Talk:Politics of climate change/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ideas for Material

WWF and Allianz just published the G8 Climate Scorecards ranking G8 countries performance in the fight against climate change. That might be a helpful source: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/climate_politics/climate_scorecards_results.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.20 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AMS Statement: Freedom of Scientific Expression

After scientists were again stifled for political interests, the American Meteorological Society has released:

AMS Statement: Freedom of Scientific Expression (Adopted by AMS Council on 17 February 2006) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87

The AMS, American Geophysical Union, and numerous scientific organizations throughout a myriad of fields have released statements on coercion of science in the past. Evolauxia 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This Article Needs Help

There are a lot of sections that are just stubs. We need some qualified people to help populate the article. I'll do what I can. Dubc0724 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for more material

I agree this page is strikingly thin, in contrast to the well fleshed-out pages on the science, the skeptics and so on. At the very least there should be something about Al Gore. Other bits to fit in would include Sen. Inhofe, the senate resolution pre-announcing they would not ratify any deal similar to Kyoto, etc.

There is some good detail on this in Flannery's book "The Weather Makers."

I just heard about a book by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M on the science and politics of climate change in the U.S. I've requested our University library to order a copy. I plan to grab it as soon as it's catalogued. This might be helpful source material. Here's a link to a page about the new book:

The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change

Birdbrainscan 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is highlighted by the fact that there are two sections of prose on US politics and a short bullet point list of rest-of-world countries. The article is still only start-class material though, so it's not entirely surprising. Richard001 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RGGI tonnage limits, mistake

the tonnage limits have got to be wrongCorvetteZ51 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added "million" to the figures. The first source I found said "Regional emissions would be capped at 121.3 million short tons of CO2 through 2014" [3]. --Spiffy sperry 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Global Warming ?

At the Oscars Al Gore emphatically stated that global warming is a "moral" issue.

Should there be a separate article on the religion of global warming? I think the view has enough info to form a complete mythology: a creation account, the so-called "sins" of humanity, an apocalypse, dogmas ...--The burning bush 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say no to a "religion of global warming" page. Events such as global climate change require an ethics-based political solution as it is a new circumstance that we all face. If there is a moral issue it is related to the rights and wrongs of individuals burning things and releasing gases into the atmosphere.

Maybe we need a page Individual action on climate change to come from Individual and political action on climate change for pros and cons on actions. Then expand the Environmentalism and Religion, drafted by User:Alan Liefting, to explore the broader ideology based issues. - Shiftchange 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You need sources which describe such a religion. (SEWilco 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

no one has reduced carbon use

any 'reductions' would have happened anyway, nine years after the Kyoto conference...nothing. business as usual CorvetteZ51 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

who would bear the burden?

for example, in the 'McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2005', home heating by natural gas, is not controlled. Good deal for those living in the North. Air conditong needs electricity, coa for electricity would be controlled. Bad deal if you live in the South. If no one objects, I will add something to the article CorvetteZ51 09:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some proposed additions:

Thomas Knutson is a climate modeller at the US Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 2004, he published a paper suggesting that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to more intense hurricanes. This finding was subsequently supported by independent research. Knutson was invited to discuss his thesis on Ron Reagan's MSNBC talk show, but the invitation was withdrawn after the White House intervened. Refs.: New Scientist Magazine 2007-02-03, p.5, and Atmosphere of Pressure - Political Interference in Federal Climate Science

"Don't discuss polar bears" -- memo to scientists

...Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/polarbears_scientists_dc

I think both of those need to be included in the article. James S. 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Republicans to investigate UN IPCC

Republicans plan to investigate misappropriation of funds by UN IPCC. [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It sez "WMO" William M. Connolley 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Monckton debate offer

• The debate over global warming was raised to a considerably higher profile when former Vice President Al Gore was given an Academy Award... This has drawn the attention of numerous critics, including Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a journalist and former policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton has taken out prominent advertisements in various U.S. newspapers, challenging Gore to a televised debate on the topic.[5] As of March 2007 Gore has thus far not responded to the invitation.[6][7]

I don't see how this is worth this much space. If they debated that would be different. But an offer of a debate isn't notable. If we want to mention Monckton as a critic it'd be more useful to link to his articles in the Telegraph on the topic, such as "The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years" -Will Beback · † · 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But more than that... the entire section is bizarre. It should be about the treatment of GW in the media in general. An analysis of positive and negative stories, what issues are raised. Now a laundry-list of a few high-profile films. William M. Connolley 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WH administration cuts funding for the next generation of climate instruments.

Thought info from this article in the latimes should go somewhere in this article. R. Baley 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Countries!?!

Why is there a huge US section, then an 'Other Countries' section. I admit there is a lot of information for the US, but why is there US and then Other Countries? The US is not the centre of the world... ^Talk User:Fissionfox 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The only POVing undueweight slander 'out of context' views on this article (apparently) is quoting Envirofascist journalists who want to have people who disagree with them tried, judged and hanged. --Dean1970 09:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. government attempts to mislead the public

The following text was in mitigation of global warming, where in my opinion it doesn't belong. To the extent it is useful, I feel it might work better here, though at present parts convey a strong POV.

The U.S. government has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "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." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variablity and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law. Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.

The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . .

"The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites.

"two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command.

Incorporate it if you find it useful. Dragons flight 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective quoting of people

Please don't just quote people. There needs to be a context for quotes - and a reason for selecting specific quotes. This is not Wikiquote but Wikipedia. I see no purpose of them, except either of two things: 1) slandering people 2) provoking a "yeah thats right - bastards!" reaction. Both of which are severe POV. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote - that you can reference them - doesn't make it less selective or less POV. --Kim D. Petersen 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How am I slandering anyone? You're jumping to conclusions. Statements by journalists can be included. Where do you suggest on wikipedia I could include it? Global warming controversy? Global warming? Politics of Global warming seemed appropriate to me. And I see no reason (other than your selective POV finger-pointing) not to include it. --Dean1970 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

couple of questions:

What is the purpose?

How are you selecting these?

Why these exact quotes?

What context are the quotes in?

Is there an explanation to the quotes that you leave out?

At the very least you are doing WP:SYN by selecting them according to your preferences. But for a minute i'll assume good faith and let you explain what the purpose of it is. --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I on trial for adding a statement that a journalist made regarding global warming scepticism?

Perhaps the real question is why you want it removed, like it never happened, or wasn't said. I didn't make it up. And I was actually reading this [8] by a professor of economics when I found it and decided to include it on wikipedia, not that it is any of your business what I do online. --Dean1970 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. Please don't try to read peoples minds.

I have to say that i'm impressed by the lack of rationale for including this. You saw the statement - felt that it was good (why?) - and just had to include it? Please please read the guidelines for WP:V and WP:NPOV, Ok? --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, actually I read a couple of other articles too. I added a different reference to the statement as well. (why?) (why?), Kim, Why not? --Dean1970 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was reading the article I linked above. I decided to research myself further. Other reliable sources back up that the statement was made. I decided to contribute to this article in the media section. Pls note, I have hardly made any edits to this article. Perhaps there are page ownership issues at play here? --Dean1970 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to verify the statement [9] and it seemed to provoke some debate [10] [11] --Dean1970 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You provide no context. You provide no rationale for the inclusion - other than "I decided to include it". Since its a very POV statement by Roberts - which you btw. do not provide a secondary reference for (WP:SYN) - as it stands without explanation and context - its pure POV. (and i'm really not going to start speculating about why you feel that this particular quote is something that needs to be mentioned). And please cite reliable sources and not blogs - Inhofe's page is a blog - not a WP:RS.

I have no doubt that Roberts said it - thats not whats debated here. I also have no doubt that Bush at some point said "Some of the biggest sources of air pollution are the power plants, which send tons of admissions into our air.", but quoting that statement is just as POV and has no place in an article without context and rationale. --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're using a strawman. President Bush makes a lot of statements. If he said something like this, it would be included on Wikipedia. There is no rationale not to include statements made by journalists. Especially controversial ones. Stop trying to censor the article. --Dean1970 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article covers the politics of global warming. Freedom of speech falls under politics. A journalist and environmentalist made a controversial statement that would (on a personal level) affect me, because I believe 'man made global warming' to be hyped up propaganda (but that isn't the issue, and don't interpret it as such). I would include ANY journalist of any scribe or political leaning if they made a statement claiming that people who believe that humans are causing GW should face a court-trial on a par with Naziism. And I have a pretty strong feeling its inclusion on Wikipedia wouldn't be subjected to the level of scrutiny that you are subjecting my edit to. --Dean1970 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, time is not on my side here. You make valid points. And I appreciate your feelings on the subject of Global Warming. I don't see you as an enemy. We disagree on things. But, I feel, or see no reason for this statement to be axed. bbl. --Dean1970 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dean - how about requesting a WP:Third opinion? --Kim D. Petersen 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, as an unbiased and neutral editor, do your thing to keep the article balanced and POV free by removing the agenda-driven content from the article. I've seen where wp requests get you these days, a reasonable editors' request for an unblock over a nothing matter declined. --Dean1970 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. it looks like a government website to me, similar to miliband-Defra (imo), that is used as RS with no issues on some articles I believe.

The article is terribly POV

In its current state, the article contains only one side of the issue. No section even exists to discuss the UN's IPCC, which is a political organization that gives governments control of the final report. Since the IPCC is not discussed, there is no criticism of the IPCC or the UN's role in it. Neither do I see any discussion on the economic cost of the Kyoto treaty or other approaches of mitigation or adaptation. A great deal of information on these issues is available and Wikipedia readers should be directed to these resources. A free pdf report critiquing the economics of the IPCC report is downloadable here. [12] A pdf report by Essex and McKitrick is available here. [13] RonCram 13:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Material removed from Global warming controversy

Global warming controversy is really about the scientific controversy. The large section of material about the political controversy below was removed because it was off topic and poorly written. I brought it here in case it may have some citations you would like to use in this article.

In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding anthropogenic global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, now says, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up" [14], and "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 ["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 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."

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 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." 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,"

in a 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.

I hope no one is too upset with me for bringing it here for you to discuss. If it has no value to you, just disregard it. RonCram 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the section to the GW Controversy page. See talk page there for reason. 69.107.224.129 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Political Pressure

This article discusses political pressure on scientist to deny Global Warming, but it fails to mention political pressure on scientist to confirm it!

They shine the spot light on scientist who agree with the theory, but they defame any who suggest that it needs more study.

This issue has been taken over by the politicans, which suggests that their are politcal motivations involved. I read an article today on this and it was about nothing but redistributing global wealth. It basicaly suggested that the Industrial Nations should fund less developed Nations and then give them technology that would allow those less developed Nations to create their own industries.

So if I read this correctly, the Industrial Nations, who already must compete with these other nations who have radically lower wages for workers, are now supposed to throw money and technology at these same countries, effectively funding and equiping their own competition in the global market!

Why are solutions to Global Warming that do not involve this process downplayed or ignored? If Global Warming is truly the great threat to face mankind, why aren't all solutions on the table and not just those that also happen to redistribute global wealth?

I also read on the UN website that it was the production of livestock that was the greatest source of greenhouse gases and not industrialization, yet that is virtually ignored. Is this because persuing those countries who have the largest livestock industries, does not facalitate this redistribution of wealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.186.51 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that support your assertion of "fails to mention political pressure on scientist to confirm it" - then add it. Sorry - livestock is not the greatest source of greenhouse gases (not even close). Livestock production (which includes fossil fuel usage etc) is responsible for a significant percentage - but not even close to 50%. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Related controversies

Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks. Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organised attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney claims that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial has become increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration and constitutes a "Republican war on science". This is also the subject of a recent book by Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entitled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan.

Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.

CFCs and ozone layer

Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. 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 has been disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Kary Mullis, Steven Milloy,, Fred Singer, and Frederick Seitz.

Risks of passive smoking

Main article: passive smoking

By the early 1980s, concerns began to arise regarding the health risks of passive smoking and whether policy responses such as smoking bans are appropriate. Medical, governmental, and UN organizations such as the United States Surgeon General, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization have concluded that the scientific evidence shows that passive smoking is harmful. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer (1994), Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento in 1997 the Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert) and the Institute of Public Affairs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists criticism of the scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a lobby groupdirected by Milloy and established with support from Philip Morris and subsequently from ExxonMobil. Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels. TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming.

Happy editing! RonCram (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of Nixon

I have inserted some points about the early history of the Greenhouse effect. I am surprised myself - its a legacy of Richard Nixon, besides the EPA. The source is a high quality PHD thesis of Dr. Kai F. Hünemörder[15], which has meanwhile a post doc at Göttingen university. Merry Christmas --Polentario (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Politics vs Political Action - Public Pressure on Governments?

There is a lot of overlap between this article and the article [individual and political action on climate change] article, especially in regards to what governments are doing. It would be useful to separate these two into two if not three separate entries which would detail 1. Governments and Climate Change: what role government has played in the scientific investigation of anthropogenic climate change and policy implementation on international, national, and local levels 2. Politics of Global Warming: what public action has been taken, advocacy, protest, etc. 3. individual action which should be turned into an individual-lifestyle changes page. There is a lot of overlap as well as a lot being left out in regards to the response of Environmental NGO's and advocacy groups to global warming. (Alevihnc (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Public Perception of causes of Global Warming

Rasmussen has been keeping tract of how many people believe human activity is the cause of global warming. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update. This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude6935 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bjorn Lomborg

Since he is a well-known critic of the climate change consensus, it is surprising that this article doesn't mention Lomborg at all, while it finds room to list various vacuous celebrities who have jumped on the bandwagon. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming/Climate Change Reparations?

The latest talk is about global warming/climate change reparations, but as near as I can tell, Wikipedia has nothing about it anywhere yet. Should there be some mention of it? I imagine talk of it isn't going away, will only grow, and I think it warrants a mention somewhere and in time even an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.231 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An update. This is the article [16] (not available online at the time of the above post) that got me to searching for the topic and led to the above post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.83.180 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is shamefully POV, one of the most biased articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Yet, there is no POV warning. Vegasprof (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Globalize

I see that this issue has been raised on this talk page before, but it received only an abusive comment that was largely incomprehensible, mentioning fascism and hanging people. Not only is this article almost completely US-centric, with tiny sections on the politics of whole other continents, but it hasn't even got a section heading for Africa. The news today was that representatives from African countries were having quite a decisive impact on discussions at Copenhagen.

I have no intention of trying to write and source comprehensive political coverage for 90% of the world's population, and it seems that neither does anyone else. I suggest the article be renamed to Politics of global warming in the US to reflect its current content. --Nigelj (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this article was peer reviewed in July this year and the reviewer made exactly the same suggestion re renaming, except s/he spelled out 'US'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Climate change consensus

There's been a proposal to merge about three paragraphs into this article. See Talk:Climate change consensus#More spaghetti..., last three comments in thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove broken links: Climate change policy, maybe replace with Category:Climate change policy?

Remove broken links: Climate change policy, maybe replace with Category:Climate change policy? 99.35.8.204 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of relevance, or just mush?

• Miller, Caroline, Jan 29, 2010, Bin Laden Blasts US for Causing Climate Change, Newser

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Change deadlink "climate change policy" to Category:Climate change policy or Politics of global warming (United States)

Change deadlink "climate change policy" to Category:Climate change policy or Politics of global warming (United States) 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed self-link. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Add Alliance of Small Island States

Add Alliance of Small Island States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.127.159 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Add BASIC countries and potentially add Earth Days as Richard Nixon context.

Add BASIC countries and potentially add Earth Days as Richard Nixon context. 99.29.187.160 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Add List of climate change initiatives ?

Add List of climate change initiatives; per apparent User:Arthur Rubin deletions of User:209.255.78.138 User Contributions on Politics of global warming (United States), and other articles. 99.37.84.151 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I said, possibly, but it's probably a good idea. Most initiatives have political aspects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation, maybe in relation to Chinese national carbon trading scheme?

Add Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation, maybe in relation to Chinese national carbon trading scheme? 99.155.149.144 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Paul Collier?

Add Paul Collier? 99.122.16.95 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add wikilink Adaptation to global warming.

Add wikilink Adaptation to global warming. 99.29.184.196 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Climate change mitigation to article.

Add Climate change mitigation to article. 99.102.177.129 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Individual and political action on climate change

Add Individual and political action on climate change. 99.88.231.84 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply stated, read the titles, as with Politics of global warming (United States) too, but first check out Talk:Climate change denial to "check yourself": Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin. 99.39.185.185 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't "need" to add "Why" to BASIC countries and/or Alliance of Small Island States, User? 99.39.185.185 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Now in: Talk:Politics of global warming/Archive 1)^ 99.54.141.19 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We probably do need to add "why" to those, as well. I just didn't go back any further than the last 5 improperly formatted requests to add something to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"We", User:aRSS? Please clarify ...

as your world has shown to be smaller, appropriately go back to Talk:Politics of global warming (United States), or more precisely Talk:Climate change denial by way of Talk:Media coverage of climate change as WP:NOTFORUM. 99.24.250.170 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We = all sensible Wikipedia editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't let it rest? For the sake of clarity, joker, riddle me this ... Sense and/or Sensibility, or ... User:Special? Still watchin'. 99.155.145.41 (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How is The Day After Tomorrow in "Media" the Politics of global warming? The Age of Stupid is closer, or use Climate change in popular culture.

How is The Day After Tomorrow in "Media" the Politics of global warming in anyway? It needs to be removed. At a minimum change the over-the-top drama (verging on Climate change denial) exaggeration of the Day After Tomorrow and use Climate change in popular culture instead. The Age of Stupid is closer with its 10:10 follow-up and Portal:Social movements links. 99.155.144.202 (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not "politics"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you attempting to be funny? Or have you not seen the movie? ... Why is anything not "politics"? So, include everything, right? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Day After Tomorrow is much less political and much more Hollywood hype, good point. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the section should be deleted as being arbitrary, but why is The Day After Tomorrow not considered political? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Arthur, delete Day After... 99.88.231.191 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Add I PAT ?

Add I PAT ? ... (Human impact of climate change not the same) Human Impact = human Population * Affluence * Technology. ... (Appropriate Technology), Planetary boundaries ? ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with politics, even in the unlikely event it deserves an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(replying to edited post; my previous post is not quite apposite, any more). I PAT is probably appropriate in human impact on climate change, but not in all articles (such as this one) where human impact of climate change is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Add current news: Australia's Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, says that the government's plans to impose a carbon tax, part of a phase-in of an emissions trading program, will impact less than 1,000 companies.

Add current news: Australia's Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, says that the government's plans to impose a carbon tax, part of a phase-in of an emissions trading program, will impact less than 1,000 companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/us-australia-carbon-combet-idUSTRE7260IV20110307 Reuters 99.119.129.33 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Add March 23, 2011 news content Portal:Current events in Australia.

• Thousands of people gather in Canberra, Australia to protest the introduction of a carbon tax, Prime Minister Julia Gillard met the Australian Youth Climate Coalition which is pushing for a price on emissions, while climate change mitigation activists including the Australian Council of Trade Unions delivered a petition to Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet signed by about 10,000 "working Australians" urging the government to take action.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/anti-carbon-tax-rally-told-prime-minister-julia-gillard-like-pinocchio/story-e6frea73-1226026686775 (AAP via Adelaide Now) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-tax-protesters-labelled-extremists-as-they-rally-in-canberra/story-e6frg6xf-1226026565064 http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/tax-climate-protesters-rally-20110323-1c5iy.html Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-3000-rally-against-carbon-tax-outside-parliament-house/story-e6freuy9-1226026717154 99.181.134.247 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the "anti-tax" side are rally organiser Chris Johnson, from the Consumers and Taxpayers Association, Young Liberals (Australia), Democratic Labor Party (DLP), Climate Skeptics, the National Civic Council, Conservative Action Network, and the Liberal Party of Australia's Eric Abetz. Also listed in the SMH article, on the carbon pricing climate change mitigation-side are Bob Brown and the Australian Greens. The National Party of Australia's Warren Truss and Liberal Party Tony Abbott were expected to address the rally. Greens deputy leader Senator Christine Milne said the Canberra anti-carbon-tax rally resembled the Tea Party demonstrations in the US. Centre-right Liberal Party Nick Champion, along with centre-left Australian Labor Party's Michelle Rowland, declared those attending the anti-carbon-tax rally "extremists". For "climate change skeptics" see Climate change denial and Climate change controversy (with Merchants of Doubt and Requiem for a Species recommended). 99.190.83.151 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Previously Portal:Current events/2011 March 7 *Australia's Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, says that the government's plans to impose a carbon tax, part of a phase-in of an emissions trading program, will impact less than 1,000 companies. (Reuters) 99.181.146.162 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In April, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Treasury_reveals_cost_of_carbon_tax_on_Australian_families ... A$863 rise in household costs per annum for treasury modelling was based on a $30 carbon pricing.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-tax-to-cost-households-1660-a-week-20110401-1cra8.html Treasury modelling forecasts the cost impact of putting a price on carbon 99.181.146.162 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any countries besides the United States that have there own article, such as Politics of global warming (United States)?

Are there any countries besides the United States that have there own article, such as Politics of global warming (United States)? 99.190.86.252 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Other countries are covered at Politics of global warming. The US material took up too much space there so was split into a separate article. (This is the standard approach - see WP:SUMMARY.) Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So the United States is the only country with its own Politics of global warming article? 99.119.129.3 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Add Portal:Politics

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

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

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)

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)

Add Portal:Energy?

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

I would need to see relevance. It's indirect, but it may be sufficiently important to be added. Connections are:

• Politics of global warming – global warming - sustainable energy use - energy
• Politics of global warming - politics of energy use or politics of fossil fuels - energy or fossil fuels

It seems too indirect, to me, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

More focus, than location. 99.56.120.243 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Related from The Guardian: Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink "Record rise, despite recession, means 2C target almost out of reach" by Fiona Harvey, Environment correspondent guardian.co.uk 29.May.2011 22.00 BST. 99.19.47.35 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Can cities lead the way in cutting greenhouse gas emissions? Regarding "C40"

Can cities lead the way in cutting greenhouse gas emissions? The cities of the C40 Climate Leadership Group have the opportunity to lead in addressing the climate change challenge; regarding C40 (Large Cities Climate Leadership Group) by Conor Riffle, head of CDP Cities, 7 June 2011 10.59 BST. 99.19.47.35 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are "CDP Cities" cities in the Carbon Disclosure Project? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Add from Portal:Current events/2011 July 10 ...

• The Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard announces the details of a plans to introduce a carbon tax. (Sydney Morning Herald) 99.112.213.202 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see Portal:Current events/2011 April 2. 99.119.129.32 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Add resource: Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet.

Add resource: Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it explains the drives for the politics (not just politicians) of global warming (and broader Human impact on the environment which have passed some Planetary boundaries). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not a reliable source, except for Collier's opinions. Still, it might have a place, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy to read, good book. Add. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good choice to add for Further Reading. 99.181.151.50 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Add The Age of Stupid to ...

The politics of global warming was raised to a considerably higher profile when former Vice President Al Gore was given an Academy Award for his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore has made a considerable number of public appearances to promote the film and the subject-matter within it.

Other major media treatments of the politics of global warming:

• The 11th Hour
• The Day After Tomorrow
• Are We Changing Planet Earth?

99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource ... 112 Countries for 350 ppm / 1.5 C

Countries for 350 ppm / 1.5 C ... Association of Small Island States (AOSIS 39 countries) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs 49 total, 8 are AOSIS members) + Latin America (8 Countries) + Climate Vulnerable Forum (3 Countries) + COP 15 in Copenhagen (13 additional countries) = Total: 112 Countries, from 350.org. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In comparison there are 193 Member states of the United Nations. For what it is worth, that is 58%. 99.119.130.194 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that all of those "countries" are member states.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Which ones are you suggesting aren't? 141.218.36.44 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What indeed. Care to be constructive in building encyclopedic articles, Art? 99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(To "141") How should I know? What is the purpose of your (all of you, as you're all obviously the same person) comment, other than synthesizing material of questionable relevance, even if it were sourced? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why ask ... Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (again), Art. 99.181.142.6 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-disclosure, Art? 99.190.86.55 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation

Add Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation, please. 99.181.138.215 (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly makes sense to add this, since the PRC is the second biggest economy. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Big omission, add. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1. You're talking to yourself. Again.
2. It's relevant to climate change mitigation, but not to this article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where is the content about the PRC? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

<<Expand>>? 99.181.156.11 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good idea. It's just that there is nothing that should be in Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation which should be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This (China-related article) is related to this article and absolutely to the potential of climate change mitigation. 141.218.36.50 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation ← the nonexistent article China's effect on climate (nominally part of Climate change in China) ← Climate change policy of China ← Politics of global warming — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What? 99.181.129.46 (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the best connection chain I can come up with to justify Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation being mentioned, and it might justify Climate change in China being listed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 October 12 on carbon pricing

From Portal:Current events/2011 October 12 (previously see Portal:Current events/2011 July 10) ...

• The House of Representatives of Australia passes the Gillard government's carbon tax legislation. (Sydney Morning Herald)

99.56.123.210 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 November 8

• The Australian Senate votes to introduce a carbon tax, a form of carbon pricing. (The West Australian via Tahoo 7 News) 99.56.120.249 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a related source; Reversing a campaign pledge, the Labor Party leader bets her job on a plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions regarding Prime minister of Australia Julia Gillard by Geoffrey Gagnon, an Atlantic senior editor (Novemeber 2011); excerpt

Currently, about 80 percent of the country’s electricity comes from coal, helping to make Australia the worst per capita carbon polluter among wealthy nations. Australia is also the world’s leading coal exporter, and vocal factions of the powerful mining industry say the tax scheme will destroy jobs and sink the economy. Such fears help explain the prime minister’s horrendous job-approval numbers.

Also see Kevin Rudd, List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, and the Labor Party (Australia). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See Energy in Australia and Green electricity in Australia. 99.181.135.155 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource

Africa Leads Climate Push as Its People Go Hungry "Africa is leading the push for clean energy policy-making as climate change turns millions of its people into "food refugees," the head of the U.N." Scientific American November 21, 2011 by Katy Migiro reporting for AlertNet, a global humanitarian news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation (www.trust.org/alertnet); excerpt ...

In the Horn of Africa, some 13 million people are going hungry due to prolonged drought. In Somalia, the crisis is compounded by conflict. ... Scientists say pledges so far to curb emissions will not prevent the planet heating up beyond the two degrees Celsius threshold they say risks more extreme weather, crop failure and major floods. Global average temperatures rose by 0.7C over pre-industrial times during the 20th century. ... He estimated that it could take two to five years to reach another global agreement. The European Union, Russia, Japan and Canada have said they will not sign a second commitment period unless bigger emitters, notably China and the United States, provide firm evidence that they would join too. "The world is going to pay a terrible price for this standoff and Africa in particular," said Achim Steiner.

See UNEP, African Development Bank, Lake Turkana, Naivasha, 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Economic migrant and Environmental migrant.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Added link 99.190.83.205 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See starting 1991 Somali Civil War then War in Somalia (2009–) and OEF-HOA for more context. 99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Effects of climate change on humans#El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Civil disorder resource ...

El Niños may inflame civil unrest; Climate pattern correlates with increased risk of conflict By Janet Raloff October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 16) Science News, regarding Solomon Hsiang of Princeton University and his coauthors at Columbia University report in the Aug. 25 Nature (journal), with comments by statistician Andrew Solow of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and Neil Johnson of the University of Miami and Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Mass; excerpt ...

About every seven years, climates in tropical regions swing between conditions dominated by an El Niño and those moderated by a La Niña (cooling in equatorial Pacific waters). During El Niño years, the likelihood that a new civil conflict would erupt in equatorial nations was roughly 6 percent, or twice that for La Niña periods.

Related to Talk:Intertropical Convergence Zone#What it rong with the external link *ITCZ in March 2011 Scientific American ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees may be of interest. 99.181.136.135 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See Pre-industrial society 99.181.136.158 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

• Canada announces that it will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, because the country would face large penalties because of treaty violations.(Reuters)

from Portal:Current events/2011 December 12

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource in current issue of Environment (Vol. 53, 5, Sept/Oct 2011)

From resource in current issue of Environment (Vol. 53, 5, Sept/Oct 2011) ... http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/September-October%202011/climate-change-full.html ... in particular Table 1. Flagship Legislation, such as

• Japan's 1998 Law Concerning the Promotion of Measures to Cope with Global Warming (http://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/global/warming.html), amended in 2005;
• Mexico's 2005/2008 Inter-Secretariat Commission on Climate Change and the Law for the Use of Renewable Energies and for the Finance of the Energy Transition (LUREFET)
• Canada's 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act;
• Germany's 2007 Integrated Climate and Energy Programme (updated 2008)
• EU's 2008 European Union climate and energy package
• UK's Climate Change Act 2008
• India's 2008 National Action Plan on Climate Change
• United States's 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and President Obama's Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance
• France's 2009 Grenelle de la mer, Grenelle I, and Grenelle II;
• Brazil's 2009 National Policy on Climate Change
• South Korea's 2009 Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth

... examples from the 16 world economies covered, including G8+5 covering 155 laws, regulations, policies and decrees of comparable status. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be related; List of climate change initiatives. 99.119.128.87 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=cc&action=detail&id=3659 from the IEA.org relates to "Germany's 2007 Integrated Climate and Energy Programme" 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

IEA.org is the International Energy Agency. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This from Talk:Tea Party movement # Get the Energy Sector off the Dole ...

WSJ John M. Biers in the October 5, 2011 ... OECD, IEA Urge Cuts to Fuel Subsidies; excerpt ...

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) Tuesday urged governments world-wide to cut billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, arguing the rollbacks would bolster sagging government budgets while cutting wasteful energy use and carbon emissions. A group of 24 industrialized countries now spends $45 billion to $75 billion annually on more than 250 support measures to producers and consumers, according to a report released Tuesday by the OECD. The estimated price tag is even bigger for emerging countries: A group of 37 mostly developing countries studied by the IEA spent $409 billion in 2010 on fossil-fuel-consumption ...

99.109.126.248 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Would this be useful for Brazil's 2009 National Policy on Climate Change?: http://www.brasil.gov.br/cop-english/materiais-download/key-fact-and-figures-climate-change-and-biodiversity-in-brazil 99.19.43.8 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) See Executive Order 13514 99.190.83.243 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

From UNEP's site 2010 Overview of the Republic of Korea’s National Strategy for Green Growth 99.181.147.59 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

For Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth?

Where is something for India? It is not on Energy policy of India. There is National Action Plan on Climate Change from National Mission for Enhanced Efficiency. 99.181.137.218 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Bloomberg BusinessWeek resource

• Change's Dead Letters; To fight climate change, local and regional efforts may achieve more than global treaties like the Kyoto Protocol December 08, 2011, 5:00 PM EST by Charles Kenny

"The flaw in Kyoto is that it binds none of the world’s three largest polluters, which are responsible for nearly half of all emissions."

"a study released on Dec. 4 by the Global Carbon Project, an association of scientists, found that global emissions rose again in 2010 by 5.9 percent, the largest increase since 2003."

Andreas Schmitter of Oregon State University's Science article suggesting Earth's atmosphere might be a little less sensitive.

"A doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures by 2.3 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit), rather than the previous consensus position of 3 degrees or more." (more sensitive)

Excerpt ...

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the right to regulate greenhouse gases. Washington has set fuel economy standards that will increase the average energy efficiency of America’s automobiles by about one-half by 2025. And California is under an executive order to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below their 1990 level by 2050. That matters, because (at market exchange rates) California’s economy is larger than Russia’s or India’s. It is also home to considerable research capacity. If California creates demand for low-carbon technologies, cleantech development will follow.

99.19.45.160 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Include China?

See Energy policy of the People's Republic of China#National Action Plan on Climate Change, and potentially Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation. 99.181.137.218 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT, WSJ resources, multiple related wp article

• Carbon Emission Fees for Flights Upheld by Nicola Clark, published December 21, 2011 from Paris ... The European Union's highest court on Wednesday

• EU Keeps Airlines in Carbon Market Alessandro Torello from Brussels, excerpt ...

  The European Union's top court backed the inclusion of the airline industry in the bloc's carbon-trading market, in a decision likely to escalate a diplomatic row between the EU and its biggest trading partners. Wednesday's widely expected ruling comes as the U.S. and others intensify pressure on the EU to delay the expansion of its emissions trading plan to include airlines on Jan. 1, or scrap it altogether in favor of a new international deal. The U.S., China and others have threatened action if their airlines are forced to buy permits to account for their emissions of carbon dioxide, a ...

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation, and Climate change policy of the United States for a couple related topics, and 99.181.132.91 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2012 January 4

International relations

• The China Air Transport Association advises that Chinese airlines will not pay the carbon costs under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. (Climate Spectator)(New York Times)(Reuters)(Bloomberg.com)(ABC Online)
• United-Continental, US Airways, Delta add Europe surcharge by Nancy Trejos, USA Today
• United Matches Delta With $3 Fee on Europe Emissions Rules January 05, 2012, 11:28 PM EST BusinessWeek by Mary Jane Credeur
• United, US Airways join Delta fare hike January 5, 2012 7:05 PM CBS News (Associated Press)

99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See Environmental impact of aviation 99.181.135.129 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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.[17]

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.[18]

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. Recently, bipartisan measures have been introduced.

Kevin E. Trenberth stated:

“ The SPM was approved line by line by governments. . . .The argument here is that the scientists determine what can be 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. ”

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:

“ Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine." ... [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, including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who feel strongly that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits. 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.

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

“ discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... Romm gives a name to those such as ExxonMobil who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... Romm gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. ...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort' (Hell and High Water, p. 25). ”

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 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 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. 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 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 .

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.

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 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.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', 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 though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.

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!"

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."

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.'" Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux, NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott, and Accuracy in Media.

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. 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", as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.

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". 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". 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. Lomborg has been severely questioned by groups in Denmark. Nordhaus and Schellenberger 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. 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?"

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."

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 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." 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.'" see also [19]. 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 ... 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

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.. 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.

U.S. 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. 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 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."

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. 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. 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."

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.

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. 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. The Sierra Club sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Betting

A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change. 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. Lindzen, however, claims that he asked for 2-1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4 °C. 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, 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. [20] 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. [21] Dr Evans' reasons are described here. [22]

Global warming and the precautionary principle

Numerous authors have applied the precautionary principle to the global warming debate, some likening the debate to Pascal's wager. 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.

References

Section to make reference easily visible ...

What is wrong with this talk page?

Why aren't there dates on the edits to this Talk Page? 99.181.131.248 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I've tried to help anyway…

This talk page contained a great deal of 2008 content (initially from Global warming controversy) which editors had moved here on the chance someone would want to add it to this article. Due to the way it was added here, unfortunately, the bot would never archive it. After this long of a time, I figured that if it was useful, it would have been used already, and so I decided to be bold and archive it manually. From this point on, it should look more like a normal talk page. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)