List of climate change controversies: Difference between revisions

The global warming controversy is a debate about the specific causes of the increase in global average air temperature since the mid-1800s, the prediction of additional warming, and the consequences of that warming. An additional issue is whether the current warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations over the last 1,000 years.

Issues

The existence of a rise in average temperatures since the mid-19th century is not disputed. The controversy focuses on the specific causes of the recent warming, and concentrates on the warming after World War II; the likelihood and magnitude of future warming; and whether additional warming would be harmful or beneficial.

Actions have been proposed to slow down warming, on the premises that it is likely to be large enough to cause harm to humans overall and that it is possible to curtail activities that contribute to it, in an effort to reduce predicted harm.

Some of the main areas of controversy include:

• 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 carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions
• The size of future changes in climate
• The regional effects of climate change
• The consequences of climate change

Among climate scientists there is consensus that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

The debate is more vigorous 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 (AGW), and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify immediate and far-reaching actions to ameliorate its effects. One example of an effort to achieve an action is the Sierra Club suing the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Another part of the debate relates to political or policy decisions and their rationales. For example, the Kyoto Protocol and its provisions relating to developing nations are matters of some debate. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has stated that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.

Skeptical scientists express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Template:Split link, Template:Split link, and Template:Split link). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Template:Split link, Template:Split link, and Template:Split link), ocean currents (e.g., Template:Split link), solar activity (e.g., Template:Split link and Template:Split link), cosmic rays (e.g., Template:Split link), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Template:Split link).

History

In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by languagemonitor.com as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005. In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate has gained wider acceptance than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.

Public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have evolved more slowly in the U.S. than in Europe, but have moved substantially in recent years. A Taylor Nelson Sofres poll reported by ABC News in 2006 reported that 85% of Americans believed in 2006 that global warming "probably is occurring," as opposed to 80% who believed so in 1998. Thirty-seven percent were "very sure" of it, and 3% were "very sure" it wasn't occurring. 31% believe humans are mostly the cause of it, while an additional 49% believe the cause is equally split between human and natural influences, with 19% believing it is only the result of natural causes. In 1998, 31% of the public said global warming was "extremely important" or "very important" to them, personally; in 2006, 49% said so.

These changes are reflected in public perceptions in a number of other countries as well. A 30-nation poll taken in 2006 found that 90% of the 33,237 people polled say that “climate change or global warming, due to the greenhouse effect” is a serious problem. Three countries had less than 80% agreeing with this view, the United States with 76%, South Africa with 72%, and Kenya with 65%. Sixteen countries were polled previously in 2003; on average those saying the problem was "very serious" increased by 12% over the three-year period between polls.

In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans tend to 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, bipartisan measures have been introduced.

Kevin E. Trenberth stated:

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.

David Suzuki reported that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the film An Inconvenient Truth. An example of this poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion.

Controversy concerning the science

Existence of a scientific consensus

Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

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. Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion.

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.. Oreskes said:

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". 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.

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 indices, and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed. In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review .

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.

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."

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." Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,

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. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

In February 2007, environmental consultant Madhav L Khandekar, in reaction to the Oreskes survey, issued an annotated bibliography of 68 recent peer-reviewed papers which he claims question aspects of the current state of global warming science

Petitions

To support his 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." The petitions are:

• The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," signed by 47 scientists, claims "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. .
• The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners. This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific environmental issue, but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions".
• Singer's "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 or even physical science in general. Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.
• The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz and contains 17,800 signatures. Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 17,100 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."

In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter 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. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. [8]. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.

The IPCC

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. [9]

Many other science academies and scientific organizations support the conclusions of the IPCC. Nonetheless, the work of the IPCC has attracted controversy and criticism.

Stephen McIntyre, a former mining executive and reviewer of the AR4, said in his blog that portions of the report were based on unpublished data. When he attempted to obtain this data, the IPCC expressed concern regarding the use of expert reviewer status to challenge the work of others.

Christopher Landsea, hurricane expert, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." , because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct" [10]; the IPCC replied that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4 [11]. Roger Pielke, Jr. commented that "both Chris Landsea and Kevin Trenberth both come out of this situation looking pretty good. Both can and should feel vindicated... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent summary for policy makers".

In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote of the IPCC, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and its "played-down" positive aspects of global warming.[12] The main claims of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government (and prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). and by the Stern Review.

John Christy, an IPCC lead author and global warming skeptic, said that "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."

While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, some supporters of the global warming hypothesis have made the opposite criticism. Daniel Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming.

Urban heat island

Main article: Urban heat island

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. The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of 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. More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas. Parker (2006) found that there was no difference in warming between calm and windy nights. Since the urban heat island effect is strongest for calm nights and is weak or absent on windy nights, this was taken as evidence that global temperature trends are not significantly contaminated by urban effects.

One paper has questioned whether a global average temperature is a meaningful concept.

Causes

Attribution to greenhouse gases

Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO₂ and temperature is not part of this evidence. Nonetheless, one argument against anthropogenic global warming points out that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming .

Reproduction of the temperature record using known forcings

• Studies of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations . This argument assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing , 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 could be attributed to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols .
• The amount of carbon dioxide accounts for 0.0381% of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 278 ppm in the 1880s to over 380 ppm in 2005. Carbon dioxide itself causes 9-26% the natural greenhouse effect.
• 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.
• If greenhouse gases were causing the climate warming then scientists would expect the troposphere to be warming faster than the surface, but observations do not bear this out . Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.

As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, which is consistent with the findings of the IPCC which has stated that: "Greenhouse gas forcing [largely the result of human activities] has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years" (See also: attribution of recent climate change.)

Solar activity

Main article: Solar variation theory

400 year history of sunspot numbers.

Last 30 years of solar variability.

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. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. 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 the last few thousand years. 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."

Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation.

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.

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. 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." 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

Conventional predictions of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future GHG emissions (see SRES) and the climate sensitivity.

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.

Others have proposed that likely rises may be higher or lower.

Predictions of greenhouse gas rises

The "standard" set of scenarios for future atmospheric greenhouse gases are the IPCC SRES scenarios. The purpose of the range of scenarios is not to predict what exact course the future of emissions will take, but what it may take under a range of possible population, economic and societal trends. Climate models can be run using any of the scenarios as inputs to illustrate the different outcomes for climate change. No one scenario is officially preferred, but in practice the "A1b" scenario roughly corresponding to 1%/year growth in atmospheric CO2 is often used for modelling studies.

There is some debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic S. Fred Singer has stated:

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.

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. 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.

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." 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.[13]

There is also debate over whether the atmosphere is capable of self limiting the amount of CO₂. Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association states:

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.([14])

Regional effects

Two positive results of global warming have been predicted for Canada. The freeing up of the ice-strewn North-West passage will create an alternative to the Suez and Panama Canals for East-West shipping. Extended growing seasons and a shift north for human habitable land are also possible.

Political and social aspects of the controversy

See also: Politics of global warming

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. (Stephen H. Schneider)

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.

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, President of Western Fuels Association )

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.

Kyoto Protocol

Main article: 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 or not nearly far enough in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. 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. Additionally, 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, claims Fred Singer. As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is claimed to cause additional carbon emissions.

The only major developed nations which have signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol are the USA and Australia (see signatories). 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." 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." The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers.

LEDC's development

It is alleged that various governments are over-playing the problem of global warming in an attempt to limit and slow down LEDC's (less economically developed countries) industrial development. This would work in other countries' favour as it would eliminate any future industrial competition.

Funding for partisans

Both sides of the controversy have alleged that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.

Some global warming skeptics, like the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their alleged links to fossil fuel companies.

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters 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.

Some skeptical 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'"

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', "According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"

Accuracy in Media published a report in 2002 entitled "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam," in which they allege that "global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth." A similar claim is made by various scientists  : NASA's Roy Spencer says that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists.” University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”

Richard S. Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, makes the specific claim that "[i]n the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggests four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services."[15]

French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux makes a claim similar to that of Lindzen's: "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French)

A recent film, The Great Global Warming Swindle alleged that the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming is a "scam" promoted by a multi-billion dollar industry and and that "official government sanction of global warming opened the floodgates of funding to climate researchers, who previously worked in obscurity". In response, critics including David Miliband (the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) accused the filmmakers of promoting a conspiracy theory..

The evolving position of some skeptics

In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding anthropogenic global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, now says "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" (see also: Former global warming skeptics). Others have shifted from claims that global warming is unproven to advocating adaptation, sometimes also calling for more data, rather than take immediate action mitigation through consumption/emissions reduction of fossil fuels. "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures" says Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg.

"There are alternatives to its [the "the climate-change crusade's"] insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us." says Steven F. Hayward of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive."

In 2001 Richard Lindzen said in response to the question, "Kyoto aside for a moment, should we be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Do our concerns about global warming require action?" "We should prioritize our responses. You can't just say, "No matter what the cost, and no matter how little the benefit, we'll do this. If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?" Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO₂ emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. Large developing nations such as India and China are predicted to be major emitters of greenhouse gases in the next few decades as their economies grow.

The conservative National Center for Policy Analysis whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change skeptics including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer says "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO 2 emissions".

Interestingly the adaptation only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil’s plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur. The company’s plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership" says this Ceres report.

The Bush administration has also joined the adaptation only bandwagon. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report [U.S. Climate Action Report 2002] to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". The report however "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming." This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later , "The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation,' said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough money to do everything.'"

The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however, "Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate, the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior Secretary Hodel’s proposal that the government address the hole in the ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses, suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of air-conditioning. Report at 82. Far from proposing solutions to the climate change problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners" letter from 11 State Attorneys General to George W. Bush.

Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an inherent bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption) and for the prolonging of profits to the oil industry at the expense of the environment, "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says UK Journalist George Monbiot in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient. See also Copenhagen Consensus.

To be sure, though not emphasized to the same degree as mitigation, adaptation to a climate certain to change has been included as a necessary component in the discussion early as 1992 , and has been all along. However it was not to the exclusion, advocated by the skeptics, of preventative mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.

Political pressure on scientists

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.. Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article 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; once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing 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."

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 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."

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."

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey was itself unscientific.

Related developments

In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees. It has been alleged by that, under the Bush Administration, EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on non-science personnel. The EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction in this process and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge.

Global warming litigation

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forces the US government to regulate greenhouse gases 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 USA, Inc., 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.

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. 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 . 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. Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted.

Debating over global warming

On March 15th, 2007 a two sided debate sponsored by Intelligence Squared was held in New York City, with the proposition "Global warming is not a crisis?", on the "for" side were Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott, Michael Crichton, and on the "against" side Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, Richard C.J. Somerville in front of a live audience.

Polls conducted at the beginning of the debate had shown that 30% of the audience agreed with the motion that "Global warming is not a crisis" and 57% disagreed, but after the nearly two hours of being presented arguments by both sides that number flipped to 46% agreeing and 42% disagreeing.

Supporters and opponents

• Scientific organizations that have stated support for or opposition of the scientific opinion on climate change
• Scientists opposing the consensus
• Skeptical organizations and individuals
• Former skeptics

Related controversies

Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks. Chris Mooney has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organised attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney claims that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial has become increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration and constitutes a Republican War on Science.

Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack. . On the other hand, Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that, as regards controversial issues, science is inevitably intertwined with politics..

CFCs and ozone layer

Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other national academies; scientists Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol. The scientific basis of ozone depletion has been disputed by global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Kary Mullis Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz Timothy F. Ball, and the Cato Institute.

Risks of passive smoking

The question of whether passive smoking created a significant health risk, and whether policy responses such as smoking bans were appropriate, was politically controversial in the 1990s. Governmental and UN organisations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation produced summaries of the scientific literature indicating that passive smoking represented a significant health risk. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer (1994), Fred Seitz[16], Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento , the Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert) and the Institute of Public Affairs .

Organizationally, the link between criticism of scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an Astroturf group directed by Milloy and established with support from Philip Morris and subsequently from ExxonMobil. Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels . TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming.

See also

• Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
• Global cooling
• Scientific skepticism
• Environmental skepticism
• The Great Global Warming Swindle
• An Inconvenient Truth
• The Republican War on Science
• Exposed: The Climate of Fear

References

External links

Politics

• Thacker, Paul D. (31 August 2005). "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic". Environmental Science & Technology. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Bill Moyers (producer) (23 January). Ode to Kyoto: The energy industry's stealth campaign to confuse the public and stop Kyoto (rar). PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer — Guess who's funding the global warming doubt shops?". Environmental Defense. 19 December 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Industry And The Climate Debate". Greenpeace.
• "What planet are you on, Mr Bush? (and do you care, Mr Blair?)". The Independent. 4 December 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Thacker, Paul D. (31 August 2005). "Skeptics get a journal". Environmental Science & Technology. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Hansen, James (Jan 1999). "The Global Warming Debate". NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• Lancaster, J. Justin. "The Cosmos Myth – The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story".
• "The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report" (PDF). House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. 6 July 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Inhofe, James (September 25 2006). "Senate Floor Speech: Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who cover Global Warming". United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Senator Inhofe & CNN Anchor in Heated Exchange over Global Warming" (Press release). United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. October 3 2006. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Wegman, Edward J.; Scott, David W.; Said, Yasmin H. (July 2006), Ad hoc committee report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF), United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce
• "DeSmogBlog – Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science". DeSmogBlog.
• Morano, Marc (17 January 2007). "Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics" (Press release). Inhofe EPW Press Blog. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stott, Philip. "AntiEcoHype – Climate Change & Global Warming – A Selection of Critical Commentaries by Philip Stott". Philip Stott's personal website.
• Lewis, Russell (6 March 2007). "Global Warming False Alarms (web publication)". Institute of Economic Affairs. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Telegraph article by Chair of Stock exchange and former BP director in UK:Claims bad consequences for UK economy
• Global Warming Project 2007: Claims censorship of climate scientists views.
• PBS. Frontline: Hot Politics. Examines US federal government response to climate change from the 1980s to present.
• Canada - attempts to suppress climate change information
• Oil industry payments for opposing opinions
• US Committee to investigate political censorship of pro climate change views

Science

• A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
• The Global Warming Debate: Fundamental differences in opinion about climate change.
• Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science
• CO₂ or Solar? 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". Issues in Science and Technology. 19 (2): 27–30.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
• False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann's famous graph.
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, 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: 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.

Media

• The Great Global Warming Swindle: Contains information relating to Channel 4 documentary on alternative theories to the causes of global warming.
• The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
• From Science to Time to Vanity Fair: Global Warming Becomes a Hot Topic. Lecture given by Amy Gajda, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Law, University of Illinois. February 8 2007. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Exposed: The Climate of Fear with host Glenn Beck. Transcript of a one-hour CNN video, featuring scientists and prominent critics of Global Warming "hysteria". May 2, 2007.

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. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)- 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. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Brief article stating that prominent human-caused 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. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Newspaper article reporting on decrease in size of glaciers worldwide and resulting shortage of water.
• Singer, S. Fred (October 28 2006). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 978-0742551176. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Claims that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle.
• Lee, Dixie R. (April 1994). Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?. USA: Perennial. 978-0060975982. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Claims fraud and deceit by environmentalists
• Svensmark, Henrik (March 1 2007). The Chilling Stars. USA: Icon Books Ltd. 978-1840468151. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Describes Svensmark’s team cosmic ray experiments on cloud formation.