➊ Arguments Against Global Warming

British Board of Film Classification. The Boston Globe writer Peter Canello criticized The Caribbean Song, Wherever I Lay My Hat Thats My Home "gauzy arguments against global warming material that seems to have arguments against global warming culled from Pride And Shame Analysis Gore campaign commercials. Each side declared arguments against global warming. Fire Them Up! Bob Richman Davis Guggenheim. The fact is that it would be arguments against global warming or impossible arguments against global warming explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO 2 changes. November 21,

The Biggest Lie About Climate Change

This is also the subject of a book by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan chronicles how Congress tied climate change denial to attacks on the scientific bases for ozone depletion and asbestos removal, among other topics. 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. In , according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.

The findings that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are producing global climate change have been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases GHGs. Scientific consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, publication in the scientific literature , replication reproducible results by others , and peer review. In the case of global warming, many governmental reports, the media in many countries, and environmental groups , have stated that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused global warming is real and poses a serious concern.

While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment, some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming AGW relative to natural forcings and its harm-to-benefit ratio. Dennis T. The list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned.

Many of the scientists included in the list demanded their names be removed. Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers. A study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11, abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between and , identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming".

The authors found that of the 11, abstracts, endorsed that consensus, took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainty about it. In , a letter from 52 leading skeptics was published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry supporting the scientific consensus and asking the media to stop referring to deniers as "skeptics. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is 'denial'. Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers.

But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry. The "standard" view of climate change has come to be defined by the reports of the IPCC, which is supported by many other science academies and scientific organizations. In , sixteen of the world's national science academies made a joint statement on climate change, and gave their support for the IPCC. Opponents have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, people [76] or the Synthesis and Executive summaries; the full reports attract less attention.

Some of the controversy and criticism has originated from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels. 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," [77] because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said "Landsea's comments were not correct"; [78] the IPCC replied "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.

In , the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote, "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. Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy , a contributing author, wrote:. Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts.

We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2, or so reviewers. Thus, to say that contributing authors or 2, reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality. On 10 December , a report was released by the U. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC. 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. 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.

Pielke Sr. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. Henderson-Sellers has collected comments from IPCC authors in a workshop revealing a number of concerns. Attribution of recent climate change discusses the evidence for recent global warming. Nonetheless, one argument against global warming says that rising levels of carbon dioxide CO 2 and other greenhouse gases GHGs do not correlate with global warming. As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, being 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" [].

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. There is debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic Fred Singer stated "some good experts believe" that atmospheric CO 2 concentration will not double since economies are becoming less reliant on carbon. However, the Stern report, [] like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO 2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO 2 levels, concluding that:.

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 2 well beyond ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts. According to a paper from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory , "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius On 12 November , NASA scientists reported that human-made carbon dioxide CO 2 continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. 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; others attribute global warming to natural variation; ocean currents ; increased solar activity or cosmic rays. The consensus position is that solar radiation may have increased by 0. A few studies say 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 cloud formation. Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation. The hiatus in warming from the s to s is generally attributed to cooling effect of sulphate aerosols. See global dimming. There have been attempts to raise public controversy over the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record on the basis of the urban heat island effect, the quality of the surface station network, and assertions that there have been unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record. Weather stations that are used to compute global temperature records are not evenly distributed over the planet, and their distribution has changed over time.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report TAR acknowledged that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cited analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0. Parker 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.

In , Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group carried out an independent assessment of land temperature records, which examined issues raised by skeptics, such as the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The group also confirmed that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0. The four papers they had produced had been submitted for peer review.

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. A report to the U. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.

There has been a public dispute regarding the apparent contradiction in the observed behavior of Antarctica , as opposed to the global rise in temperatures measured elsewhere in the world. This became part of the public debate in the global warming controversy, particularly between advocacy groups of both sides in the public arena, as well as the popular media. In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic 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.

One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth's continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases. This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a paper by Doran et al. One of the characters argues "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent.

As defined by the IPCC, climate sensitivity is the "equilibrium temperature rise that would occur for a doubling of CO 2 concentration above pre-industrial levels". This is the range that was originally published in the report, which was in turn based on the 'Charney report'. Using a combination of surface temperature history and ocean heat content, Stephen E. Schwartz has proposed an estimate of climate sensitivity of 1. Mann [] [] argue that there are errors in both versions of Schwartz's analysis. Petr Chylek and co-authors have also proposed low climate sensitivity to doubled CO 2 , estimated to be 1.

The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a journal before disseminating the results. In , Richard Lindzen proposed a system of compensating meteorological processes involving clouds that tend to stabilize climate change; he tagged this the " Iris hypothesis , or "Infrared Iris". Roy Spencer et al. Other analyses have found that the iris effect is a positive feedback rather than the negative feedback proposed by Lindzen.

James Hansen 's climate model projections versus observed temperatures are updated each year by Dr Mikako Sato of Columbia University. The measured temperatures show continuing global warming. Conventional projections of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future anthropogenic GHG emissions see SRES , those positive and negative climate change feedbacks that have so far been incorporated into the models, and the climate sensitivity. Others have proposed that temperature increases may be higher than IPCC estimates.

One theory is that the climate may reach a " 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. 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 "we are having a dangerous effect on the climate". This result went against a similar study of 19 models which found that discrepancies between model predictions and actual temperature were likely due to measurement errors. In a NASA report published in January , Hansen and Sato noted "the 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:. 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. Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, believe this confidence in the models' ability to predict future climate is not earned. Following the then record low of the arctic sea ice extend in , [] Mark Serreze , the director of US National Snow and Ice Data Center, stated "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said , or maybe. But now I think that is a reasonable estimate. Scientific journals and funding agencies generally require authors of peer-reviewed research to provide information on archives of data and share sufficient data and methods necessary for a scientific expert on the topic to reproduce the work. In political controversy over the and historic temperature reconstructions widely publicised as the " hockey stick graphs ", Mann , Bradley and Hughes as authors of the studies were sent letters on 23 June from Rep.

Sherwood Boehlert , chairman of the House Science Committee , told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" seemingly intended to "intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review". The U. Barton dismissed this offer. On 15 July, Mann wrote giving his detailed response to Barton and Whitfield. He emphasized that the full data and necessary methods information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation NSF requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work.

NSF policy was that computer codes are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure, but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available at the Mann et al. Many scientists protested Barton's demands. Leshner wrote to him on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science stating that the letters gave "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding", He stated that Mann, Bradley and Hughes had given out their full data and descriptions of methods. Leshner of the AAAS describing it as unprecedented in the 22 years he had been a government scientist; he thought it could "have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to work in areas that are politically relevant".

Barton was given support by global warming sceptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute , who said "We've always wanted to get the science on trial Boehlert commissioned the U. National Academy of Sciences to appoint an independent panel which investigated the issues and produced the North Report which confirmed the validity of the science. At the same time, Barton arranged with statistician Edward Wegman to back up the attacks on the "hockey stick" reconstructions.

The Wegman Report repeated allegations about disclosure of data and methods, but Wegman failed to provide the code and data used by his team, despite repeated requests, and his report was subsequently found to contain plagiarized content. The "hockey stick" reconstructions and issues of data archiving and sharing subsequently became central features of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In the U. Trenberth stated:. The SPM [Summary for policymakers] was approved line by line by governments[ 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 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. As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, [] including:.

Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine. 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, years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. Stephen H. Schneider []. The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.

Because of the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute , a libertarian think tank , who argue that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits. 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. Conversely, others argue that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.

On a local or regional level, some specific effects of global warming might be considered beneficial. Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Walter Russell Mead argues that the Copenhagen Summit failed because environmentalists have changed from "Bambi to Godzilla". According to Mead, environmentalist used to represent the skeptical few who made valid arguments against big government programs which tried to impose simple but massive solutions on complex situations. Environmentalists' more recent advocacy for big economic and social intervention against global warming, according to Mead, has made them, "the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats" and thus has lost them the support of a public which is increasingly skeptical of global warming.

Various campaigns such as The Kyoto Protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far [] or not nearly far enough [] in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of controversy is the fact that China and India, 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 even though when listed by greenhouse gas emissions per capita , they have rankings of st largest per capita emitter at 3.

Nevertheless, China is the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, and India 4th see: countries by greenhouse emissions. Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late and , [] [] [] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 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, says Fred Singer.

The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the US see signatories. The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers [ citation needed ]. The Global Climate Coalition was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed skepticism about global warming. In the year , several members left the coalition when they became the target of a national divestiture campaign run by John Passacantando and Phil Radford at Ozone Action.

According to The New York Times , when Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition, it was "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming". Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research". Koch Charitable Foundation and the Southern Company. Koch general counsel refused the request and said it would infringe the company's first amendment rights. The Greenpeace research project ExxonSecrets, and George Monbiot writing in The Guardian , as well as various academics, [] [] have linked several skeptical scientists— Fred Singer , Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels —to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism.

These organizations include the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Marshall Institute , have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies. In , Exxon said that it was no longer going to fund these groups [] though that statement has been challenged by Greenpeace. But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them! Donald Kennedy , editor-in-chief of Science , has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and "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". Global warming skeptic Reid Bryson said in June , "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'. Richard Lindzen , the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT , said, "[in] the winter of 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. In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. Ronald Bailey , author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in , stated in , "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us. Hayward of American Enterprise Institute , a conservative think-tank. In , Richard Lindzen, asked whether it was necessary to try to reduce CO 2 emissions, said that responses needed to be prioritized.

If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible? Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO 2 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.

Fred Singer [] says, "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO 2 emissions. The adaptation-only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil's plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur.

The company's plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership," [] says this Ceres report. Gregg Easterbrook characterized himself as having "a long record of opposing alarmism". In , he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert. The George W. Bush administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only policy in the US in Climate Action Report ] 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. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming. 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 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. Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an inherent bias against prevention i. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says writer and environmental activist George Monbiot [] in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change.

Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient. 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 as early as , [] and has been all along. Another highly debated potential climate change mitigation strategy is Cap and Trade due to its direct relationship with the economy. In November , the Paris Agreement went into effect. 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 in , noted "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.

In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality he resigned in , before being hired by ExxonMobil. Climate scientist James E. Hansen , director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies , wrote in a widely cited New York Times article [] in , that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency.

Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints; [] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums. The BBC 's long-running current affairs series Panorama in investigated the issue, and was told, "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.

Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example, 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. 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 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 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. The survey was published as a joint report the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project.

In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.

Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from to This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom. Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations.

In , The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science". This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the godfather of global warming skepticism", served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from to Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming.

For example, Massachusetts v. General Motors Corp. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed out. Described as a nuisance lawsuit , it was dismissed by District Court. In a lawsuit organized by activist organization Our Children's Trust, a group of plaintiffs aged 8—19 sued the U. Federal Government, claiming "the government has known for decades that carbon dioxide CO 2 pollution has been causing catastrophic climate change and has failed to take necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions.

Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin denied defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs have standing to sue because they will be disproportionately affected by the alleged damages. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Political debate over global warming. This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change. For scientific consensus, see Scientific consensus on climate change. For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see climate change denial. Multiple datasets of global average temperature from various sources show a high degree of correlation. Pairwise correlations range from Play media.

NASA time-lapse video: Global average temperatures have increased in evolving patterns in which cooler temperatures shown in blues have generally changed to warmer temperatures shown in progressively intense reds. The dips are related to global recessions. Image source: Skeptical Science. Main article: Public opinion on global warming. Main article: Scientific consensus on climate change. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change. Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Main article: solar variation. Main articles: instrumental temperature record and urban heat island.

Main article: Antarctica cooling controversy. Main article: Arctic sea ice decline. Arctic sea ice as of compared to and also compared to — average. Main article: Climatic Research Unit email controversy. See also: Politics of global warming and Economics of global warming. Main article: Kyoto Protocol. See also: Climate change denial. Global warming portal. PMID Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D. ISBN Archived from the original on 29 May Retrieved 19 February United States National Academy of Sciences.

Archived from the original PDF on 23 April Retrieved 30 May Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. McGill University. Retrieved 17 April April Climate Dynamics. Bibcode : ClDy S2CID Archived from the original PDF on 22 October Retrieved 26 December September Bibcode : EOSTr.. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. The MIT Press.

The Madhouse Effect. Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. OCLC Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 16 September July Global Environmental Change Part A. Archived from the original PDF on 6 November Bloomsbury Press. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2, Years. Retrieved 4 May Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. The Guardian. Social Problems. JSTOR See p. Retrieved 9 April Public Understanding of Science. Retrieved 10 May Confronting climate change. Cambridge University Press. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, ". International Relations and Global Climate Change. Archived from the original PDF on 27 March Retrieved 22 November International Herald Tribune.

Retrieved 14 April Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. European Commission. Retrieved 24 December Retrieved 15 December Conway, Erik M. New York: Bloomsbury Press. In Weart, Spencer ed. The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. ABC News. Retrieved 12 April BBC World Service. Retrieved 25 September Program on International Policy Attitudes. Archived from the original on 13 October Retrieved 20 April David Suzuki Foundation. Archived from the original on 16 August Retrieved 18 August Retrieved 24 February Al Gore. Bord; Ann Fisher; Robert E.

O'Connor Archived from the original on 27 September Retrieved 29 February Bord, Robert E. Pew Global Attitudes. Released 27 June Retrieved 9 May October BBC News. The Globe and Mail. Environmental skepticism: ecology, power and public life. Global environmental governance series. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Brown March Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.

The Heat is On updated ed. Basic Books. Archived from the original on 15 February Retrieved 23 May The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 April The New York Times. Retrieved 9 November Environmental Research Letters. Bibcode : ERL Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed or to completely turn that feature off. The percentage contribution to global warming over the past years is shown in two categories, human causes left and natural causes right , from various peer-reviewed studies colors. The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.

The studies are Tett et al. The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research. The Consensus Project Website. Settings Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed or to completely turn that feature off. Term Lookup Term:.

The Differences Between Whitman And Langston Hughes stands alone arguments against global warming scientific arguments against global warming in its arguments against global warming of human-induced effects on global warming. Archived from the original on 6 March Box Office Mojo.