| Revision as of 19:23, 14 August 2003 view sourceWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,022 edits Rebalance towards IPCC and away from SEPP.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:23, 14 August 2003 view source SEWilco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,018 edits IPCC role and aimsNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| More is available from the ] page. | More is available from the ] page. | ||
| The ] sponsors the ], an organization which |
The ] sponsors the ], an organization which aims to be objective, but its opponents assert that it has rewritten scientific reports because of political pressure. The role of the ] is "to assess ... risk of human-induced climate change" , so its existence is based upon the continued threat that such change exists. | ||
| ], |
], an organization which claims to be non-partisan, presents a number of objections to interpretation of the available data on global warming. In particular, they point out that temperature measurements from ] show no warming whatsoever in the 1979 to 1996 period when land-based thermometers show record-breaking rises (they won't tell you that the longer-term balloon record from 1958 matches the land-based record well). Also, they present evidence that rising temperatures cause sea level to fall (not rise, as orthodox ] theory predicts) although this is widely disbelieved. However, the oil corporation ] is one of SEPP's sponsors. | ||
| === Political aspects === | === Political aspects === | ||
Revision as of 22:23, 14 August 2003
Anthropogenic global warming refers to that portion of global warming attributed to human activity, specifically the introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Atmosphere scientists are divided on how much of the 20th century's 0.6 degree centigrade warming was caused by human activity. See global warming controversy.
Scientific Aspects
The consensus of climate scientists, as reported by the IPCC, is that temperatures have risen 0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the last century, though a small number dispute this. More poen to question is the proportion of this warming that is due to human influence. Objective scientific reporting which is devoid of advocacy may be found in the IPCC assessment reports, though it is difficult for the layperson to assess which sources should be believed.
More is available from the global warming page.
The UN sponsors the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization which aims to be objective, but its opponents assert that it has rewritten scientific reports because of political pressure. The role of the IPCC is "to assess ... risk of human-induced climate change" , so its existence is based upon the continued threat that such change exists.
SEPP, an organization which claims to be non-partisan, presents a number of objections to interpretation of the available data on global warming. In particular, they point out that temperature measurements from weather balloons show no warming whatsoever in the 1979 to 1996 period when land-based thermometers show record-breaking rises (they won't tell you that the longer-term balloon record from 1958 matches the land-based record well). Also, they present evidence that rising temperatures cause sea level to fall (not rise, as orthodox global warming theory predicts) although this is widely disbelieved. However, the oil corporation ExxonMobil is one of SEPP's sponsors.
Political aspects
Internationally, political debate has been going on about the possibility to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. This led to the Kyoto protocol, signed by a number of especially European nations, in which they promise to reduce emissions. This can be done by using less or cleaner energy, but also by planting woods or by investing in cleaner energy in other countries.
The U.S. Democratic Party considers anthropogenic global warming to be such a well-established danger to humanity that it supports the Kyoto Protocol. President Clinton and Vice-president Gore both stated repeatedly that "the science is settled", but Clinton refused to send the Kyoto treaty to the senate for confirmation. A senate resolution condemning Kyoto passed 95-0.
Many conservatives in the U.S. believe that the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is highly exaggerated. Among them is President Bush, who has declared not to be willing to ratify the Kyoto protocols or similar agreements, as he regards them harmful for the American economy.