Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EMsmile (talk | contribs) at 09:56, 6 December 2023 (→See also: shortened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Climate change denial. (Discuss) Proposed since November 2023.

The global warming controversy (or climate change debates) concerns past or present public debates over certain aspects of climate change: whether it is occurring (climate change deniers dispute this), how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it (attribution of climate change), what its effects will be, whether action should be taken to curb it now or later, and so forth. In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

The controversy is, by now, mostly political rather than scientific: there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity. Public debates that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive the climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity). Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and such disputes are more prevalent in the United States and Australia than globally.

Climate change remains an issue of widespread political debate, often split along party political lines, especially in the United States.

Debates around the processes of IPCC

Deniers have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, scientist or the synthesis and executive summaries; the full reports attract less attention. Some of the criticism has originated from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels. For example, John Christy, a contributing author who works at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explained in 2007 the difficulties of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change:

Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality.

Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said "Landsea's comments were not correct"; the IPCC replied "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC".

In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive aspects of global warming". The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government.

On 10 December 2008, a report was released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority members, under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming denier Jim Inhofe. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC. Many of its statements about the numbers of individuals listed in the report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.

Debates around details in the science

There have been many debates around the details of climate change science. Many of the apparent discrepancies have been reconciled in the meantime, for example climate models have become more accurate, the scientific consensus on climate change has strengthened. For past debates and controversies on scientific details see for example:

• History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies
• Climate change denial#Discussing specific aspects of climate change science

Debates over most effective response to warming

There have been debates on the best responses to slow global warming, and their timing. The debates are around the specific actions for climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation, or climate action in general. See for example:

• Economic analysis of climate change
• Climate change denial#Delaying climate change mitigation measures
• Climate change denial#Over reliance on adaptation only
• Climate action

See also

• Attitude polarization
• History of climate change policy and politics
• Manufactured controversy
• Skeptical Science
• Right-wing antiscience
• Politicization of science

References

1. "'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.' IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers. 'The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 October 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018.
2. "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 16 September 2018.
3. Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 233815004. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
4. Boykoff, M.; Boykoff, J. (July 2004). "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press" (PDF). Global Environmental Change Part A. 14 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2015.
5. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (first ed.). Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.
6. Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in March 2012 (PDF). Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 September 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
7. "Written testimony of John R. Christy Ph.D. before House Committee on Energy and Commerce on March 7, 2007" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 November 2007. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
8. "An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea". Archived from the original on 18 February 2007. Retrieved 28 April 2007.
9. "Prometheus: Final Chapter, Hurricanes and IPCC, Book IV Archives". Sciencepolicy.colorado.edu. 14 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
10. "Hurricanes and Global Warming for IPCC" (PDF). Washington. Reuters. 21 October 2004. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
11. "Final Climate Change Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
12. The Committee Office, House of Lords (28 November 2005). "House of Lords – Economic Affairs – Third Report". Publications.parliament.uk. Archived from the original on 15 October 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
13. "UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims". www.epw.senate.gov. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 11 December 2008.
14. "How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors?". Archived from the original on 27 January 2012.
15. "More on Inhofe's alleged list of 650 scientists". Archived from the original on 22 January 2012.
16. "Inhofe's 650 "dissenters" (make That 649... 648...)". The New Republic. 15 December 2008.

• Articles to be merged from November 2023
• Climate change assessment and attribution
• Climate change controversies
• Climate change denial
• Politics of science
• 21st-century controversies in the United States
• 21st-century controversies
• Controversies in Australia