Climate Skepticism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gemtpm (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 7 February 2010 (This is a distinct subject. Do not merge.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:30, 7 February 2010 by Gemtpm (talk | contribs) (This is a distinct subject. Do not merge.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This redirect may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Global warming controversy (compare pages). Note that splits of large articles are not eligible under this criterion. If the title of the page is a plausible redirect to an existing page, it is not eligible for speedy deletion, and should be redirected instead. See CSD A10.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23A10%7CA10%5D%5D%3A+Recently+created+article+that+duplicates+an+existing+topic%2C+%5B%5B%3AGlobal+warming+controversy%5D%5DA10

If this redirect does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this redirect may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:db-a10-notice|Climate Skepticism|header=1|article=Global warming controversy}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Note to administrators: this redirect has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Gemtpm (contribs | logs) at 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (14 years ago)

Climate Skeptics include many leading researchers and scientists, such as Professor Bob Carter of James Cook Universtiy and Dr David Bellamy. Despite this, much of the debate has been presented as a battle between 'scientists' who are neutral and support the theory, and 'vested interests' or cranks on the other. But climate skeptcism includes a significant critique of the theory that human CO2 emissions are dangerously enhancing the greehouse effect has been made from the politically neutral or 'philosophy of science' perspective.

Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the politically neutral journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: 'Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.'

In a review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the 'principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively - not more, more conclusively - about the greatest open systems on the planet', and goes on to predict that for this reason, the 'Kyoto Flyer' is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen.

Professor Mike Hulme's, a 'climate scientist' at the University of East Anglia's centre for such research, offered a comprehensive defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal

noting: "Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete."

And the British social scientist and philosopher, Martin Cohen, wrote a front page feature for the again poltically neutral and scienticially respectable Times Higher Education (London ) in an issue timed to coincide with the UN Climate Conference at Copenhagen (the issue was printed on 10 December 2009), highlighting what he calls the contradictions of the Climate Change camp.

Both Cohen and the academics and others commenting on the article offer specific objections to the science of Climate Change theory including doubts over the historical relationship of CO2 and temperature. J.M Davidson points out that the 'brute fact' of 'record CO2 levels' - higher than they have been since recorded time seems to be a myth and that a book published in 2007 by Ernst-Georg Beck, ( Energy and Environment, Vol 18 No 2,) gives a different story. An analysis of more than 90,000 contemporaneous measurements of atmospheric levels of CO2 between 1812 and 1961. The record starts in 1812 at 390 ppmv, (and that was the year of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, when he arrived back in France with only 10% of the troops who had stared the march , most of them being lost to the arctic cold conditions encountered en route.) CO2 levels peaked in 1825 at 450 ppmv, (still in the little ice age, remember,) then fell back, and peaked again at 440 ppmv in 1942.

Another objection is the disputed use of positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour to 'exaggerate' the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect, as also argued by Richard Lindzen (formerly a member of the IPCC) who says that it is rather the opposite, and that increased water vapour could turn into clouds and thus cause cooling.

The temperature record is also disputed, for example and Peter Taylor, in a detailed comment, argues that "there would be no global warming scare without the warming from 1980-2005" as for "40 years before that temperatures dipped into a trough". Taylor adds that "We are at the top of a natural peak driven by a complex solar and ocean linked cyclic system - evidence for which goes back thousands of years." The article has been widely quoted on the internet.

Misplaced Pages

See also

References