wildlife Federation]: "Governments need to take key decisions within five years on how to tackle climate change to cope with an expected doubling of energy demand over the next 50 years, the environmental group WWF said Tuesday."
 
* '''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 134: Line 132:
 
* '''2005-05-10''' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html The (UK) Guardian]: "David Bellamy's inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage are a boon to climate change deniers"
 
* '''2005-05-10''' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html The (UK) Guardian]: "David Bellamy's inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage are a boon to climate change deniers"
 
* '''2004-12-03''' [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change]
 
* '''2004-12-03''' [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change]
===Bad Reporting===
+
====Bad Reporting====
 
* The '''2006-10-27''' report that [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1932760,00.html the Atlantic current came to a halt for 10 days in 2004] was a severe misrepresentation of what actually happened, as explained [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no 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.
 
* The '''2006-10-27''' report that [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1932760,00.html the Atlantic current came to a halt for 10 days in 2004] was a severe misrepresentation of what actually happened, as explained [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no 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.

Revision as of 23:57, 10 July 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.
  • 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
  • Prominent deniers of global warming include Bjorn Lomborg

Debate

Resolved Points

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 Against

Arguments against global warming:

Editorials Against

Links (other than Against)

Reference

Articles & Blog Entries

Debunking Myths

Discussion

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

  • 2007-04-17 cold outside: cartoon by D.C. Simpson, I Drew This
  • 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.