Jump to content

Talk:Politics of climate change: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 196: Line 196:


Clarify ''political right'' with [[Right-wing politics]]. [[Special:Contributions/99.56.123.78|99.56.123.78]] ([[User talk:99.56.123.78|talk]]) 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarify ''political right'' with [[Right-wing politics]]. [[Special:Contributions/99.56.123.78|99.56.123.78]] ([[User talk:99.56.123.78|talk]]) 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

== Add from [[Portal:Current events/2011 May 31]] ... ''[[Greenhouse gas|Carbon emissions]] from energy use reached a record level in 2010, up 5% from the previous record in 2008, according to the [[International Energy Agency]], ...'' ==

''[[Greenhouse gas|Carbon emissions]] from energy use reached a record level in 2010, up 5% from the previous record in 2008, according to the [[International Energy Agency]], which said it was a "serious setback" [[Climate change mitigation|to limit global temperature increase]] to 2 degrees [[Celsius]] (3.6 [[Farenheit|F]]), set at the [[2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference|U.N. climate change talks]] in [[Cancun]], [[Mexico]], last year. [http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/31/world.carbon.emissions/index.html (CNN)]'' [[Special:Contributions/99.181.133.11|99.181.133.11]] ([[User talk:99.181.133.11|talk]]) 21:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:09, 6 June 2011

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed

ADD:

NASA Inspector General Report Confirms Political Censorship of Climate Data

A new investigation by NASA's inspector general confirms that Bush administration appointees deliberately skewed and deleted scientific findings about the serious threat of global warming from agency press releases for purely political reasons. The report also confirms that NASA public affairs appointees denied media access to NASA climate scientists and thereby "reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." The investigation details how the political appointees in the press office rewrote the findings of NASA scientists and put out press releases which instead "suffered from inaccuracy, factual inefficiency and scientific dilution," according to the Inspector General report. This tampering with science constitutes a major breach of the long-standing trust between NASA scientists and the agency's public affairs department.[1]

Forced by Court Order, Bush administration finally releases long-overdue climate assessment

Four years past its mandated deadline and ultimately compelled by court order, the Bush Administration finally released a climate change assessment detailing how global warming will affect the United States. A 1990 law, the Global Change Research Act, requires the government to assess the potential for domestic impacts from global warming every four years. But seven-plus years into Bush's presidency, this Administration hadn't released an update to the last report issued in 2000 by the Clinton administration. The long-overdue assessment details how global warming will likely lead to devastating droughts and stronger hurricanes in the United States, among other negative impacts.[2]

Material removed from Global warming controversy

A great deal of political content is in Global warming controversy. That article has grown too long and editors wish to focus on the scientific aspects of the controversy. The material below has been removed from that article. Hopefully, you can find use for some of it here.

Political, economic, and social aspects of the controversy

See also: Politics of global warming and Economics of global warming
Washington Monument illuminated with a message criticizing American environmental policy

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 through the control of greenhouse gas emissions.[1][dead link] Recently, bipartisan measures have been introduced.[2]

Kevin E. Trenberth stated:


As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:

  1. The social and environmental impacts
  2. The appropriate response to climate change
  3. Whether decisions require less uncertainty

The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:

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.[citation needed]

Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who feel strongly that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.[5] They claim that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.[6]

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.[7] In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, energy technology expert Joseph J. Romm

Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into consideration other potential impacts of any change.

Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far[9] or not nearly far enough[10] in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of controversy is the fact that India and China, the world's two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to reduce or even limit the growth of carbon emissions under the present agreement. Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries.[11] 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.[12] As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is claimed to cause additional carbon emissions.

The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the USA (see signatories). The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers [citation needed].

Funding for partisans

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

Funding for scientists who do not acknowledge anthropogenic global warming

Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.[13]

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated[14][15] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[16] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.[17][18][19]

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',[20] that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups[21] though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.[22]

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!"[23]

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."[24]

Funding for scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming

A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[25] Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[26] NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[27] and Accuracy in Media.[28]

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, makes the specific claim that "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [at MIT], lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggests four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming.[29] Lindzen himself, however, has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services",[30] as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.[31]

Changing position of some skeptics

In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding anthropogenic global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".[32] By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable".[33] Others have shifted from claims that global warming is unproven to advocating adaptation, sometimes also calling for more data, rather than take immediate action on mitigation through consumption/emissions reduction of fossil fuels. "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures," says Danish academic Bjørn Lomborg.[34] Lomborg has been severely questioned by groups in Denmark.[35] Nordhaus and Schellenberger[36] present similar, more sophisticated, arguments in favor of adaption.

"There are alternatives to its "the climate-change crusade's" insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us." says Steven F. Hayward of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.[37] Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive" -- an example of so-called geoengineering.

In 2001 Richard Lindzen in response to the question, "Kyoto aside for a moment, should we be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Do our concerns about global warming require action?" said "We should prioritize our responses. You can't just say, "No matter what the cost, and no matter how little the benefit, we'll do this." If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?"[38]

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.[39][40]

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[41] 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."[42]

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,"[43] says this Ceres report.[44]

The Bush administration has also voiced support for an adaptation only policy. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report ''U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". The report however "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming."[45] This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later,[46] "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.'"[47] see also [3]. The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however:


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[49] in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient.[50] 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[51] , and has been all along.[52][53] However it was not to the exclusion, advocated by the skeptics, of preventative mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[54]. In a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General it has been reveiled that NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election[55].

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[56] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[57][58][59] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article[60] 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;[61] 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."[62]

On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[63][64] As a result of scientific doubts he has expressed regarding global warming, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reportedly attempted to remove David Legates from his office of Delaware State Climatologist.[citation needed] In late 2006, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) reportedly began an investigation of Virginia State Climatologist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels.

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."[65]

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."[66]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey[67] was itself unscientific.[68]

Litigation

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forces the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed.[69] A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., a class action lawsuit filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming. Described as a nuisance lawsuit, it was dismissed by District Court.[70] The Sierra Club sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.[71][72]

Betting

A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change.[73][74] 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.[75] Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures. Lindzen, however, claims that he asked for 2-1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4 °C.[76] 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.[77] Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted,[78] including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by Patrick Michaels in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years. [4] A different, $6,000-to-$9,000 bet, where both sides expect warming but differ on the amount, with one break-even point at 0.15 °C/decade, was made between Dr David Evans and Brian Schmidt. [5] Dr Evans' reasons are described here. [6]

Global warming and the precautionary principle

Numerous authors have applied the precautionary principle to the global warming debate,[79][80] some likening the debate to Pascal's wager.[81] The principle stems out of the debate on whether or not governments should adopt the precautionary principle and act to reduce emissions even in the absence of certainty regarding warming. The principle postulates that it is a better "bet" to act as if global warming exists than otherwise, because the expected value of acting — that is, the fact that the impending crises due to global warming will have been averted — is always greater than the expected value of inaction.

Add Wikinews|Category:Global warming|Global warming and climate change

Add {{Wikinews|Category:Global warming|Global warming and climate change}} 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Portal:Politics

Add Portal:Politics. 108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Portal:Global warming to Portal box.

Add Portal:Global warming to Portal box. 99.181.153.128 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have seen that. OK, I'll take care of it, if it hasn't been done already. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Portal:Energy?

Add Portal:Energy? 99.109.124.16 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see relevance. It's indirect, but it may be sufficiently important to be added. Connections are:
It seems too indirect, to me, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify political right with Right-wing politics.

Clarify political right with Right-wing politics. 99.56.123.78 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add from Portal:Current events/2011 May 31 ... Carbon emissions from energy use reached a record level in 2010, up 5% from the previous record in 2008, according to the International Energy Agency, ...

Carbon emissions from energy use reached a record level in 2010, up 5% from the previous record in 2008, according to the International Energy Agency, which said it was a "serious setback" to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F), set at the U.N. climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year. (CNN) 99.181.133.11 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ 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 |quote= (help)
  3. ^ Trenberth, Kevin (2001), "The IPCC Assessment of global warming 2001" ([dead link] – Scholar search), Journal of the Forum for Environmental Law, Science, Engineering, and Finance (8–26), retrieved 2007-04-14 {{citation}}: External link in |format= (help)
  4. ^ "What's up with the weather: the debate: Stephen H. Schneider". PBS Nova & Frontline. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
  5. ^ "Global Warming, the Anatomy of a Debate: A speech by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute".
  6. ^ a b "What's up with the weather: the debate: Fred Palmer". PBS Nova & Frontline. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
  7. ^ 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
  8. ^ Review from Environmentalblogging.org, February 21, 2008
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ "Kyoto protocol status(pdf)" (PDF). UNFCCC. Retrieved 2006-11-07. (Niue,The Cook Islands,Nauru consider reductions "inadequate")
  11. ^ The Whitehouse (June 11 2001). President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change. Press release. Retrieved on 5 November2006.
  12. ^ 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)
  13. ^ 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)
  14. ^ 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)
  15. ^ "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)
  16. ^ 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)
  17. ^ ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming ABC August 2006
  18. ^ "Lewandowski memo" (PDF).
  19. ^ FEATURE-Carbon backlash: coal divides corporations James, Steve Reuters, July 2007
  20. ^ "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science". Union of Concerned Scientists. January 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
  21. ^ Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics MSNBC January 2007
  22. ^ Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers Greenpeace May 2007
  23. ^ "Links". Western Fuels. Archived from the original on 2006-01-15. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
  24. ^ 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)
  25. ^ "www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=199677". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  26. ^ "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a 'scientific' deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French) [7]
  27. ^ "Must-See Global Warming TV". Fox News. March 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-14.
  28. ^ Trulock, Notra, "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam," Accuracy in Media, August 26 2002
  29. ^ "Climate of Fear". Wall Street Journal. April 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-14.
  30. ^ Gelbspan, Ross (December 1995). "The Heat Is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper's Magazine. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
  31. ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (2002). "Reconciling observations of global temperature change" (PDF). Geophysical research letters. 29 (12): 24–26. Retrieved 2007-09-10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Ronald Bailey (August 11, 2005). "We're All Global Warmers Now". Reason Online. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. ^ 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)
  34. ^ 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)
  35. ^ {http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/}
  36. ^ {http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/}
  37. ^ 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)
  38. ^ "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)
  39. ^ 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)
  40. ^ 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 |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  41. ^ "Environmental Task Force". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
  42. ^ 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)
  43. ^ 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)
  44. ^ "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)
  45. ^ 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)
  46. ^ "Climate Compendium: International Negotiations: Vulnerability & Adaptation". Climate Change Knowledge Network & International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
  47. ^ 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)
  48. ^ "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)
  49. ^ Monbiot, George (December 2006). "Costing Climate Change". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
  50. ^ Schwartz, Peter (February 2004). "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security". Global Business Network for the Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-04-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  51. ^ 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)
  52. ^ 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)
  53. ^ "Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
  54. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
  55. ^ Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush - Scotsman.com News
  56. ^ Campbell, D. (June 20 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
  57. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)
  58. ^ 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
  59. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
  60. ^ 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)
  61. ^ Eilperin, J. (April 6 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
  62. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  63. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"".
  64. ^ "Local News". {{cite web}}: Text "News for Oregon and SW Washington" ignored (help); Text "kgw.com" ignored (help)
  65. ^ Hulme, Mike (November 4 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 2007-04-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  66. ^ "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)
  67. ^ Donaghy, Timothy (February 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 |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  68. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 2007-04-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  69. ^ "www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/142464.html".
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ "Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 12 August 2005. Retrieved 2007-04-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  72. ^ The Sierra Club vs. Stephen L. Johnson (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 03-10262 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 20 January 2006).
  73. ^ Annan, James (14 June 2005). "Betting on climate change". Realclimate. Retrieved 2007-04-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  74. ^ Kerr, Richard A. (2005), "Climate Change: Hedging Your Climate-Change Bets", Science, 310 (5747): 433, doi:10.1126/science.310.5747.433, PMID 16239459
  75. ^ Giles, Jim (2005), "Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down", Nature, 436 (7053): 897, doi:10.1038/436897a
  76. ^ "Reason Magazine - Betting on Climate Change".
  77. ^ 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)
  78. ^ Annan, James (9 June 2005). "Betting Summary". James' Empty Blog. Retrieved 2007-04-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  79. ^ "The Global Warming Wager".
  80. ^ "Henry Thornton - Global Warming: Pascal`s Wager".
  81. ^ "Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Pascal's Wager on Global Warming?".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_climate_change&oldid=432915418"