Difference between revisions of "Global warming"

Revision as of 22:23, April 15, 2007

The global warming controversy centers on the controversial theory that the earth's atmosphere is heating up at a dangerous rate, because of human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels (see Anthropogenic global warming). Supporters usually feel that immediate (not to say drastic) action must be taken to reduce these omissions (see Kyoto Protocol).

The theory enjoys wide political support, but some climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it. The United Nations' climate panel (UNIPCC) has assessed the theory and found that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of it. Scientists Richard Lindzen and John Christy, among others, deny that such a consensus exists.^{[Citation Needed]}

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the matter, there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. ^[1].

Recently, a group of eleven retired American Generals urged the Bush administration to act on climate change as it "poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."^[2]

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. ^[3]

History

The United Nations says that scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community^[4], but individual scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Cristy, and Fred Singer say that there is no scientific consensus.Template:Fact-science

Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

1) The theory that we are currently in a period of 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. ^{[5] [6] [7]}

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. ^{[8] [9] [10]}

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

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. Template:Fact-political

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 and uneducated celebrities, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.^[11]

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.^[12][13] 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."^[14]

Al Gore's film [5] (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.^[15]. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws.Template:Fact-science One scientist appearing in it, Carl Wunsch, complained that he had been misled^[16], and are is considering legal action against the documentary makers for misrepresenting him. However, he also released a litter to him from the producers wherein they DID inform him of their polemic intent:

• The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. ^[17]

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.[6]

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. ^[18] 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.^[19] Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.^[20] The Pentagon has told George W. Bush that global warming is a real threat.^[21] George W. Bush admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.^[22]

Evangelical view

In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.^[23] 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." ^[24] This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues. ^[25]

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. ^[26]

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. However, some peer-reviewed articles have attacked the basic notion of a global temperature.^[27]

Global warming advocacy Websites

Climate Crisis Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.

Stop Global Warming Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.

Climate Change Blog Links to other global warming blogs.

Huffington Post Global Warming Blog Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.

Real Climate Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

Global warming Skeptist

Climate Audit

Richard Lindzen's Wall Street Journal editorial

Global Warming Swindle Documentary Film

References

1. ↑ Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[1]
2. ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm
3. ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml
4. ↑ http://www.ipcc.ch/
5. ↑ http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html
6. ↑ http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/
7. ↑ http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194
8. ↑ http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html
9. ↑ http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS
10. ↑ http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html
11. ↑ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html
12. ↑ Myths of Global Warming[2]
13. ↑ No Evidence for Global Warming[3]
14. ↑ Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[4]
15. ↑ http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
16. ↑ http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm
17. ↑ http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm
18. ↑ http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
19. ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm
20. ↑ http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/
21. ↑ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
22. ↑ http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html
23. ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html
24. ↑ http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement
25. ↑ http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf
26. ↑ http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article
27. ↑ http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf