Global warming controversy 13109 225965906 2008-07-16T06:28:05Z R. Baley 2403679 Doesn't belong here. please discuss on talk page and [[WP:3RR]]. . . [[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 225964617 by [[Special:Contributions/Josephprymak|Josephprymak]] ([[User talk:Josephprymak|talk]]) {{pp-semi-indef}} {{toolong}} The '''global warming controversy''' is a dispute regarding the nature and consequences of [[global warming]]. The disputed issues include the causes of increased [[instrumental temperature record|global average air temperature]], especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, what the consequences are, and what action should be taken (if any). The debate is vigorous in the popular media and on a policy level, with individuals, corporations, and political organizations all being involved. == History of public opinion == In the [[European Union]], [[global warming]] has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1997 [[Kyoto Protocol]], and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990 (for example, [[Margaret Thatcher]] advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988<ref>Speech to the Royal Society (September 27, 1988), [http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346 Public Statement, Speech Archive], ''Margaret Thatcher Foundation''. Retrieved [[April 9]], [[2007]].</ref> and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in 1983). Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by the [[Global Language Monitor]] as political buzzwords or [[catch phrase]]s in 2005.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html | title=The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006 | publisher=Global Language Monitor | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> In [[Europe]], the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the [[United States]].<ref>{{cite web | title=More in Europe worry about climate than in U.S., poll shows | first=Thomas | last=Crampton | date=[[4 January]] [[2007]] | publisher=[[International Herald Tribune]] | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/04/news/poll.php | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Little Consensus on Global Warming – Partisanship Drives Opinion – Summary of Findings | publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] for the People and the Press | date=[[12 July]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280 }}</ref> There has been a debate among public commentators about how much weight and media coverage should be given to each side of the controversy. [[Andrew Neil]] of the [[BBC]] stated that "There's a great danger that on some issues we're becoming a one-party state in which we're meant to have only one kind of view. You don't have to be a climate-change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject."<ref>McCarthy, Michael, [http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece Global Warming: Too Hot to Handle for the BBC], the ''Independent'', September 6 2007</ref> The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S. and elsewhere.<ref>{{Citation | first=Spencer | last=Weart | author-link=Spencer R. Weart | contribution=The Public and Climate Change | contribution-url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm | title=The Discovery of Global Warming | editor-first=Spencer | editor-last=Weart | editor-link=Spencer R. Weart | url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html | publisher=[[American Institute of Physics]] | year=2006 | access-date=2007-04-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity | last=Langer | first=Gary | date=[[March 26]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492&page=1 | publisher=[[ABC News]]}}</ref><ref name="bbcpoll2007">{{cite web | title=Man causing climate change - poll | date=[[September 25]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-09-25 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7010522.stm | author=GlobeScan and the [[Program on International Policy Attitudes]] at [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] | publisher=[[BBC World Service]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title= 30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem |last= Program on International Policy Attitudes |date=[[April 5]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-20 | url = http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187 | publisher= [[Program on International Policy Attitudes]]}}</ref> {| class="wikitable" |- ! Statement ! % agreeing ! Who |- | Global warming is probably occurring. | 85 | US/2006 |- | Global warming is probably occurring. | 80 | US/1998 |- | Human activity is a significant cause of climate change. | 71 | US/2007 |- | Human activity is a significant cause of climate change. | 79 | World/2007 |- | Climate change is a serious problem. | 76 | US/2006 |- | Climate change is a serious problem. | 90 | World/2006 |- | Climate change is a serious problem. | 78 | World/2003 |- | It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon. | 59 | US/2007 |- | It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon. | 65 | World/2007 |} A June 2007 [[Mori]] poll conducted in the [[UK]] found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti and crime were all of more concern than climate change. Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said people had been influenced by counter-arguments.<ref> BBC News: 'Scepticism' over change. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm]</ref> The [[Canada|Canadian]] [[science]] [[Presenter|broadcaster]] and [[environmentalism|environmental]] activist, [[David Suzuki]], reports that focus groups organized by the [[David Suzuki Foundation]] showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly08180601.asp |title=Public doesn't understand global warming |author=[[David Suzuki]] |publisher=David Suzuki Foundation |date=[[18 August]] [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-08-18}}</ref> This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the films ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' and [[The 11th Hour (film)|''The 11th Hour'']]. An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and [[ozone depletion]] or other environmental problems.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol8/fall/bord+.htm|title=Is Accurate Understanding of Global Warming Necessary to Promote Willingness to Sacrifice? |author=Richard J. Bord, Ann Fisher & Robert E. O'Connor |date=1997|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Richard J. Bord, Robert E. O'Connor, Ann Fischer|title=In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?|journal=Public Understanding of Science|date=2000|volume=9|issue=3|url=http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205?ck=nck|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref> A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by [[Pew Research Center|Pew Global]] found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming – roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China – the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming – the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem."<ref>[http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/252.pdf No Global Warming Alarm in the U.S., China] - 15-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Released [[June 13]], [[2006]].</ref> A 47-nation poll conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem".<ref>[http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/256.pdf Rising Environmental Concern in 47-Nation Survey] - 47-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Released [[June 27]], [[2007]].</ref> == Controversy concerning the science == === Existence of a scientific consensus === {{main|Scientific opinion on climate change}} Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science.[http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/][http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866]<ref name="crichton03aliens">{{cite web | url=http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html | title=Lecture at CalTech: "Aliens Cause Global Warming" | first=Michael | last=Crichton | authorlink=Michael Crichton | date=[[17 January]] [[2003]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14}}</ref> Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.<ref name="bushpressure">{{cite web | url=http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html | title=US climate scientists pressured on climate change | authorlink=New Scientist | date=[[31 January]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-08-10 | publisher=[[New Scientist]]}}</ref> The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by [[anthropogenic|human activities]] such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.<ref>{{cite web | title=Global Warning | date=[[5 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html | publisher=[[Washington Post]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity | last=Barker | first=Scott | publisher=[[Knoxville News Sentinel]] |date=[[October 25]] [[2003]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html }}</ref><ref name="LindzenOrigin">{{cite web | title=Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus | last=Lindzen | first=Richard S. | authorlink=Richard S. Lindzen | publisher=[[Cato Institute]] Regulation | date=Spring 1992 | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html }}</ref> The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 [[Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific societies and academies of science]], including all of the national academies of science of the [[G8|major industrialized countries]]. The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf|title=Understanding and Responding to Climate Change|format=PDF}}</ref> the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]],<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change] December 2006</ref> and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf|title=Joint Science Academies' Statement|format=PDF}}</ref> explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion. A 2004 essay by [[Naomi Oreskes]] in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' reported a survey of 928 [[Abstract (summary)|abstracts]] of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the [[Institute for Scientific Information|ISI]] database.<ref>{{Citation | title=Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | last=Oreskes | first=Naomi | author-link=Naomi Oreskes | year=2004 | journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] | volume=306 | issue=5702 | pages=1686 | doi=10.1126/science.1103618 | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 }}</ref> Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.&nbsp;... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." [[Benny Peiser]] claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,<ref>{{cite web | title=The Dangers of Consensus Science | first=Benny | last=Peiser | authorlink=Benny Peiser | date=[[May 17]] [[2005]]|publisher=[[National Post]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 |url=http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm }}</ref> but his attempted refutation is disputed<ref>{{cite web | title=Peiser admits to making a mistake | last=Lambert | first=Tim | publisher=Deltoid (blog) | url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php | date=[[22 March]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 }}</ref><ref name="PeiserMW" /><ref>{{cite web | title=Peiser’s 34 abstracts | last=Lambert | first=Tim | publisher=Deltoid (blog) | date=[[May 6]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ }}</ref> and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate science: Sceptical about bias | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm | first=Richard | last=Black | date=2007-11-14 | accessdate=2008-04-22 | publisher=[[BBC]] | quote=This saga has also been so well documented, not least on Dr Peiser's website, that again there is little new to say, except that Dr Peiser now says he is glad Science decided not to publish his research because "my critique of Oreskes' flawed study was later found to be partially flawed itself".}}</ref> also commenting that "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."<ref name="PeiserMW">{{cite web | title=RE: Media Watch enquiry | url=http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf | first=Benny | last=Peiser | authorlink=Benny Peiser |date=[[October 12]] [[2006]] | publisher=[[Media Watch (TV program)|Media Watch]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Bolt's Minority View | url=http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm | date=[[2006-10-30]] | accessdate=2008-04-22 | publisher=[[Media Watch (TV program)|Media Watch]] }}</ref> A 2006 [[editorial|op-ed]] by [[Richard Lindzen]] in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."<ref>{{cite web | title=Don't Believe the Hype | url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 | last=Lindzen | first=Richard S. | authorlink=Richard S. Lindzen | date= | publisher=[[OpinionJournal.com]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | quote="Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact."}}</ref> Lindzen wrote in ''The Wall Street Journal'' on [[April 12]], [[2006]],<ref name="LindzenCoF">{{cite web | title=Climate of Fear | url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 | last=Lindzen | first=Richard S. | authorlink=Richard S. Lindzen |date=[[April 12]] [[2006]] | publisher=[[OpinionJournal.com]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12}}</ref> {{cquote|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.}} Similarly, [[Timothy Ball]] asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."<ref>{{cite web | title=Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? | last=Ball | first=Timothy | authorlink=Timothy F. Ball | publisher=[[Canada Free Press]] | date=[[5 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm}}</ref> At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- [[New Scientist]] notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to ''deny'' that global warming results from human activities<ref name="bushpressure">{{cite web | url=http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html | title=US climate scientists pressured on climate change | authorlink=New Scientist | date=[[31 January]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-08-10 | publisher=[[New Scientist]]}}</ref> or risk losing funding. In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a [[religion]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm |title=In Global Warming we trust | date=[[2 December]] [[2004]] |accessdate=2007-08-18 |author=Marc Morano|publisher=[[Cybercast News Service]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21418509.htm |title=Czech leader Klaus fights global warming "religion" |author=Jan Lopatka |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=[[21 March]] [[2007]] |accessdate=2007-08-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/06/archery.html |title=Archery |author=Kevin Steel |publisher=[[Western Standard]] |date=[[13 June]] [[2007]] |accessdate=2007-08-18}}</ref> to scientific support for the [[eugenics]] movement,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf |title=Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics |author=[[Richard S. Lindzen]] |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=1996 |accessdate=2007-08-18|format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="linder-oped">{{cite web|url=http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm|title=Global Warming Theory and the Eugenics Precedent - John Linder}}</ref> and to discredited scientific theories such as [[phlogiston]]<ref>[http://www.brookesnews.com/072304globalwarming.html Is global warming a science?],''Tracinski, Robert'', Brooksnews.com, April 2007</ref> and [[miasma]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/hearings/OpeningStatement.aspx?OSID=11|title=Opening Statement of a Congressional Hearing}}</ref> In 2008, Fergus Brown, [[Roger A. Pielke]] and [[James Annan]] submitted a paper titled "Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf |title=Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?|author=Fergus Brown |co-authors=Roger Pielke and James Annan |publisher=[[Climate Science]] |date= [[2008]] |accessdate=2008-04-20|format=PDF}}</ref> It was rejected for publication by the AGU publication ''EOS'' and ''Nature Precedings.'' Pielke writes: “From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://climatesci.org/2008/04/17/fairness-in-climate-science-reporting-an-example-of-bias-by-the-agu-publication-eos-by-fred-spilhaus/ |title=Fairness In Climate Science Reporting - An Example Of Bias|author=Roger A. Pielke |publisher=[[Climate Science]] |date= [[2008]] |accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> ====Heartland Institute's list==== On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978|title=500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares - by Dennis T. Avery - The Heartland Institute<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> propagated by the [[Heartland Institute]] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute|title=500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute? | DeSmogBlog<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter from the Old Dominion University was reported by Littlemore as saying, {{cquote|I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.}} However, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list. In a statement on 5 May, 2008, Institute CEO Joseph Bast said that the title of the 14 Sep, 2007 news release announcing the list had been changed to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webcitation.org/5XasltdIG |title=Controversy Arises Over Lists of Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares |accessdate=2008-05-06 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=}}</ref> In the same statement, Bast also charged that the outraged scientists: {{cquote|...have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming&nbsp;... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.}} Bast also stated that: {{cquote|The point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis.}} ==== Petitions ==== In 1997, the “World Scientists Call For Action” petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. The declaration asserted, “A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make “legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases”, and called global warming “one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations.”<ref>[http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1997-world-scientists-call-for-action.html Union of Concerned Scientists ‘’Scientist Statement’’]</ref> The petition was conceived by the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] as a follow up to their 1992 [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity]], and was signed by “more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science”<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm ‘’Science Daily’’Oct. 2, 2007 article “World’s Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government To Halt Global Warming”]</ref><ref>[http://dieoff.org/page123.htm List of Selected Prominent Signatories with awards and affiliations.]</ref> To support his claim of a lack of consensus, the website of prominent skeptic [[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."<ref>{{cite web | title=The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing | last=Crandall | first=Candance | date=[[November 20]] [[1998]] | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | url=http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/ccwtltr.html | accessdate = 2007-04-12 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web | title=Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming | date=[[27 February]] [[1992]] | publisher=[[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html }}</ref> * The "[[Heidelberg Appeal]]" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 [[Nobel Prize]] winners.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html|title=The Heidelberg Appeal}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | first=David | last=Olinger | title=Cool to the warnings of global warming's dangers Series: COLUMN ONE | url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/22741240.html?dids=22741240:22741240&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+29%2C+1996&author=DAVID+OLINGER&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&desc=Cool+to+the+warnings+of+global+warming%27s+dangers+Series%3A+COLUMN+ONE | publisher=[[St. Petersburg Times]] | date=[[29 July]] [[1996]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref> Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html|title=Letter to naturalSCIENCE: Many signatories to the "Leipzig Declaration" on greenhouse warming are not climate scientists<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> * The "[[Oregon Petition]]", self-signed and unverified by third party, was started in 1998 by physicist [[Frederick Seitz]], past president of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]]. The identical petition card was circulated again in late 2007 and [[Arthur B. Robinson]] presented the petition of 31,0000 claimed signatories in Washington DC on May 19, 2008.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223541+15-May-2008+PRN20080515 | title = Advisory: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis | date = 2008-05-15 | publisher = Reuters.com }}</ref> Critics point out that many of the signatories of the petition lack a background in climate-related sciences<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 | title=Skepticism about sceptics | journal=[[Scientific American]] | date=[[5 March]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | issue=Mar 2005 | format={{dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=intitle%3ASkepticism+about+sceptics&as_publication=%5B%5BScientific+American%5D%5D&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }} {{Deadlink|url=http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21|date=June 2008}} See also: {{cite web | url=http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8-ad66-bba0fa15e61f | author=Todd Shelly | publisher=[[Hawaii Reporter]] | accessdate = 2007-03-31|date=[[14 July]] [[2005]] | title=Bashing the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming}}</ref> 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 31,000 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm|title=Oregon Petition website}}</ref> However, anyone with a degree was entitled to sign the list and this would therefore include many who are not qualified to evaluate the complex data and modelling involved.<ref>{{cite web|http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2|title=The Guardian website}}</ref> In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an open letter<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 |title=Open Kyoto to debate|publisher=Financial Post|accessdate=2008-07-02}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=Who are the sixty | url=http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056 | publisher=desmogblog.org|accessdate=2007-03-02}}</ref> 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 (scientist)|Roy Spencer]]) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605|title=Open Kyoto to debate<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.<ref>{{cite web | title=Signatory Bails on Anti-Climate Science Petition | last=Hoggan | first=Jim | publisher=DeSmogBlog.com | date=[[18 April]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.desmogblog.com/signatory-bails-on-anti-climate-science-petition }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | title="Canada's top climate scientists issue open letter to Prime Minister Harper calling for action on climate change (press release)" | url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2006/19/c8968.html | last=McBean | first=Gordon |date=[[April 19]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-20 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf | title="An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on Climate Change Science" | last=McBean | first=Gordon |date=[[April 19]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-20 |format=PDF}}</ref> === The IPCC === {{main|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}} ====Statements Agreeing with the IPCC Positions==== 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742|title=www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref> Many other [[Scientific opinion on climate change|science academies and scientific organizations]] support the conclusions of the IPCC. In [[Naomi Oreskes]]'s talk ''The American Denial of Global Warming''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio], Oreskes recounted the following incident: {{cquote|In 1995, the IPCC concluded that the human effect on climate is now discernible. The lead author of the key chapter on detection and attribution...was a scientist of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory named Benjamin J. Santer. When the IPCC report came out, [[Frederick Seitz|Seitz]], [[William Nierenberg|Nierenberg]], and now a 4th physicist &mdash; a man by the name of [[Fred Singer|S. Fred Singer]] &mdash; launched a highly personal attack on Santer. In an open letter to the IPCC, which they sent to numerous members of the US Congress, Singer, Seitz, and Nierenberg accused Santer of making "unauthorized" changes to the IPCC report [...] They followed this with an op-ed piece in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' entitled "A Major Deception on Global Warming". This piece was written by Seitz, in which he claimed that the effect of the alleged changes was "to deceive policy makers and the public". Now Santer replied, in a letter to the editor of the ''Wall Street Journal'', and in the response he explained that he had made changes, but those changes were in response to the peer review process. In other words, totally normal scientific practice...This account was corroborated by the Chairman of the IPCC and by all of the other authors of the chapters. In fact, over 40 scientists were co-authors of this chapter. This letter was signed by Santer and 40 others and published in the ''Wall Street Journal'' in June 1996. And Santer was also formally defended by the American Meteorological Society. But neither Seitz nor Singer ever retracted the charges, which was then repeated &mdash; many times, over and over again &mdash; by industry groups and think-tanks. And in fact, if you google "Ben Santer", these same charges are still in the Internet today. In fact, one site said that it was ''proven'' in 1996 that Santer had fraudulently altered the IPCC report.}} ====Statements Disagreeing with the IPCC Positions==== The work of the IPCC has attracted controversy and criticism, including some from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels.<ref>[[Richard Lindzen]] has publicly dissented from IPCC positions.</ref> In blog posts, [[Roger A. Pielke]] contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned anthropogenic global warming.<ref name="PielkeIPCC">See [http://climatesci.org/2007/09/01/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest/] and links therein.</ref> These criticisms have been described as "failed" by [[William Connolley]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=470|title=Lack of Errors in the IPCC Statement for Policymakers|accessdate=2008-07-02|publisher=SCitizen}}</ref><ref name="ConnolleyOnPielke">See [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/a_sad_end.php] and links therein.</ref> Pielke also perceived a [[conflict of interest]] in the IPCC assessment process, since the "same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment!&nbsp;... Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research."<ref name="PielkeIPCC" /> There is no obvious solution to this problem, since scientists with sufficient knowledge of the field to serve on the IPCC and scientists who have written noteworthy papers in the field are essentially the same group.<ref name="ConnolleyOnPielke"> [[Stephen McIntyre]] said in his blog that portions of the report were based on in-press data. When he attempted to obtain this data from the authors, the IPCC told him he could not use his reviewer status to obtain in-press data outside the normal journal review process<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640|title=IPCC and Data Access |accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref> [[Christopher Landsea]], a hurricane researcher, 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",<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html|title=An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea |accessdate=2007-04-28}}</ref> because of comments made at a press conference by [[Kevin Trenberth]] of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct";<ref name = "Colorodo.edu-Hurricanes-Prometheus">[http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001105final_chapter_hurri.html Prometheus: Final Chapter, Hurricanes and IPCC, Book IV Archives<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf|title=sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf<!--INSERT TITLE-->|format=PDF}}</ref> [[Roger A. Pielke (Jr)|Roger Pielke, Jr.]] commented that "Both [[Landsea and Trenberth]] 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".<ref name = "Colorodo.edu-Hurricanes-Prometheus"/> In 2005, the [[House of Lords]] Economics Committee wrote that "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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf|title=Microsoft Word - Final Climate Change Report.doc<!-- Bot generated title -->|format=PDF}}</ref> The main claims of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm|title=House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Third Report<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> and by the [[Stern Review]]. [[John Christy]], an IPCC lead author and global warming skeptic, wrote that contributing authors and reviewers have little influence, so that "to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_07EC_subEAQ_written.pdf|title=Written testimony of John R. Christy Ph.D. before House Committe on Energy and Commerce on March 7, 2007|format=PDF}}</ref> While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5|title=Conservative Climate: Scientific American<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> Climate scientist [[James Hansen]] argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters—enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html|title=Scientific reticence and sea level rise<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> === Causes === ==== Attribution to greenhouse gases ==== [[Attribution of recent climate change]] discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO<sub>2</sub> and temperature is not part of this evidence. Nonetheless, one argument against anthropogenic global warming claims that rising levels of [[carbon dioxide]] (CO<sub>2</sub>) and other [[greenhouse gas]]es (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming.<ref>{{cite web | title=Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming - Where We Stand on the Issue | first=C. D. | last=Idso | authorlink=Craig D. Idso | coauthors=[[Keith E. Idso|K. E. Idso]] | publisher=[[CO2science]] | url=http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp | accessdate = 2007-04-13}}</ref> [[Image:Climate Change Attribution.png|thumb|right|Reproduction of the temperature record using historical forcings]] * General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the [[troposphere]] should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. Models and observations agree on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. It is uncertain whether the discrepancy is attributable to deficiencies in model formulation, biases in the observations, or both. The present view is that because of large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends along with other evidence for tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause), the more likely explanation is observational bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf|title=www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf<!--INSERT TITLE-->|format=PDF}}</ref> Furthermore, 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=The Great Global Warming Swindle: The Arguments | publisher=[[Channel 4]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 | url=http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments_3.html }}</ref> [[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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf|title=IPCC Summary for Policymakers (PDF)|format=PDF}}</ref> * Studies of [[ice core]]s show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations.<ref>{{cite web | publisher=Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center | title=Historical carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice core | url=http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm | first=N.I. | last=Barkov | date=February, 2003 | accessdate = 2007-03-13}}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Citation | first=Spencer | last=Weart | author-link=Spencer R. Weart | contribution=Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations | contribution-url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm | title=The Discovery of Global Warming | editor-first=Spencer | editor-last=Weart | editor-link=Spencer R. Weart | url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html | publisher=[[American Institute of Physics]] | year=2006 | access-date=2007-04-14 }}</ref> the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO<sub>2</sub> (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO<sub>2</sub> emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> shows that the recent observed CO<sub>2</sub> increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.<ref>{{cite web|title=More Notes on Global Warming|date=May 2005|accessdate=2007-09-10|publisher=Physics Today|url=http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html}}</ref> * Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon dioxide levels went up. This could be attributed to the [[Attribution of recent climate change#Attribution of 20th century climate change|cooling effect of sulphate aerosols]].<ref>{{Citation | title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis | contribution=12. Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes: 12.4.3.3 Space-time studies | contribution-url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm | year=2001 | first1=J.T. | last1=Houghton | author1-link=John T. Houghton}}</ref><ref> {{Citation | title=On Modification of Global Warming by Sulfate Aerosols | first1=J. F. B. | last1=Mitchell | first2=T. C. | last2=Johns | journal=[[Journal of Climate]] | year=1997 | volume=10 | issue=2 | pages=245–267 | doi=10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<0245:OMOGWB>2.0.CO;2 | url=http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/10/2/pdf/i1520-0442-10-2-245.pdf | access-date=2007-04-14}}</ref> * Carbon dioxide accounts for about 383 parts per million by volume (ppm) 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 CO<sub>2</sub>. The [[Ordovician period]] of the Paleozoic era, the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> estimated at 4400ppm<ref>{{Citation | title=Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels | first1=Thomas J. | last1=Crowley | first2=Steven K. | last2=Baum | journal=[[Journal of Geophysical Research]] | year=1995 | volume=100 | issue=D1 | pages=1093–1102 | doi=10.1029/94JD02521}}</ref> (or 0.44% of the atmosphere). However, a recent study suggests the Ordovician period began with a reduction in CO<sub>2</sub>.<ref>{{cite web | title=Appalachian Mountains, carbon dioxide caused long-ago global cooling | url=http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm | first=Pam Frost | last=Gorder | publisher=[[Ohio State University]] Research news | access-date=2007-04-13 |date=[[October 25]] [[2006]]}}</ref> As noted above, [[climate model]]s 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"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Ch09.pdf|title=ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Ch09.pdf<!--INSERT TITLE-->|format=PDF}}</ref> (See also: [[attribution of recent climate change]].) ==== Alternate hypotheses ==== {{seealso|Solar variation theory}} [[Image:Sunspot Numbers.png|thumb|right|350px|400 year history of [[Wolf number|sunspot numbers]].]] [[Image:Solar-cycle-data.png|thumb|right|350px|Last 30 years of solar variability.]] [[Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., {{split link|Robert|Balling}}, {{split link|Richard|Lindzen}}, and {{split link|Roy|Spencer}}). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., {{split link|Willie|Soon}} and {{split link|Sallie|Baliunas}}), [[ocean current]]s (e.g., {{split link|William M.|Gray}}), increased [[solar activity]] (e.g., {{split link|Nir|Shaviv}} and {{split link|Jan|Veizer}}), cosmic rays (e.g., {{split link|Henrik|Svensmark}}), or unknown natural causes (e.g., {{split link|Marcel|Leroux}}). A few studies claim that 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, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of [[Solar variation theory#Effects on clouds|cloud formation]]. Solanki and co-workers 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.<ref>{{Citation | title=How unusual is today’s solar activity? Arising from: S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer, Nature, 2004, 431, 1084–1087| url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf | first1=Raimund | last1=Muscheler | first2=Fortunat | last2=Joos | first3=Simon A. | last3=Müller | first4=Ian | last4=Snowball | journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | year=2005 | volume=436 | pages=E3–E4 |doi=10.1038/nature04045 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{citation | first1=Sami K.| last1=Solanki | author-link=Sami Solanki | first2=Ilya G.| last2=Usoskin | first3=Bernd | last3=Kromer | first4=Manfred| last4=Schüssler | first5=Jürg | last5=Beer | title=Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years | journal=Nature | volume=431 | year=2004 | pages=1084–1087 | url=http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf | format=PDF | doi=10.1038/nature02995 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame | first=Michael | last=Leidig | coauthors=Roya Nikkhah | publisher=[[Telegraph.co.uk]] | date=[[July 17]] [[2004]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html }}</ref> Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with [[solar variation]].<ref>{{cite web | title=Space Weather/Solar Activity and Climate | url=http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ | publisher=[[Danish Meteorological Institute|DMI]] Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division |date=[[October 19]] [[1998]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref> Solar physicists Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the claim that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Lockwood | first = Mike | authorlink = | coauthors = Claus Fröhlich | title = Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature | journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society A | volume =463 | issue = | pages =2447 | date = | quote = Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified. | url = http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf | doi = 10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 | id = | accessdate = 2007-07-21 |format=PDF}}</ref> Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude that: <blockquote>There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.</blockquote> Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute this in a recent reply<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view|title=H. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forching}}</ref> arguing that [[troposphere|tropospheric]] air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. A linear warming trend of about 0.14 K/decade is however left unaccounted for. As of October 2007, this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. 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.<ref name="4ARSPM">{{cite web | title=Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers | publisher=[[IPCC]] | accessdate = 2007-04-12 | year=2007 | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Citation | first1=J.T. | last1=Houghton | author-link=John T. Houghton | first2=Y. | last2=Ding | first3=D.J. | last3=Griggs | first4=M. | last4=Noguer | first5=P.J. | last5=van der Linden | first6=X. | last6=Dai | first7=K. | last7=Maskell | first8=C.A. | last8=Johnson | title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis: Summary for Policymakers | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf | year=2001 | publisher=[[IPCC]] | format={{dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=intitle%3AClimate+Change+2001%3A+Working+Group+I%3A+The+Scientific+Basis%3A+Summary+for+Policymakers&as_publication=&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=2001&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }}</ref> 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. ====Modification by lower aerosols==== The "pause" in warming from the 1940s to 1960's is generally attributed to aerosol forcing, which acts to cool the climate. More recently, this forcing has (relatively) declined, which may have enhanced warming, though the effect is regionally varying. See [[global dimming]]. Another example of this is [http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0812/2008GL034228/ Ruckstuhl et al.(2008)] who found a 60% reduction in aerosol concentrations over Europe causing solar brightening.<ref>{{Citation | author = Ruckstuhl, C., et al. |year=2008| title=Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the recent rapid warming|journal=Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L12708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034228.|url=http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0812/2008GL034228/</ref> <Blockquote>. . .the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ~+1 W m−2 dec−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.</blockquote> === Instrumental temperature record === {{main|Instrumental temperature record|Urban heat island}} Skeptics have questioned the accuracy of the [[instrumental temperature record]] on the basis of the [[urban heat island]] effect, the quality of the surface station network and what they view as unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record. ==== Urban heat island ==== Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise{{Fact|date=August 2007}}. 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&nbsp;°C (0.09&nbsp;°F) degrees through 1990.<ref>{{Citation | editor1-first=J.T. | editor1-last=Houghton | editor1-link=John T. Houghton | editor2-first=Y. | editor2-last=Ding | editor3-first=D.J. | editor3-last=Griggs | editor4-first=M. | editor4-last=Noguer | editor5-first=P.J. | editor5-last=van der Linden | editor6-first=X. | editor6-last=Dai | editor7-first=K. | editor7-last=Maskell | editor8-first=C.A. | editor8-last=Johnson | title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis | chapter=2.2 How Much is the World Warming? | chapter-url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm | url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm | year=2001 | publisher=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] }}</ref> More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas.<ref> {{Citation | first=Thomas C. | last=Peterson, | journal=Journal of Climate | year=2003 | volume=16 | issue=18 | pages=2941–2959 | title=Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: no difference found. Journal of Climate | doi=10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2 | url=http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941%3AAOUVRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 }} </ref> [[Stephen McIntyre]] analyzed Peterson's raw data. He claimed to find "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2&nbsp;°C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems."<ref>[http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 Trends in Peterson 2003] by Stephen McIntyre</ref> McIntyre has not published his results in a peer-reviewed journal. 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.<ref> {{Citation | first = Parker | last = David | title = A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban | journal = Journal of Climate | year = 2006 | volume = 19 | pages = 2882–2895 | doi = 10.1175/JCLI3730.1 | url = http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3730.1 }}</ref> Pielke and Matsui published a paper disagreeing with Parker's conclusions.<ref>http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407</ref> ==== Surface station siting and adjustments ==== More recently, [[Roger A. Pielke]] and [[Stephen McIntyre]] have criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others have criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States.<ref> {{Cite journal | first=Christopher A. | last=Davey | coauthors=Pielke Sr., Roger A. | journal=Bull. Am. Met. Soc. | year=2005 | volume=86 | issue=4 | pages=497–504 | title=Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends | url= http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf | format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] | doi=10.1175/BAMS-86-4-497 }} </ref><ref>{{Cite journal | first=Rezaul | last=Mahmood | coauthors=Stuart A. Foster, David Logan | journal=International Journal of Climatology | year=2006 | volume=26 | issue=8 | pages=1091–1124 | title=The GeoProfile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited | url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112518278/PDFSTART | format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] | doi = 10.1002/joc.1298 }}</ref> In response, [[Anthony Watts]] began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.<ref>{{cite news | publisher=Investor's Business Daily | url=http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=267405911624139 | title=Fiddler On The Roof | date=[[2007-06-22]] }}</ref> Based on the work of Watts, [[Stephen McIntyre]] has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. The higher quality stations indicate the warmest years in the U.S. were 1934 and 1921, followed by 1998 and 2006.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2145 |title=Gridding from CRN1-2 |accessdate=2008-03-15 |last=McIntyre |first=Steve |coauthors= |date=[[October 4]], [[2007]] |work= |publisher=Climate Audit}}</ref> McIntyre has made all of his methods, data and code available for others to reproduce his findings. McIntyre's analysis has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature. === Estimates of climate sensitivity === Equilibrium [[climate sensitivity]] refers to the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration. This value is estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5&nbsp;°C with a best estimate of about 3&nbsp;°C.” Using a combination of surface temperature history and ocean heat content, [[Stephen E. Schwartz]] has proposed an estimate of [[climate sensitivity]] of 1.9 ± 1.0 K for doubled CO2. <ref>[http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapCommentResponse.pdf Response to Comments on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system."] Accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research</ref>, revised upwards from 1.1 ± 0.5 K <ref>[http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf Heat Capacity, Time Constant and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System] Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 112, D24S05 (2007).</ref>. Grant Foster, [[James Annan]], [[Gavin Schmidt]], and [[Michael Mann]]<ref>[http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf Comment on ‘Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,’] ''Schwartz et al'' Journal of Geophysical Research DRAFT September 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/ Climate Insensitivity] RealClimate September 2007</ref> argue that there are errors in both versions of Schwartz's analysis. Astronomer [[Nir Shaviv]] also has proposed a low value for climate sensitivity.<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..11008105S On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget] ''Shaviv, Nir J.'' Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A8, CiteID A08105 August 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity On Climate Sensitivity and why it is probably small] ScienceBits</ref> ====Stabilizing "Infrared Iris" Effect==== [[Richard Lindzen]] proposed an Infrared [[Iris hypothesis]] of compensating metereological processes that tend to stabilize climate change.<ref>{{cite web | author = Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou |journal = Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2001, pp 417-432 | year=2001 | url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf | title = Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? |format=PDF}}</ref> [[Roy Spencer (scientist)|Roy Spencer]] et al. discovered "a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system" in tropical intraseasonal oscillations that "may potentially support" the idea of an "Iris" effect, although they point out that their work is concerned with much shorter time scales.<ref>{{cite web |title=Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations | author= Spencer, Roy W., Braswell, William D., Christy, John R. & Hnilo, Justin | publication = Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, DOI:10.1029/2007GL029698 |date=2007 | url=http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf }}</ref> If confirmed, this effect might reduce the positive "amplifying" feedback assumed in climate models. ====Internal Radiative Forcing==== [[Roy Spencer (scientist)|Roy Spencer]] hypothesizes there is an "Internal Radiative Forcing" affecting climate variability,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/| title = Internal Radiative Forcing And The Illusion Of A Sensitive Climate System By Roy Spencer | author = Roy W. Spencer | date = 2008-04-15 | publisher = climatescience.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm |title="Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat" | author=Roy W. Spencer, PhD |accessdate=2008-05-12 | publisher = WeatherQuestions.com}}</ref> <blockquote>" . . .mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability."</blockquote> <blockquote>". . .low frequency, internal radiative forcing amounting to little more than 1 W m-2, assumed to be proportional to a weighted average of the Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation indices since 1900, produces ocean temperature behavior similar to that observed: warming from 1900 to 1940, then slight cooling through the 1970s, then resumed warming up to the present, as well as 70% of the observed centennial temperature trend."</blockquote> === Predictions of greenhouse gas rises === The "standard" set of scenarios for future atmospheric greenhouse gases are the IPCC [[Special Report on Emissions Scenarios|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg3/015.htm|title=IPCC scenarios}}</ref> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> is often used for modelling studies. There is debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic [[Fred Singer]] stated that "some good experts believe" that atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration will not double since economies are becoming less reliant on carbon.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html|title=Dr Fred Singer}}</ref> However, The Stern report, like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO<sub>2</sub> levels, concluding that: {{cquote|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 CO<sub>2</sub> well beyond 750ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.<ref name="SternCh7" />}} According to [[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]], "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."<ref>[[1 November]] issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate[http://www.llnl.gov/PAO/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-11-01.html]</ref> === Predictions of temperature rises === Conventional predictions of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future GHG emissions (see [[Special Report on Emissions Scenarios|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&nbsp;°C (2.0 to 11.5&nbsp;°F) between 1990 and 2100. Others have proposed that temperature increases may be higher than IPCC estimates. One theory is that the climate may reach a "[[Tipping point (climatology)|tipping point]]" where positive feedback effects lead to runaway global warming; such feedbacks include decreased reflection of solar radiation as sea ice melts, exposing darker seawater, and the potential release of large volumes of methane from thawing permafrost.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm | title=Global Warming 'Past the Point of No Return' | author=Steve Connor | publisher=[[The Independent]] | date=[[16 September]] [[2005]] | accessdate=2007-09-07}}</ref> Some scientists, such as [[David Orrell]] or [[Henk Tennekes]], say that climate change cannot be accurately predicted. Orrell says that the range of future increase in temperature suggested by the IPCC rather represents a social consensus in the climate community, but adds that "we are having a dangerous effect on the climate".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.postpythagorean.com/FAQ.html | title=Frequently asked questions on Apollo's Arrow/The Future of Everything, by David Orrell | author=David Orrell | publisher= | date= | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> A 2007 study by [[David Douglass]] and coworkers concluded that the 22 most commonly used [[global climate model]]s used by the IPCC were unable to accurately predict accelerated warming in the [[troposphere]] when tuned to match actual surface warming, concluding that "projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."<ref name="sciencedaily_1207">{{cite web |url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm |title=New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability |accessdate=2008-04-04 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date=2007-12-20 |work= |publisher=Sciencedaily.com}}</ref> This result contrasts a similar study of 19 models which found that discrepancies between model predictions and actual temperature were likely due to measurement errors.<ref name="sciencedaily_1207"/> ===Confidence in GCM forecasts=== The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads: <blockquote>''There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf|title=ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf<!--INSERT TITLE-->|format=PDF}}</ref></blockquote> Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html|title=Skeptic: The Magazine: Featured Article<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://climatesci.org/2008/04/23/comment-on-real-climates-post-on-the-relevance-of-the-sensitivity-of-initial-conditions-in-the-ipcc-models/|title=Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Comment On Real Climate’s Post On The Relevance Of The Sensitivity Of Initial Conditions In The IPCC Models<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> === Computer models versus Evidence-based forecasting === [[Image:Global Atmospheric Model.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Climate models are systems of [[differential equations]] based on the basic laws of [[physics]], [[Fluid dynamics|fluid motion]], and [[chemistry]]. To “run” a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. The atmospheric component of the model calculates [[winds]], [[heat transfer]], [[radiation]], [[relative humidity]], surface [[hydrology]], and surface fluxes of heat and moisture within each grid and evaluates interactions with neighboring points. The ocean component calculates [[ocean currents|currents]], heat content and salinity. The atmospheric and oceanic components interact, for example with evaporation from the oceans into the atmosphere and with atmospheric winds affecting ocean currents. Different models vary in such basics as grid size and therefore do not give the same results.]] Kesten Green and [[J. Scott Armstrong]] have criticized the validity of model projections of future climate, arguing "Advocates of complex [[climate model]]s claim that they are based on well-established laws of physics. But there is clearly much more to the models than physical laws, otherwise the models would all produce the same output, which they do not, and there would be no need for confidence estimates for model forecasts, which there certainly is. Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for experts to express their opinions."<ref name="Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts -NCPA">{{cite web |url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308b.html|title=Scientific forecasting versus opinion |accessdate=2008-04-19 |last=Green |first=Kesten |coauthors=J. Scott Armstrong |date=2008-2 |work= |publisher=National Center for Policy Analysis}}</ref> Green and Armstrong contend that the possibility of accurate long-term climate forecasts has never been proven, and argue that simple methods always outperform more complex forecasting methods.<ref name="Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts -NCPA">{{cite web |url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/|title=Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts - NCPA |accessdate=2008-04-11 |last=Green |first=Kesten |coauthors=J. Scott Armstrong |date=2008-2 |work= |publisher=National Center for Policy Analysis}}</ref> The work of Green and Armstrong has been criticized for showing insufficient domain knowledge to evaluate their own criteria and for failing to distinguish between forecasts based on past experience and projections based on physical models.<ref>{{cite web|author=[[Kevin E. Trenberth]]|title=Global Warming and Forecasts of Climate Change|url=http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o.html|date=[[July 11]], [[2007]]|publisher=Nature.com|accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast|author=[[Gavin Schmidt]]|publisher=[[RealClimate]]|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/|date=[[July 20]], [[2007]]|accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> === The poles === ==== Arctic sea ice ==== {{main|Arctic shrinkage}} [[Image:2007 Arctic Sea Ice.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Polar_ice_packs#Extent_and_trends_of_polar_ice_pac|Arctic Sea ice]] as of 2007 compared to 2005 and also compared to 1979-2000 average]] [[Image:Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Northern Hemisphere ice trends]] One unsettled question related to temperature rises is if or when the Arctic sea may become ice-free in the summer (winter sea ice remains in all scenarios). Arctic specialist Mark Serreze said, following the record low in 2007,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ | title=New historic sea ice minimum | publisher=The Cryosphere Today | author=William Chapman | date=[[9 August]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate."<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/04/climatechange | title=Loss of Arctic ice leaves experts stunned | author=David Adam | publisher=[[Guardian Unlimited]] | date=[[4 September]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-09-07}}</ref> However, a 2003 paper in [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] claims that computer models predictions poorly represent observed changes in Arctic sea ice:<ref>http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf High interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Arctic region] by Seymour Laxon, Neil Peacock & Doug Smith published by Nature, October 30, 2003</ref> {{cquote|The observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming.}} [[Roger A. Pielke]] claims melting Arctic sea ice is a result of regional warming and not global warming.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://climatesci.org/2007/08/10/arctic-sea-ice-areal-coverage-approaching-record-low/|title=Arctic Sea Ice Areal Coverage Approaching Record Low |accessdate=2008-04-19 |last=Pielke |first=Roger |coauthors= |date=2007-08-10 |work= |publisher=}}</ref> {{cquote|However, in terms of relating to the global average lower tropospheric temperature changes, in June 2007 (which is the latest data posted), the global average anomaly is +0.22 after being as high recently as +0.51C in January. Thus, it is regional warming, not “global warming” that appears to be the reason for this melting (Indeed, if it were global warming, we should see a similar reduction in Antarctic sea ice coverage, which, however, is not occurring (see<ref>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area image from The Cryosphere Today website</ref> and see<ref>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly image from The Cryosphere Today website</ref>).}} ==== Antarctic cooling ==== {{main|Antarctica cooling controversy}} [[Image:Antarctic Temperature Trend 1981-2007.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Antarctic Skin Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors. Skin temperature trends do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.]] The '''Antarctica cooling controversy''' relates to the question of whether or not current temperature trends in [[Antarctica]] contradict or cast doubt on the theory of [[global warming]]. Observations unambiguously show the Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed.<ref>[http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/ Monthly mean surface temperature data and derived statistics for some Antarctic stations] from ''www.antarctica.ac.uk''</ref><ref>[http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4236.1 A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures] ''William L. Chapman and John E. Walsh'' AMS Online November 2006</ref> Climate models predict that future trends in Antarctica are much smaller than in the [[Arctic]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-8.htm|title=IPCC Working Group I}}</ref> To the extent that a controversy exists it is confined to the popular press and blogs; there is no evidence of a related controversy within the scientific community. Various skeptics, most notably [[Michael Crichton]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html|title=Michael Crichton Official Site}}</ref> have asserted the findings of Doran et al.<ref>[http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response]''Doran et al'' Nature January 2002</ref> contradict global warming. [[Peter Doran]], the lead author of the paper, stated that "...our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'..."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Cold, Hard Facts] ''Doran, Peter'', The New York Times, July 2006</ref> Others, for example [[RealClimate]], agree there is no contradiction.<ref>[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18 Antarctic cooling, global warming?] Real Climate December 2004</ref> === Dispute over data archiving and sharing === Scientific journals and funding agencies generally require authors of peer-reviewed research to [[Scientific data archiving|archive]] all of the data necessary to reproduce their research. If another scientist attempts to reproduce the research and needs additional data, authors are expected (with few exceptions) to [[Data sharing|provide the data, metadata, methods and source code]] that may be necessary. Skeptics have charged that climate scientists do not abide by these policies and complained to Congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/comm/environment_and_public_works/general/repweeklycloser/TheWeeklyCloser9_23_05.pdf|title=The Weekly Closer from U.S. Senate, September 23, 2005.|format=PDF}}</ref> One example of this dispute relates to the [[surface temperature record]]. [[Hadley Centre]] at University of East Anglia is the keeper of the HADCRUT3 temperature record and has refused to provide any temperature data or source code.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} NASA's [[GISS]] keeps the GISTEMP record and provides a data archive but until recently had refused to provide enough information about its methods and its source code to reproduce its results.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} == Political, economic, and social aspects of the controversy == {{see also|Politics of global warming|Economics of global warming}} [[Image:H&WWonWashMon.png|right|thumb|[[Washington Monument]] illuminated with a message criticizing American environmental policy]] In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan [[Politics of the United States|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 through the control of greenhouse gas emissions.<ref>{{cite web | title=GOP still cool on global warming | first=Lisa | last=Mascaro | publisher=[[Las Vegas Sun]] | date=[[12 February]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2007/feb/12/566676824.html | accessdate = 2007-04-14}}</ref>{{Dead link|date=March 2008}} Recently, bipartisan measures have been introduced.<ref>{{cite web | title=The Safe Climate Act of 2007 | first=Henry | last=Waxman | authorlink=Henry Waxman | publisher=Rep. Henry Waxman | date=[[20 March]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm | quote={{USBill|110|HR|1590}} | accessdate = 2007-04-14}}</ref><!-- Partisan source s/b removed --> <!-- former [[President of the United States|U.S. presidential]] candidate [[Al Gore]], author of ''[[Earth in the Balance]]'', and narrator of the film ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' --> [[Kevin E. Trenberth]] stated: {{cquote|The [[Summary for policymakers|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.<ref>{{Citation | journal=Journal of the Forum for Environmental Law, Science, Engineering, and Finance | year=2001 | issue=8-26 | first=Kevin | last=Trenberth | author-link=Kevin E. Trenberth | title=The IPCC Assessment of global warming 2001 | url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html | access-date=2007-04-14 | format={{dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3ATrenberth+intitle%3AThe+IPCC+Assessment+of+global+warming+2001&as_publication=Journal+of+the+Forum+for+Environmental+Law%2C+Science%2C+Engineering%2C+and+Finance&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=2001&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }}</ref>}} As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including: # The social and environmental impacts # The appropriate response to climate change # Whether decisions require less uncertainty The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature: {{cquote|Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine."&nbsp;... [[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]]<ref>{{cite web | title=What's up with the weather: the debate: Stephen H. Schneider | url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/schneider.html | publisher=[[PBS Nova]] & [[Frontline (US TV series)|Frontline]] | date= | accessdate = 2007-04-13}}</ref>)}} 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 fuel]]s 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.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the [[Cato Institute]], a [[libertarian]] [[think tank]], who feel strongly that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.<ref name="taylorspeech">{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html|title=Global Warming, the Anatomy of a Debate: A speech by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute}}</ref> They claim 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.<ref name="PBSpalmer" /> {{cquote|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<ref name="PBSpalmer">{{cite web | title=What's up with the weather: the debate: Fred Palmer | url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html | publisher=[[PBS Nova]] & [[Frontline (US TV series)|Frontline]] | date= | accessdate = 2007-04-13}}</ref>)}} 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.<ref name="SternCh7">{{Citation | title=Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change | chapter=7. Projecting the Growth of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions | publisher=[[HM Treasury]], [[Cambridge University Press]] | editor1-first=Nicolas | editor1-last=Stern | editor1-link=Nicholas Stern | isbn=9780521700801 | chapter-url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3F8/81/ch_7_projecting_growth_of_ghg_emissions.pdf | url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm| year=2006 }}</ref> In his December 2006 book, ''[[Hell and High Water (book)|Hell and High Water]]'', energy technology expert [[Joseph J. Romm]] {{cquote|discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... Romm gives a name to those such as [[ExxonMobil]] who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... Romm gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. ...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort' (''Hell and High Water'', p. 25).<ref>[http://environmentalblogging.org/?p=780 Review from Environmentalblogging.org], [[February 21]], [[2008]]</ref>}} Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into consideration other potential impacts of any change. === Kyoto Protocol === {{main|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<ref>{{cite web | title=A Guide to Kyoto: Climate Change and What it Means to Canadians: Does the Kyoto treaty go far enough... or too far? | first=Ian | last=Darragh | publisher=[[International Institute for Sustainable Development]] |date=1998 | url=http://www.iisd.org/pdf/kyotoprimer_en.pdf | accessdate = 2007-04-14 |format=PDF}}</ref> or not nearly far enough<ref>{{cite web| url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf |publisher=UNFCCC| title= Kyoto protocol status(pdf)| accessdate = 2006-11-07|format=PDF}} ([[Niue]],The [[Cook Islands]],[[Nauru]] consider reductions "inadequate")</ref> 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 or even limit the growth of 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.<ref>The Whitehouse ([[June 11]] [[2001]]). [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change]. [[News release|Press release]]. Retrieved on [[5 November]][[2006]].</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite book | title=Climate Policy –From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond | location=[[Stanford University]] | series=Essays in Public Policy, No. 102 | publisher=[[Hoover Institution]] | first=S. Fred | last=Singer | authorlink=S. Fred Singer | date=[[May 24]] [[2000]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 | isbn=0-8179-4372-2 | pages=49 | url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary }}</ref> As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is claimed to cause additional carbon emissions. The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the USA ([[List of Kyoto Protocol signatories|see signatories]]). The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers {{Fact|date=August 2007}}. === 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. ==== Funding for scientists who do not acknowledge anthropogenic global warming ==== Several skeptical scientists—[[Fred Singer]], [[Fred Seitz]] and [[Patrick Michaels]]—have been linked to organizations funded by [[ExxonMobil]] and [[Philip Morris]] for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: [[Global warming controversy#Risks of passive smoking|Risks of passive smoking]]). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the [[George C. Marshall Institute]], have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html | first=David | last=Adam | publisher=[[The Guardian]] | title=Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | date=[[27 January]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> On [[February 2]], [[2007]], ''[[The Guardian]]'' stated<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html | first=Ian | last=Sample | publisher=[[The Guardian]] | title=Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | date=[[2 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp | title=Climate Controversy and AEI: Facts and Fictions | publisher=[[American Enterprise Institute]] for Public Policy Research | date=[[9 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with [[American Enterprise Institute|AEI]], had sent letters<ref>{{cite web | url=http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf | title=AEI Letter to Pf. Schroeder | date=[[5 July]] [[2006]] | first=Steven F. | last=Hayward | coauthors=Kenneth Green | accessdate = 2007-04-14 |format=PDF}}</ref> to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering [[United States Dollar|US$]]10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]]. A furor was raised when it was revealed that the [[Intermountain Rural Electric Association]] (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, [[New Hope Environmental Services]], and solicited additional private donations from its members.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1 ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming] ABC August 2006</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/files/lewandowski_memo.pdf|title=Lewandowski memo|format=PDF}}</ref><ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01433004.htm FEATURE-Carbon backlash: coal divides corporations] ''James, Steve'' Reuters, July 2007</ref> The [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',<ref>{{cite web | title=Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science | publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |date=January 2007 | url=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[[underwriting]] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[[funnelling]] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics] MSNBC January 2007</ref> though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.<ref>[http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007 Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers] Greenpeace May 2007</ref> 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!"<ref>{{cite web | title=Links | url=http://www.westernfuels.org/links.htm | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060115152729/http://www.westernfuels.org/links.htm | archivedate=2006-01-15 | accessdate = 2007-04-13 | publisher=Western Fuels }}</ref> [[Donald Kennedy]], editor-in-chief of [[Science (journal)|Science]], has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/ap/tech/mainD8J4GH300.shtml | title=Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic | first=Seth | last=Borenstein | publisher=[[CBS News]] from [[Associated Press]] | date=[[27 July]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> ==== Funding for scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming ==== A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist [[Reid Bryson]] said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=199677|title=www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=199677<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref> Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist [[Marcel Leroux]],<ref>"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) [http://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/spip/ae_article.php3?id_article=1]</ref> NASA's [[Roy Spencer (scientist)|Roy Spencer]], climatologist and IPCC contributor [[John Christy]], University of London biogeographer [[Philip Stott]],<ref>{{cite web | title=Must-See Global Warming TV | publisher=[[Fox News]] |date=March 2007 | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258993,00.html | accessdate = 2007-05-14 }}</ref> and [[Accuracy in Media]].<ref>Trulock, Notra, [http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam,"] Accuracy in Media, [[August 26]] [[2002]]</ref> [[Richard Lindzen|Richard S. Lindzen]], the [[Alfred P. Sloan]] Professor of [[Meteorology]] at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], makes the specific claim that "[[in]] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [[at MIT]], 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate of Fear | publisher=[[Wall Street Journal]] |date=April 2006 | url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 | accessdate = 2007-05-14 }}</ref> Lindzen himself, however, 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",<ref>{{cite web | url=http://dieoff.org/page82.htm | title=The Heat Is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial | first=Ross | last=Gelbspan | authorlink=Ross Gelbspan | publisher=[[Harper's Magazine]] | date=December 1995 | accessdate=2008-02-08 }}</ref> as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]], and [[NASA]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf | title=Reconciling observations of global temperature change | last=Lindzen | first=Richard S. | authorlink=Richard S. Lindzen | coauthors=Constantine Giannitsis |date=2002 | journal=Geophysical research letters | volume=29 | issue=12 | pages=24–26 | accessdate=2007-09-10|format=PDF}}</ref><!-- See acknowledgments on last page --> === Changing 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'' (published by the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml|title=We're All Global Warmers Now|date=[[August 11]], [[2005]]|author=Ronald Bailey|publisher=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason Online]]|accessdate=2008-04-27}}</ref> By 2007, he wrote "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 [[Pollyanna principle|Pollyannaism]] is no longer looking very tenable".<ref>{{cite web | first=Ronald | last=Bailey | authorlink=Ronald Bailey | title=Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough | url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html | publisher=[[Reason (magazine)]] | date=[[2 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref> Others have shifted from claims that global warming is unproven to advocating [[Adaptation to global warming|adaptation]], sometimes also calling for more data, rather than take immediate action on ''[[Mitigation of global warming|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 academic [[Bjørn Lomborg]].<ref>{{cite web | first=Bjørn | last=Lomborg | authorlink=Bjørn Lomborg | title=Why Kyoto will not stop this | publisher=[[The Guardian]] | date=[[17 August]] [[2001]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4240581,00.html}}</ref> Lomborg has been severely questioned by groups in Denmark.<ref>{http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/}</ref> Nordhaus and Schellenberger<ref>{http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/}</ref> present similar, more sophisticated, arguments in favor of adaption. "There are alternatives to its [["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 [[American Enterprise Institute]], a conservative think-tank.<ref>{{cite web | first=Steven F. | last=Hayward | title=Acclimatizing - How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming | date=[[May 15]] [[2006]] | url=http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24401/pub_detail.asp | publisher=[[American Enterprise Institute]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref> Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive" -- an example of so-called [[geoengineering]]. In 2001 Richard Lindzen 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?"'' said "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?"<ref>{{cite web | title=How Dangerous Is Global Warming? | publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]] | archivedate=2001-06-17 | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | archiveurl=http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/2nd/howdangi.htm | date=[[17 June]] [[2001]] | url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/74167018.html?dids=74167018:74167018&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+17%2C+2001&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=M.3&desc=DIALOGUE }}</ref> Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO<sub>2</sub> 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=World to celebrate Kyoto Protocol start | first=Michelle | last=Keller | date=[[15 February]] [[2005]] | publisher=[[The Stanford Daily]] | url=http://daily.stanford.org/article/2005/2/15/worldToCelebrateKyotoProtocolStart | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Harrison | first=Paul | coauthors=Fred Pearce | editor=Victoria Dompka Markham | title=AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment | url=http://atlas.aaas.org/ | chapter=Foreword by Peter H. Raven | chapterurl=http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/foreword01.html | publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] & [[University of California Press]] | isbn=0-520-23081-7 | pages=215 |date=2000 | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite web | title=Environmental Task Force | publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]] | url=http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s162/s162i.html | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate Change: Consensus Forming around Adaptation | first=H. Sterling | last=Burnett | publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]] |date=[[September 19]] [[2005]] | url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba527/index.html | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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,"<ref>{{cite web | title=ExxonMobil’s Corporate Governance on Climate Change | first=Andrew | last=Logan | coauthors=David Grossman | publisher=[[Ceres (organization)|Ceres]] & [[Investor Network on Climate Risk]] |date=May 2006 | url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_XOM_corp_gov_climate_change_053006.pdf | accessdate = 2007-04-14 |format=PDF}}</ref> says this Ceres report.<ref>{{cite web | title=Letter to Michael J. Boskin, Secretary Exxon Mobil Corporation | publisher=[[Investor Network on Climate Risk]] | date=[[May 15]] [[2006]] | url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_INCR_letter_XOM_051806.pdf | accessdate = 2007-04-14 |format=PDF}}</ref> The Bush administration has also voiced support for an adaptation only policy. "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."<ref>{{cite web | title=Bush climate plan says adapt to inevitable Cutting gas emissions not recommended | first=Andrew C. | last=Revkin | publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] | date=[[3 June]] [[2002]] | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/03/MN215596.DTL | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later,<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate Compendium: International Negotiations: Vulnerability & Adaptation | publisher=Climate Change Knowledge Network & [[International Institute for Sustainable Development]] |date=2007 | url=http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> "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.'"<ref>{{cite web | title=US Pullout Forces Kyoto Talks To Focus on Adaptation - Climate Talks Will Shift Focus From Emissions | first=Andrew C. | last=Revkin | publisher=[[The New York Times]] (reprinted by heatisonline.org) |date=[[October 23]] [[2002]] | url=http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4117&method=full | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> see also [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html]. The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however: {{cquote|''"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&nbsp;... 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."''<ref>{{cite web | title=Letter to The Honorable George W. Bush — State Attorneys General – A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers of the Following States: Alaska · California · Connecticut · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts New Hampshire · New Jersey · New York · Rhode Island · Vermont | date=[[17 July]] [[2002]] | url=http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite web | title=Costing Climate Change | first=George | last=Monbiot | authorlink=George Monbiot | publisher=[[New Internationalist]] |date=December 2006 | url=http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2006/12/01/essay/ | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient.<ref>{{cite web | title=An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security | first=Peter | last=Schwartz | authorlink=Peter Schwartz (futurist) | coauthors=Doug Randall | publisher=[[Global Business Network]] for the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] |date=February 2004 | url=http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231 | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite book | title=Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base | author=Engineering, and Public Policy (U. S.) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming Committee on Science | publisher=[[National Academies Press]] | isbn=0-309-04386-7 | pages=944 | year=1992 | url=http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1605 | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> , and has been all along.<ref>{{cite book | title=Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses | publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] | editor=Robert T. Watson, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss | isbn=052156431X | date=[[May 31]] [[1996]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report | publisher=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] |date=2001 | url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> 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 === Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.<ref>[http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074 US climate scientists pressured on climate change], NewScientist, 31 January 2007</ref>. In a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General it has been reveiled that NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election<ref>http://news.scotsman.com/world/Nasa-39played-down39-global-.4147975.jp</ref>. U.S. officials, such as [[Philip Cooney]], have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,<ref>Campbell, D. ([[June 20]] [[2003]]) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,981127,00.html "White House cuts global warming from report"] ''Guardian Unlimited''</ref> many of whom, such as [[Thomas Knutson]], have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.<ref>Donaghy, T., ''et al.'' (2007) [http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf "Atmosphere of Pressure:"] a report of the [[Government Accountability Project]] (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)</ref><ref>Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, [[July 27]]. [http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/media-interviews.html Obtained via FOIA request on [[July 31]] [[2006]].] and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, [[September 29]]. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Commerce_Department_tells_Nationa_1004.html "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved"] ''The Raw Story,'' [[October 4]]. Accessed [[December 22]] [[2006]]</ref><ref>Zabarenko, D. (2007) [http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-03-08T222736Z_01_N08259521_RTRUKOC_0_US-POLARBEARS-SCIENTISTS.xml "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists"] ''Reuters''</ref> Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist [[Chris Mooney]] in his book ''[[The 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<ref>{{cite web | first=Andrew C. | last=Revkin | title=Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | date=[[29 January]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all }}</ref> 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;<ref>Eilperin, J. ([[April 6]] [[2006]]) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House"] ''Washington Post''</ref> 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 (TV series)|Panorama]]'' recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear | publisher=[[BBC]] Panorama | date=[[1 June]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm}}</ref> On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor [[Ted Kulongoski]] publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/facts_about_geo.html|title=HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the “state climatologist”<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html|title=Local News | kgw.com | News for Oregon and SW Washington<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> As a result of scientific doubts he has expressed regarding global warming, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reportedly attempted to remove [[David Legates]] from his office of Delaware State Climatologist.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} In late 2006, Virginia Governor [[Tim Kaine]] (D) reportedly began an investigation of Virginia State Climatologist and global warming skeptic [[Patrick Michaels]]. 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."<ref>{{cite web | title=Chaotic world of climate truth | first=Mike | last=Hulme | publisher=[[BBC]] News | date=[[November 4]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web | title=Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming | publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] and [[Associated Press]] | date=[[30 January]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml }}</ref> Critics writing in the ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial page claim that the survey<ref>{{cite book | first=Timothy | last=Donaghy | coauthors=Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz | chapter=Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal) | title=Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science | publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] & [[Government Accountability Project]] |date=February 2007 | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf | chapterurl=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Full-survey-instrument-with-responses.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref> was itself unscientific.<ref>{{cite web | first=James | last=Taranto | authorlink=James Taranto | title=They Call This Science? | publisher=[[OpinionJournal.com]] | date=[[1 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 | url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009609 }}</ref> === 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. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/142464.html|title=www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/142464.html<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref> A third case, [[Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.]], a class action lawsuit 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. Described as a nuisance lawsuit, it was dismissed by District Court.<ref>{{cite web | first=Justin R. | last=Pidot | publisher=[[Georgetown University Law Center]] | year=2006 | url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf | title=Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues | accessdate = 2007-04-13 |format=PDF}}</ref> The [[Sierra Club]] sued the U.S. government over failure to raise [[Fuel economy in automobiles|automobile fuel efficiency standards]], and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.<ref>{{cite web | title=Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit | url=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-12/a16037.htm | publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] | date=[[12 August]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref><ref>{{cite court | litigants=The [[Sierra Club]] vs. [[Stephen L. Johnson]] ([[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]) | court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]] | date=[[20 January]] [[2006]] | opinion=03-10262 | url=http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf | accessdate = 2007-04-13|format=PDF}}</ref> === Betting === A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change.<ref>{{cite web | first=James | last=Annan | authorlink=James Annan | title=Betting on climate change | url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161 | publisher=[[Realclimate]] | date=[[14 June]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref><ref>{{Citation | first=Richard A. | last=Kerr | title=Climate Change: Hedging Your Climate-Change Bets | journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] | doi=10.1126/science.310.5747.433 | year=2005 | volume=310 | number=5747 | pages=433 | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5747/433 | pmid=16239459 }}</ref> 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 [[United States Dollar|US$]]10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003.<ref>{{Citation | first=Jim | last=Giles | title=Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down | journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | doi=10.1038/436897a | year=2005 | volume=436 | issue=7053 | pages=897 | url=http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=james+annan+sceptic&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=NATURE&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all }}</ref> 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. Lindzen, however, claims that he asked for 2-1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4&nbsp;°C.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html|title=Reason Magazine - Betting on Climate Change<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' columnist [[George Monbiot]] challenged [[Myron Ebell]] of the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] to a [[Pound sterling|GB£]]5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling.<ref>{{cite web | first=David | last=Adam | title=Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world | publisher=[[The Guardian]] | date=[[19 August]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html}}</ref> Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted,<ref>{{cite web | first=James | last=Annan | authorlink=James Annan | title=Betting Summary | url=http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html | publisher=James' Empty Blog | date=[[9 June]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-04-13 }}</ref> including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by [[Patrick Michaels]] in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years. [http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/yet-more-betting-on-climate-with-world.html] A different, $6,000-to-$9,000 bet, where both sides expect warming but differ on the amount, with one break-even point at 0.15&nbsp;°C/decade, was made between Dr David Evans and Brian Schmidt. [http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html] Dr Evans' reasons are described here. [http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html] === Global warming and the precautionary principle === Numerous authors have applied the [[precautionary principle]] to the [[global warming]] debate,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/welchway/welchway_02_19_07.htm|title=The Global Warming Wager<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=4079|title=Henry Thornton - Global Warming: Pascal`s Wager<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> some likening the debate to [[Pascal's wager]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120256.html|title=Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Pascal's Wager on Global Warming?<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> The principle stems out of the debate on whether or not governments should adopt the [[precautionary principle]] and act to reduce emissions even in the absence of certainty regarding warming. The principle postulates that it is a better "bet" to act as if global warming exists than otherwise, because the [[expected value]] of acting — that is, the fact that the impending crises due to global warming will have been averted — is always greater than the expected value of inaction. == 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]], author of ''[[The Republican War on Science]]'', 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". This is also the subject of a recent book by Environmental lawyer [[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]] entitled ''Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.'' Another book on this topic is ''[[The Assault on Reason]]'' by former U.S. Vice-President [[Al Gore]]. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book ''The Heat Is On'' by [[Ross Gelbspan]]. 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/How%20to%20think%20about%20GW.htm |title=NEW ON THE SEPP WEB |accessdate=2007-05-23 |format= |work=}}</ref> Political scientist [[Roger A. Pielke (Jr)|Roger Pielke, Jr.]], responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.<ref>{{cite news | first=Roger A. | last=Pielke Jr. | authorlink=Roger A. Pielke (Jr) | title=Accepting Politics In Science | publisher=[[The Washington Post]] | date=[[2005-01-10]] | accessdate=2007-04-24 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61928-2005Jan9.html | page=A17}}</ref> === CFCs and ozone layer === Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to [[ozone depletion|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 broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] and other national academies); [[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 some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including [[Sallie Baliunas]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9750|title=The Trouble with Ozone - by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D. - The Heartland Institute<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> [[Patrick Michaels]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4490|title=An October Environmental Surprise?<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> [[Kary Mullis]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/11/reviews/981011.11teresit.html|title=Weird Science<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/11/reviews/981011.11teresit.html|title=Weird Science<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> [[Steven Milloy]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html|title=Ozone - Seasonal<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/askourscholars/milloy/index.html|title=www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9750|title=The Trouble with Ozone - by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D. - The Heartland Institute<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref>, [[Fred Singer]],<ref>{{cite web | title=Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Ozone Depletion | url=http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozcongr1.html | author=S. Fred Singer |date=1996-08-01 | accessdate = 2007-02-26 | publisher=[[Science & Environmental Policy Project|SEPP]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-singer.html|title=Advancing Science vs. Stagnant Policy: The Case of Assessing Ozone Depletion Risk<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> and [[Frederick Seitz]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=21|title=The Marshall Institute - A Conversation with Dr. Frederick Seitz<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> === Risks of passive smoking === {{main|passive smoking}} By the early 1980s,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v38/ai_15168843/pg_5|title=Children and passive smoking: a review | Journal of Family Practice | Find Articles at BNET.com<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> concerns began to arise regarding the health risks of [[passive smoking]] and whether policy responses such as [[smoking ban]]s are appropriate. Medical, governmental, and UN organizations such as the [[United States Surgeon General]],<ref>[http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General]. Issued [[June 26]] [[2006]]; accessed [[June 4]] [[2007]].</ref> the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]],<ref name="EPA report">US Environmental Protection Agency. {{PDF|1=[http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793 Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders]}}</ref> and the [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]] (IARC) of the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>{{cite web | title=Monographs Programme report on SHS | url=http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/02-involuntary.html | accessdate = 2006-07-26}}</ref> have concluded that the scientific evidence shows that passive smoking is harmful. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including [[Richard Lindzen]],<ref>{{web cite|url=http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=31|title="Passive Smoking:How Great a Hazard?"}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Truth About Global Warming; The forecasts of doom are mostly guesswork, Richard Lindzen argues--and he has Bush's ear|author=Fred Guterl |publisher=[[Newsweek]] | url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200107/ai_kepm313845 | date=[[2001-07-23]] | access-date=2007-04-20 }}</ref> [[Steven Milloy]],<ref name="tnr">[http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606 "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire"], published in ''The New Republic'', accessed [[20 September]] [[2006]]. Also [http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?id=13581 available without subscription] at FreePress.net.</ref> [[Fred Singer]] (1994),<ref>[http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0002555-2573.html?pattern=ALEXIS+DE+TOCQUEVILLE+INSTITUTION&?pattern=ALEXIS+DE+TOCQUEVILLE+INSTITUTION#images The EPA and the science of environmental tobacco smoke] / [http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2040165575.html]</ref> [[Fred Seitz]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/4/375|title=Tobacco Control - Sign In Page<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> [[Michael Crichton]],<ref name="crichton03aliens" /> [[Michael Fumento]] in 1997<ref>{{cite web | title=Truth about Second-hand Smoke |accessdate=2007-08-18 |last=Fumento |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Fumento |date=1997 |url=http://fumento.com/smoke2.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=EPA's Pseudoscience Goes Up in Smoke |accessdate=2007-08-18|last=Fumento |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Fumento |date=[[22 July]] [[1998]] |url=http://fumento.com/smoke.html}}</ref> the [[Cooler Heads Coalition|Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert)]]<ref>{{cite web | title=About GlobalWarming.org | url=http://globalwarming.org | accessdate=2007-04-24 | publisher=[[Cooler Heads Coalition]] | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040602194813/globalwarming.org/about.htm | archivedate=2004-06-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Science for Sale? Industry-funded "Consumer" Groups Stand Up for Chemicals | publisher=E/magazine | accessdate=2007-04-24 | url=http://www.emagazine.com/view/?474&src= }}</ref> and the [[Institute of Public Affairs]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/industry_front.htm|title=Resources - The Tobacco Industry - Front Groups and Spokespeople<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030823204019/http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.htm|title=smh.com.au - Deep pockets behind deep thought<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> According to the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]]<ref name = "ExxonSecrets.org-SoundScienceCoalition">[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=6 ExxonSecrets Factsheet: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science | publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |date=January 2007 | url=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> criticism of the scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in [[The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]], a [[lobbying|lobby group]]<ref name="titleOur Stolen Future:Tobacco front groups attempt to weaken epidemiology">{{cite web |url=http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry/2001-11ongandglantz.htm |title=Our Stolen Future:Tobacco front groups attempt to weaken epidemiology |accessdate=2008-02-23 |format= |work=}}</ref><ref name="titleConstructing Sound Science and Good Epidemiology: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms -- Ong and Glantz 91 (11): 1749 -- American Journal of Public Health">{{cite web |url=http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/1749 |title=Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms -- Ong and Glantz 91 (11): 1749 -- American Journal of Public Health |accessdate=2008-02-23 |format= |work=}}</ref>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]].<ref name = "ExxonSecrets.org-SoundScienceCoalition"/><ref name="monbiot06">{{cite web | title=The denial industry | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 | accessdate=2007-08-11 | publisher=[[The Guardian]] | quote="By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition." }}</ref> TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming. == See also == {{col-begin}} {{col-2}} * [[Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change]] * [[Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change]] * [[Climate change denial]] * [[Environmental skepticism]] * [[Global cooling]] * [[Hockey stick controversy]] * [[Hubbert peak theory]] * Supporters and opponents: ** [[Scientific opinion on climate change|Scientific organizations]] that have stated support for, or opposition to, the scientific opinion on climate change ** [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] ** [[:Category:Global warming skeptics|Skeptical organizations and individuals]] ** [[:Category:Former global warming skeptics|Former skeptics]] {{col-break}} * [[Scientific skepticism]] * [[1500-Year climate cycle]] * ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' * ''[[Hell and High Water (book)|Hell and High Water]]'' * ''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' * ''[[The Republican War on Science]]'' * [[Michael Crichton]] {{col-end}} == References == {{reflist|2}} == External links == ===Related to debates=== * [http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/Pubdeb/SPFtranscript.pdf A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming]: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, [[November 20]], [[1998]]. * [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151 Debate] on March 15, 2007 sponsored by Intelligence Squared involving [[Richard Lindzen]], [[Philip Stott]], [[Michael Crichton]], [[Gavin Schmidt]], Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard C. J. Somerville ===Related to the hockey stick graph=== * [http://www.climateaudit.org ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions] * [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8 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 (scientist)|Michael Mann's]] famous graph. === Climate-specialized media === * [http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2 Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science] * [http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article], September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures {{convert|0.7|°F|°C|abbr=on}} below 20th century average. * [http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=158 Climate Catastrophe Canceled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change]: Five-part documentary from the Canadian [[Friends of Science|"Friends of Science Society"]]. === Other media === * [http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar CO<sub>2</sub> or Solar?] A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm Climate scepticism: The top 10], a list from the [[BBC]] of the top reasons why climate sceptics dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate. * [http://www.rightmarch.com/media/greenhouse.ram The Greenhouse Conspiracy]: British television documentary aired in 1990, noting the lack of concrete evidence for global warming in 1990. * [https://cf.iats.missouri.edu/news/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842 MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming] Engineering Professor Curt Davis says [[Competitive Enterprise Institute|CEI]] TV Spots are Misrepresenting His Research. * [http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html The Denial Machine]: Information about a documentary arguing that the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled. * [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241&q=Global+warming&total=30530&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 Global Warming or Global Governance? (Google video)] - the other side of the global warming story * [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics] by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, ''Natuurwetenschap & Techniek'', February, 2005. * http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics {{global warming}} [[Category:Climate change assessment and attribution]] [[Category:Environmental controversies]] [[Category:Environmental skepticism]] [[Category:Climate change]] [[Category:Climate change feedbacks and causes]] [[Category:Global warming|*]] [[de:Kontroverse um die globale Erwärmung]] [[fr:Controverse sur le réchauffement climatique]] [[ja:地球温暖化に関する論争]] [[no:Klimaskepsis]] [[pl:Kontrowersje wokół globalnego ocieplenia]] [[fi:Ilmastonmuutoskeskustelu]]