Revision as of 19:11, 22 April 2007 edit69.14.135.55 (talk) →Existence of a scientific consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:17, 22 April 2007 edit undoStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,888 edits Undid revision 124928882 by 69.14.135.55 (talk) Rv. nonsense (close to vandalism)Next edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
{{main|Scientific opinion on climate change}} | {{main|Scientific opinion on climate change}} | ||
Outside the scientific community there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science.<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=] ] | accessdate = 2007-04-14 }}</ref> | |||
Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The ] is the only scientific society doubting the predominant opinion.<ref>{{cite journal|author= American Quaternary Association| date = ] ] | url= http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf |title = Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate | journal =Eos | volume = 87 | number = 3| pages = 364 | format = pdf|quote = stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm |title= Climate Change Policy |accessdate = 2007-03-30 |format= ] | publisher = ]}}</ref> | Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The ] is the only scientific society doubting the predominant opinion.<ref>{{cite journal|author= American Quaternary Association| date = ] ] | url= http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf |title = Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate | journal =Eos | volume = 87 | number = 3| pages = 364 | format = pdf|quote = stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm |title= Climate Change Policy |accessdate = 2007-03-30 |format= ] | publisher = ]}}</ref> | ||
Revision as of 19:17, 22 April 2007
The global warming controversy is a debate about the specific causes of the increase in global average air temperature since the mid-1800s, the prediction of additional warming, and the consequences of that warming. (See also: Global warming.) An additional issue is whether the modern warming period is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations.
Issues
The existence of a rise in average temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s is not disputed. The controversy focuses on the specific causes of the recent warming, and concentrates on the warming after World War II; the likelihood and magnitude of future warming; and whether additional warming would be harmful or beneficial.
Actions have been proposed to slow down warming, on the premises that it is likely to be large enough to cause harm to humans overall and that it is possible to curtail activities that contribute to it, in an effort to reduce predicted harm.
Some of the main areas of controversy include:
- Whether the climate is changing beyond natural variations in the historical temperature record
- Whether human/industrial activity is responsible for the change and if so, to what extent
- The effect of predicted depletion of fossil fuels, both individually as e.g. oil runs out and users turn to the higher polluting coal and overall as to whether there are sufficient available reserves to cause the more extreme climate change scenarios
- The effectiveness of policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
- The size of future changes in climate
- The regional effects of climate change
- The consequences of climate change
Among climate scientists there is widespread agreement that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The debate is more vigorous in the popular media and on a policy level; questions include whether there is a scientific consensus on the extent and rate of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to justify immediate and far-reaching actions to ameliorate its effects. Those who believe such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol that are intended to reduce the magnitude of future global warming. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, even if the precise results are unknown, and even if there are substantial economic costs to doing so. One example of an attempt to force action is the Sierra Club suing the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.
Another part of the debate relates to political or policy decisions and their rationales. For example, one such argument relates to the above mentioned Kyoto Protocol—developing countries such as China or India are exempt from the rules. If another country they are competing with economically is not exempt, what is the appropriate course of action in that case for the competitor? Thus, the entire issue becomes one that is not constrained by the bounds of science or facts or proof; it becomes one that is about politics and policy. Money and funding enter the equation too.
Skeptical scientists express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Template:Split link, Template:Split link, and Template:Split link). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Template:Split link, Template:Split link, and Template:Split link), ocean currents (e.g., Template:Split link), solar activity (e.g., Template:Split link and Template:Split link), cosmic rays (e.g., Template:Split link), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Template:Split link).
History
In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005. In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate has gained wider acceptance than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.
Public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have evolved more slowly in the U.S. than in Europe, but have moved substantially in recent years. A Taylor Nelson Sofres poll reported by ABC News in 2006 reported that 85% of Americans believed in 2006 that global warming "probably is occurring," as opposed to 80% who believed so in 1998. Less than 40% were "very sure" of it. However, a little over 30% believe humans are the cause of it. In 1998, 31% of the public said global warming was "extremely important" or "very important" to them, personally; in 2006, 49% said so.
These changes are reflected in public perceptions in a number of other countries as well. A 30-nation poll taken in 2006 found that 90% of the 33,237 people polled say that “climate change or global warming, due to the greenhouse effect” is a serious problem. Three countries had less than 80% agreeing with this view, the United States with 76%, South Africa with 72%, and Kenya with 65%. Sixteen countries were polled previously in 2003; on average those saying the problem was "very serious" increased by 12% over the three-year period between polls.
In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans tend to oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproved, while Democrats tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming and its effects. Recently, bipartisan measures have been introduced.
Kevin E. Trenberth provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena:
The SPM was approved line by line by governments. . . .The argument here is that the scientists determine what can 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.
According to a report on August 16, 2006, by David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation, the general public has a poor understanding of global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the film An Inconvenient Truth. On July 20, 2006, Suzuki commented that public opinion on climate change and the film was being deliberately twisted by an expensive campaign of public relations.
One problem is a confusion between global warming and ozone depletion.
Controversy concerning the science
Existence of a scientific consensus
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate changeOutside the scientific community there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science. Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society doubting the predominant opinion.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "none contradicted" the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing
Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts , I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.
In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indices, and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed. In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review, instead asserting,
An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing.
Peiser also stated:
...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest . . . that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected." Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To support their claim of a lack of consensus, the Web site of prominent skeptic S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing." The petitions are:
- The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming" ("...Such policy initiatives 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.")
- Critics point out this is more than a decade old and only has 46 signatories.
- The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992).
- Critics point out that the Heidelberg Appeal makes no mention at all of climate or climate change, much less global warming.
- Singer's own "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.
Followup interviews found that many of the purported signers denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.
- The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz.
- Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology. The petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming.
In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.
Temperature measurements
Urban heat islands
Main article: Urban heat islandSkeptics, such as John Daly and Vincent Gray, questioned the accuracy of the temperature records on the basis of the Urban heat island effect, contending that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise. The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990. More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warmings observed in urban and rural areas.
Average temperature
One paper has questioned whether a global average temperature is a meaningful concept.
Causes
Attribution to greenhouse gases
Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence. Nonetheless, one argument against anthropogenic global warming points out that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming .
- Studies of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations . This argument assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing , the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2 (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions).
- Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon dioxide levels went up. This could be attributed to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols .
- The amount of carbon dioxide accounts for 0.0381% of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 278 ppm in the 1880s to over 380 ppm in 2005. Carbon dioxide itself causes 9-26% the natural greenhouse effect.
- The Earth has been in an ice age with a much higher level of CO2. The Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 estimated at 4400ppm (or .44% of the atmosphere). However, a recent study suggests the Ordovician period began with a reduction in CO2.
- Claim: 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 . Response: satellite temperature measurements do indeed show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing and there is no discrepancy.
As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, which some insist strongly points to the importance of GHGs, as does attribution of recent climate change.
Solar activity
Main article: Solar variation theoryThe observed global warming may be explained by increased solar activity, the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki et al. (2004 - Max Planck Institute, Germany) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years. Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun." "Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years.
Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation. An article in The Telegraph about a 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany quoted Sami Solanki saying "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and although "the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes, the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself." According to the Stanford Solar Center, at most 25% of recent global temperature variation can be attributed to solar irradiance. When the 11-year sun cycle is accounted for, there still remains a significant, 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) increase in recorded global temperatures.
The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m for the net anthropogenic forcing. The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades." The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.
Predictions of temperature rises
Conventional predictions of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future GHG emissions (see SRES) and the climate sensitivity.
Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.
Others have proposed that likely rises may be higher or lower.
Predictions of greenhouse gas rises
There is some debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic S. Fred Singer has stated:
Let me deal first of all with the question of the future levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The fact is that people disagree about this. Some good experts believe that carbon dioxide will never even double the atmosphere. They believe that the so-called decarbonization of our economy, which has been ongoing for some time, will continue. That is, we will use less and less fossil fuels to produce a unit of GNP.
The Stern report, like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO2 levels. The report states:
Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO2 well beyond 750ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.
Similarly, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory suggest, "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet’s available fossil fuels by the year 2300." However others believe the climate will reach a "tipping point" leading to run away global warming as e.g. warming causes sea ice to melt reducing the area of reflective ice.
There is also debate over whether the atmosphere is capable of self limiting the amount of CO2. Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association states:
there's a debate over what humans actually could--if you had everybody on earth consuming the amount of fossil fuels that we do in the United States, for example--how much CO2 you would ultimately end up with in the air. There is one body of thought that says that the mechanisms of the planet--the biosphere--that because it responds positively to more CO2, which is the Greening of the Planet Earth thesis, that the biosphere will soak this up so that you really don't have much of a risk of ever getting above--much above--1,000 parts per million.()
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. |
Regional effects
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. |
Two positive results of global warming have been predicted for Canada. The freeing up of the ice-strewn North-West passage will create an alternative to the Suez and Panama Canals for East-West shipping. Extended growing seasons and a shift north for human habitable land are also possible.
Political and social aspects of the controversy
See also: Politics of global warmingAs 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:
we talk about a few degrees warming, most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine. The trees over there on the north side of the slope are already 5 degrees cooler than the trees on the south side of the slope." Of course, if you look carefully, you find they have different trees on the north side and the south side. So the point is that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been--globally averaged, we're talking--fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. (Stephen H. Schneider)
The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.
Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those who feel strongly that, even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.
The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the United States is as clear as it can be. And it is required for the way we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and for our future. Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer, President of Western Fuels Association )
Conversely, others feel strongly that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.
Kyoto Protocol
Main article: Kyoto ProtocolThe Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far or not nearly far enough in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of controversy is the fact that India and China, the world's two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement. Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries. Additionally, high costs of decreasing emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are not covered under the treaty, such as India and China, claims Fred Singer. As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is claimed to cause additional carbon emissions.
The only major developed nations which have signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol are the USA and Australia (see signatories). However, on November 30, 2006, The Hon Greg Hunt MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for Australia said: "First, climate change is both real and soluble. The deniers are wrong: that is, those who argue there is insufficient evidence. The doomsayers are also wrong: that is, those who argue that we are coming to an unavoidable and catastrophic end." The New York Times reports that in the U.S., "The climate here has definitely changed. Legislation to control global warming that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed." The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers.
LEDC's development
It is alleged that various governments are over-playing the problem of global warming in an attempt to limit and slow down LEDC's (less economically developed countries) industrial development. This would work in other countries' favour as it would eliminate any future industrial competition.
Funding for partisans
Both sides of the controversy have alleged that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.
Some global warming skeptics, like the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their alleged links to fossil fuel companies.
On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays that with the purpose of "highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Some skeptical scientists, critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors, dispute the validity of this guilt by association or ad hominem argument. For instance, Donald Kennedy of Science said, "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," and, " ...donations to skeptics amounts to 'trying to get a political message across'"
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', "According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"
Accuracy in Media published a report in 2002 entitled "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam," in which they allege that "global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth." Richard S. Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, makes the specific claim that "n the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also cites numerous cases where political advocacy groups arranged funding for scientists who accept the evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
A recent film, The Great Global Warming Swindle alleged that the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming is a "scam" promoted by a multi-billion dollar industry. In response, those who accept the consensus view accused the film-makers of promoting a conspiracy theory..
The evolving position of some skeptics
In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding AGW. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, now says "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" (see also Former global warming skeptics). Others have shifted from claims that global warming is unproven to advocating adaptation, sometimes also calling for more data, rather than take immediate action mitigation through consumption/emissions reduction of fossil fuels. "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures" says Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg.
"There are alternatives to its insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us." says Steven F. Hayward of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive."
In 2001 Richard Lindzen said in response to the question, "Kyoto aside for a moment, should we be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Do our concerns about global warming require action?" "We should prioritize our responses. You can't just say, "No matter what the cost, and no matter how little the benefit, we'll do this. If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?" Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO2 emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. Large developing nations such as India and China are predicted to be major emitters of greenhouse gases in the next few decades as their economies grow.
The conservative National Center for Policy Analysis whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change skeptics including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer says "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO 2 emissions".
Interestingly the adaptation only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil’s plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur. The company’s plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership" says this Ceres report.
The Bush administration has also joined the adaptation only bandwagon. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". The report however "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming." This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later , "The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation,' said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough money to do everything.'"
The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however, "Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate, the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior Secretary Hodel’s proposal that the government address the hole in the ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses, suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of air-conditioning. Report at 82. Far from proposing solutions to the climate change problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners" letter from 11 State Attorneys General to George W. Bush.
Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an inherent bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption) and for the prolonging of profits to the oil industry at the expense of the environment, "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says UK Journalist George Monbiot in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient. See also Copenhagen Consensus.
To be sure, though not emphasized to the same degree as mitigation, adaptation to a climate certain to change has been included as a necessary component in the discussion early as 1992 , and has been all along. However it was not to the exclusion, advocated by the skeptics, of preventative mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.
Political pressure on scientists
US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints; once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."
Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."
According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,
- "Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
- "The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey was itself unscientific.
Global warming litigation
Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forces the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.
Betting over global warming
A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change. Few skeptics have been willing to bet against the IPCC consensus position, however. British climate scientist James Annan proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003 . Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling. Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted.
Assertions by supporters and opponents
Listed here are some of the assertions made by supporters and opponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming not discussed above. Assertions are included solely because they have been made by one side or the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.
Assertions by supporters
Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:
- The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.
- Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
- The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels.
- The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
- The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
- Climate change attribution studies, using both models and observations, find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.
- Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.
- The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.
- Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.
- Climate models predict more warming, sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, spread of tropical diseases, and other climactic effects in the future.
- The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.
- Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.
- The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.
Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what action should be taken).
Assertions by opponents
Some of the assertions made in opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming include:
- The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after global temperatures rise.
- IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.
- The influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann is controversial .
- Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
- Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, changes in sea temperature, and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth, and take into account other recently discovered feedback mechanisms.
- Water vapor, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas. Depending on the referenced source, water vapor and water droplets account for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 accounts for 9-26%.
- Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber but on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber.
- The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. Therefore, the concern about global warming is likely to be equally alarmist.
- The Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, had above-average temperatures for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.
- Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
- Climatic changes equal to or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other bodies within this solar system, including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton. (However NASA scientists have attributed Martian warming not to the sun but to changes in albedo)
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.
Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:
- Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
- There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth .
Supporters and opponents
- Scientific organizations that have stated support for or opposition of the scientific opinion on climate change
- Scientists opposing the consensus
- Skeptical organizations and individuals
- Former skeptics
Related controversies
Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed with the scientific consensus regarding other environmental risks.
CFCs and ozone layer
That human emissions of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete the ozone layer in the atmosphere, leading to ozone holes over the Antarctic and Arctic was politically though not scientifically controversial in the 1990s. It is supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other national academies. 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 was disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Ronald Bailey, Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Timothy F. Ball, and the Cato Institute.
Risks of passive smoking
This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject. Please help improve this section. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The question of whether passive smoking created a significant health risk, and whether policy responses such as smoking bans were appropriate, was politically controversial in the 1990s. Governmental and UN organisations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation produced summaries of the scientific literature indicating that passive smoking represented a significant health risk. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton, and the Institute of Public Affairs.
See also
- Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
- Global cooling
- Scientific skepticism
- Environmental skepticism
- The Great Global Warming Swindle
- An Inconvenient Truth
References
- "Global Warning". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Barker, Scott (October 25 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (Spring 1992). "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Cato Institute Regulation. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
- "Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit". Environmental Protection Agency. 12 August 2005. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - The Sierra Club vs. Stephen L. Johnson (Environmental Protection Agency), 03-10262 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 20 January 2006).
- "The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006". Global Language Monitor. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Crampton, Thomas (4 January 2007). "More in Europe worry about climate than in U.S., poll shows". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Little Consensus on Global Warming – Partisanship Drives Opinion – Summary of Findings". Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 12 July 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Weart, Spencer (2006), "The Public and Climate Change", in Weart, Spencer (ed.), The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, retrieved 2007-04-14
- Langer, Gary (March 26 2006). "Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Program on International Policy Attitudes (April 5 2006). "30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem". Program on International Policy Attitudes . Retrieved 2007-04-20.
{{cite web}}
:|last=
has generic name (help); Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Mascaro, Lisa (12 February 2007). "GOP still cool on global warming". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Waxman, Henry (20 March 2007). "The Safe Climate Act of 2007". Rep. Henry Waxman. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
H.R. 1590
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); External link in
(help)|quote=
- Trenberth, Kevin (2001), "The IPCC Assessment of global warming 2001", Journal of the Forum for Environmental Law, Science, Engineering, and Finance (8–26), retrieved 2007-04-14
- ^ Crichton, Michael (17 January 2003). "Lecture at CalTech: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"". Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - American Quaternary Association (5 September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (pdf). Eos. 87 (3): 364.
stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Climate Change Policy" (cfm). American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Retrieved 2007-03-30.
- Oreskes, Naomi (2004), "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Science, 306 (5702): 1686, doi:10.1126/science.1103618
- Peiser, Benny (May 17 2005). "The Dangers of Consensus Science". National Post. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Lambert, Tim (22 March 2006). "Peiser admits to making a mistake". Deltoid (blog). Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Peiser, Benny (October 12 2006). "RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Lambert, Tim (May 6 2005). "Peiser's 34 abstracts". Deltoid (blog). Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Lambert, Tim (May 19 2005). "Peiser Watch". Deltoid (blog). Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Ball, Timothy (5 February 2007). "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?". Canada Free Press. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Lindzen, Richard S. "Don't Believe the Hype". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
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.
- ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (April 12 2006). "Climate of Fear". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Crandall, Candance (November 20 1998). "The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming". Science & Environmental Policy Project. 27 February 1992. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) -
Olinger, David (29 July 1996). "Cool to the warnings of global warming's dangers Series: COLUMN ONE". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Skepticism about sceptics". Scientific American (Mar 2005). 5 March 2005. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Todd Shelly (14 July 2005). "Bashing the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming". Hawaii Reporter. Retrieved 2007-03-31.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Who are the sixty". . Retrieved 2007-03-02.
- Hoggan, Jim (18 April 2006). "Signatory Bails on Anti-Climate Science Petition". DeSmogBlog.com. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - McBean, Gordon (April 19 2006). ""Canada's top climate scientists issue open letter to Prime Minister Harper calling for action on climate change (press release)"". Retrieved 2007-04-20.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - McBean, Gordon (April 19 2006). ""An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on Climate Change Science"" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-04-20.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); line feed character in|title=
at position 48 (help) - Gray, Vincent (November 22 2000). "The Cause of Global Warming". John-Daly.com - website of John Lawrence Daly. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A., eds. (2001), "2.2 How Much is the World Warming?", Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
-
Peterson,, Thomas C. (2003), "Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: no difference found. Journal of Climate", Journal of Climate, 16 (18): 2941–2959, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C2941:AOUVRI%3E2.0.CO;2
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - Essex, Christopher; McKitrick, Ross; Andresen, Bjarne, "Does a Global Temperature Exist?" (PDF), J. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics year=2006, 32 (1): 1–27, doi:10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001
{{citation}}
: Missing pipe in:|journal=
(help); line feed character in|journal=
at position 34 (help) - Idso, C. D. "Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming - Where We Stand on the Issue". CO2science. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Barkov, N.I. (Feb, 2003). "Historical carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice core". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Weart, Spencer (2006), "Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations", in Weart, Spencer (ed.), The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, retrieved 2007-04-14
- Houghton, J.T. (2001), "12. Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes: 12.4.3.3 Space-time studies", Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
- Mitchell, J. F. B.; Johns, T. C. (1997), "On Modification of Global Warming by Sulfate Aerosols" (PDF), Journal of Climate, 10 (2): 245–267, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010%3C0245:OMOGWB%3E2.0.CO%3B2, retrieved 2007-04-14
- Crowley, Thomas J.; Baum, Steven K. (1995), "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels", Journal of Geophysical Research, 100 (D1): 1093–1102, doi:10.1029/94JD02521
- Gorder, Pam Frost (October 25 2006). "Appalachian Mountains, carbon dioxide caused long-ago global cooling". Ohio State University Research news. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "The Great Global Warming Swindle: The Arguments". Channel 4. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- Muscheler, Raimund; Joos, Fortunat; Müller, Simon A.; Snowball, Ian (2005), "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" (PDF), Nature, 436: E3–E4, doi:10.1038/nature04045
- "Space Weather/Solar Activity and Climate". DMI Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division. October 19 1998. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004), "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (PDF), Nature, 431: 1084–1087, doi:10.1038/nature02995
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help)CS1 maint: year (link) - Leidig, Michael (July 17 2004). "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - "Global Warming: What is it?". Stanford SOLAR Center. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
- "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
- Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. (2001), Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis: Summary for Policymakers (PDF), IPCC
- Dr Fred Singer
- ^ Stern, Nicolas, ed. (2006), "7. Projecting the Growth of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions" (PDF), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521700801
- 1 November issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate
- "What's up with the weather: the debate: Stephen H. Schneider". PBS Nova & Frontline. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- ^ "What's up with the weather: the debate: Fred Palmer". PBS Nova & Frontline. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- Darragh, Ian (1998). "A Guide to Kyoto: Climate Change and What it Means to Canadians: Does the Kyoto treaty go far enough... or too far?" (PDF). International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- "Kyoto protocol status(pdf)" (PDF). UNFCCC. Retrieved 2006-11-07. (Niue,The Cook Islands,Nauru consider reductions "inadequate")
- The Whitehouse (June 11 2001). President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change. Press release. Retrieved on 5 November2006.
- Singer, S. Fred (May 24 2000). Climate Policy –From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond. Essays in Public Policy, No. 102. Stanford University: Hoover Institution. p. 49. ISBN 0-8179-4372-2. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Hunt, Greg (November 30 2006). "Climate Change: Preparing for the Coming Century - A Clean Energy Future" (PDF). Centre for Independent Studies. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Barringer, Felicity (18 January 2007). "THE 110TH CONGRESS; Measures on Global Warming Move to Spotlight in the New Congress". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Adam, David (27 January 2005). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Sample, Ian (2 February 2007). "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Climate Controversy and AEI: Facts and Fictions". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 9 February 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Hayward, Steven F. (5 July 2006). "AEI Letter to Pf. Schroeder" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Borenstein, Seth (27 July 2006). "Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic". CBS News from Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science". Union of Concerned Scientists. Jan 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- "Exxonsecrets - how Exxonmobil funds the climate change skeptics". Greenpeace. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- "Community and Sponsorships – Public Information and Policy Research". ExxonMobil. Archived from the original on 2001-12-20. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- "Links". Western Fuels. Archived from the original on 2006-01-15. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- Trulock, Notra, "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam," Accuracy in Media, August 26 2002
- Webb, Al (6 March 2007). "Global warming labeled a 'scam'". The Washington Times.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|accessed=
ignored (help) - Miliband, David (14 March 2007). "The Great Climate Change Swindle?". Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs blog. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Bailey, Ronald (2 February 2007). "Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough". Reason (magazine). Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Lomborg, Bjørn (17 August 2001). "Why Kyoto will not stop this". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Hayward, Steven F. (May 15 2006). "Acclimatizing - How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "How Dangerous Is Global Warming?". Los Angeles Times. 17 June 2001. Archived from the original on 2001-06-17. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Keller, Michelle (15 February 2005). "World to celebrate Kyoto Protocol start". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Harrison, Paul (2000). "Foreword by Peter H. Raven". In Victoria Dompka Markham (ed.). AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment. American Association for the Advancement of Science & University of California Press. p. 215. ISBN 0-520-23081-7. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - "Environmental Task Force". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Burnett, H. Sterling (September 19 2005). "Climate Change: Consensus Forming around Adaptation". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Logan, Andrew (May 2006). "ExxonMobil's Corporate Governance on Climate Change" (PDF). Ceres & Investor Network on Climate Risk. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - "Letter to Michael J. Boskin, Secretary Exxon Mobil Corporation" (PDF). Investor Network on Climate Risk. May 15 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Revkin, Andrew C. (3 June 2002). "Bush climate plan says adapt to inevitable Cutting gas emissions not recommended". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Global Warming: Adapt or Prevent?". Evo Auto Blog. 20 January 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Climate Compendium: International Negotiations: Vulnerability & Adaptation". Climate Change Knowledge Network & International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Revkin, Andrew C. (October 23 2002). "US Pullout Forces Kyoto Talks To Focus on Adaptation - Climate Talks Will Shift Focus From Emissions". The New York Times (reprinted by heatisonline.org). Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "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". 17 July 2002. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Monbiot, George (Dec 2006). "Costing Climate Change". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Schwartz, Peter (Feb 2004). "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security". Global Business Network for the Department of Defence. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Engineering, and Public Policy (U. S.) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming Committee on Science (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. National Academies Press. p. 944. ISBN 0-309-04386-7. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite book}}
:|author=
has generic name (help) - Robert T. Watson, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss, ed. (May 31 1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052156431X.
{{cite book}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Check date values in:|date=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - "Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Campbell, D. (June 20 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
- Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)
- Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, July 27. 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) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, October 4. Accessed December 22 2006
- Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
- Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - 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
- "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Hulme, Mike (November 4 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Donaghy, Timothy (Feb 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Pidot, Justin R. (2006). "Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues" (PDF). Georgetown University Law Center. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- Annan, James (14 June 2005). "Betting on climate change". Realclimate. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Kerr, Richard A. (2005), "Climate Change: Hedging Your Climate-Change Bets", Science, 310 (5747): 433, doi:10.1126/science.310.5747.433
- Giles, Jim (2005), "Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down", Nature, 436 (7053): 897, doi:10.1038/436897a
- Adam, David (19 August 2005). "Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Annan, James (9 June 2005). "Betting Summary". James' Empty Blog. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Weart, Spencer (2006), "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect", in Weart, Spencer (ed.), The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, retrieved 2007-04-14
- Deep ice tells long climate story, by Jonathan Amos, BBC, 4 September 2006
- "Vostok Ice Core Data". NOAA World Data Center for paleoclimatology. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
- New Research in Science Shows Highest CO2 Levels In 650,000 Years, by Daniel B. Kane, 28 November 2005
- "Researchers Determine Global Warming During The 20th Century May Be Slightly Larger Than Earlier Estimates". Science Daily. 4 July 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A., eds. (2001), "Summary for Policymakers - Figure 4: Simulated annual global mean surface temperature", Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, IPCC
- Trenberth, Kevin (3 June 2001). "Global Warming is Happening". AAPG Annual Meeting 2001: An Energy Odyssey. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Romm, Joseph, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, Morrow, 2007
- Spencer, Roy (6 February 2004). "Let Them Confess Their Faith". Tech Central Station. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability, International seminar meeting at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden". Royal Institute of Technology. September 11-September 12 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Pielke Sr., Roger (22 July 2005). "Are Multi-decadal Climate Forecasts Skillful?". Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Pacific Ocean Temperature Changes Point To Natural Climate Variability". Science Daily. November 13 2002. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate". Danish National Space Center. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
- Watson, Paul Joseph (November 16 2006). "SUV's On Jupiter?". Prison Planet. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Dust Storms Fuel Global Warming on Mars". Yahoo! News. 4 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-20.
{{cite web}}
:|first=
missing|last=
(help); Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Hounsome, Rob (July 27 2006). "Details of the Durban Climate Change workshop 2006" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martins Press, 1993) ISBN 0-312-10971-7.
- S. Fred Singer (1996-08-01). "Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Ozone Depletion". SEPP. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Template:PDF
- "Monographs Programme report on SHS". Retrieved 2006-07-26.
- ""Passive Smoking:How Great a Hazard?"".
- Fred Guterl (2001-07-23). "The Truth About Global Warming; The forecasts of doom are mostly guesswork, Richard Lindzen argues--and he has Bush's ear". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 September 2006. Also available without subscription at FreePress.net.
- The EPA and the science of environmental tobacco smoke /
External links
Politics
- Thacker, Paul D. (31 August 2005). "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic". Environmental Science & Technology.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Bill Moyers (producer) (23 January). Ode to Kyoto: The energy industry's stealth campaign to confuse the public and stop Kyoto (rar). PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers.
{{cite AV media}}
: Check date values in:|date=
and|year=
/|date=
mismatch (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - "Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer — Guess who's funding the global warming doubt shops?". Environmental Defense. 19 December 2006.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Industry And The Climate Debate". Greenpeace.
- "What planet are you on, Mr Bush? (and do you care, Mr Blair?)". The Independent. 4 December 2005.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Thacker, Paul D. (31 August 2005). "Skeptics get a journal". Environmental Science & Technology.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Hansen, James (Jan 1999). "The Global Warming Debate". NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
- Lancaster, J. Justin. "The Cosmos Myth – The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story".
- "The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report" (PDF). House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. 6 July 2005.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Inhofe, James (September 25 2006). "Senate Floor Speech: Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who cover Global Warming". United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - "Senator Inhofe & CNN Anchor in Heated Exchange over Global Warming" (Press release). United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. October 3 2006.
{{cite press release}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Wegman, Edward J.; Scott, David W.; Said, Yasmin H. (July 2006), Ad hoc committee report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF), United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce
- "DeSmogBlog – Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science". DeSmogBlog.
- Morano, Marc (17 January 2007). "Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics" (Press release). Inhofe EPW Press Blog.
{{cite press release}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Stott, Philip. "AntiEcoHype – Climate Change & Global Warming – A Selection of Critical Commentaries by Philip Stott". Philip Stott's personal website.
- Lewis, Russell (6 March 2007). "Global Warming False Alarms (web publication)". Institute of Economic Affairs.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Telegraph article by Chair of Stock exchange and former BP director in UK:Claims bad consequences for UK economy
- Global Warming Project 2007: Claims censorship of climate scientists views.
Science
- A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
- The Global Warming Debate: Fundamental differences in opinion about climate change.
- Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science
- CO2 or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
- Roger Pielke, Jr., Daniel Sarewitz (2002). "Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate". Issues in Science and Technology. 19 (2): 27–30.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
- False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann's famous graph.
- National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 degrees F below 20th century average.
- TCS Daily Article by Roy Spencer: principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville and previous Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama questions cloud model accuracy.
Media
- The Great Global Warming Swindle: Contains information relating to Channel 4 documentary on alternative theories to the causes of global warming.
- The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
- From Science to Time to Vanity Fair: Global Warming Becomes a Hot Topic. Lecture given by Amy Gajda, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Law, University of Illinois. February 8 2007. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Printed media
- Eilperin, Juliet (August 4 2006, page A3). "More Frequent Heat Waves Linked to Global Warming: U.S. and European Researchers Call Long Hot Spells Likely". Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Report on findings presented at an international conference on climate science at Gawatt, Switzerland the week of July 21 - 28, 2006. - News Services (July 28 2006, page A8). "Global-Warming Skeptic Funded by Coal Utilities". Washington in Brief. Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Brief article stating that prominent human-caused global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels, received $150,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. - Struck, Doug (July 29 2006, page A1 & A12). "On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice: Retreat of Once-Mighty Glacier Signals Water Crisis, Mirroring Worldwide Trend". Washington, DC, USA: The Washington Post.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Newspaper article reporting on decrease in size of glaciers worldwide and resulting shortage of water. - Singer, S. Fred (October 28 2006). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 978-0742551176.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|title=
|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Claims that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. - Lee, Dixie R. (April 1994). Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?. USA: Perennial. 978-0060975982.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|title=
|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Claims fraud and deceit by environmentalists - Svensmark, Henrik (March 1 2007). The Chilling Stars. USA: Icon Books Ltd. 978-1840468151.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help); External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|title=
|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)- Describes Svensmark’s team cosmic ray experiments on cloud formation.