Difference between revisions of "Global warming"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(I think I'm done)
(global warming is a myth, and it's been proven in the link that I added as a reference)
(106 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Global warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
+
'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to an incorrect scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO<sub>2</sub> levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.
 +
 
 +
The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.
 +
 
 +
== Scientific background ==
 +
 
 +
The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect'.
 +
 
 +
This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric  carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== History ==
 +
The scientific theory is not accepted within the scientific community.<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070315-13590700-bc-denmark-globalwarming.xml</ref> Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.
 +
 
 
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.  
 
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.  
 +
 
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO<sub>2</sub> gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
 
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO<sub>2</sub> gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
 +
 
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
 
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
+
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
 +
 
 
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.
 
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.
  
Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical.
+
Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
 +
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>
 +
 
 +
Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely
 +
 
 +
Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO<sub>2</sub>, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}
 +
 
 +
== Al Gore and politics ==
 +
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory.  Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
 +
 
 +
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>
 +
 
 +
Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
 +
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>
 +
 
 +
The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.
 +
 
 +
== The conservative view ==
 +
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}
 +
 
 +
In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>
  
Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.  
+
== Evangelical view ==
 +
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref>  This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
 +
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>
  
Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO<sub>2</sub>, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.
+
A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice."  The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>
  
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory.  Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.
+
== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
  
The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is no evidence at all.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
+
The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.
:The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>
+
  
It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>
+
Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>
  
There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activityFor example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO<sub>2</sub> changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO<sub>2</sub>, rather than more CO<sub>2</sub> producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
+
Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental groupTherefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO<sub>2</sub> has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO<sub>2</sub> influence on temperature. It merely means it wasnt a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earths distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO<sub>2</sub> behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
+
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]<ref>
+
  
----
+
== Global warming advocacy sites ==
 +
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
 +
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
 +
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
 +
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
 +
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
 +
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
 +
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field
  
'''References:'''  <references/>
+
==References==
 +
<references/>

Revision as of 08:01, 17 March 2007

Global Warming is a phrase which commonly refers to an incorrect scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be Global Climate Change, as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

Scientific background

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect'.

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. [1]


History

The scientific theory is not accepted within the scientific community.[2] Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."

Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. [3] [4] [5]

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. [6] [7] [8]

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.[Citation Needed]

Al Gore and politics

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.[9]

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence[Citation Needed], though that is not to say there is unanimity.[10][11] On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."[12]

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts[Citation Needed] and in book format) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.[13]

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

The conservative view

Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. [14] It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services.[Citation Needed]

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.[15] Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.[16] The Pentagon has told George W. Bush that global warming is a real threat.[17] George W. Bush admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.[18]

Evangelical view

In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.[19] This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." [20] This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues. [21]

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. [22]

Conflicting Opinions/Data

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. [23][24][25][26] Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.[27]

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. [28]

Global warming advocacy sites

Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:

References

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml
  2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070315-13590700-bc-denmark-globalwarming.xml
  3. http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html
  4. http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/
  5. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194
  6. http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html
  7. http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS
  8. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html
  9. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html
  10. Myths of Global Warming[1]
  11. No Evidence for Global Warming[2]
  12. Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[3]
  13. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
  14. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
  15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm
  16. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/
  17. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
  18. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html
  19. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html
  20. http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement
  21. http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf
  22. http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article
  23. http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm
  24. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
  25. http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810
  26. http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm
  27. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
  28. http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm