Talk:Politics of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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" [1]. --Spiffy sperry 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Republicans to investigate UN IPCC

Republicans plan to investigate misappropriation of funds by UN IPCC. [2] —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)

[edit] Monckton debate offer

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1][2] "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.[3] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[4]
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.[5]."'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. [6]

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

[edit] 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 [6] 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 [7] and it seemed to provoke some debate [8] [9] --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.

[edit] 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. [10] A pdf report by Essex and McKitrick is available here. [11] RonCram 13:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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" [12], 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" [7] (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[8].
"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[9]. 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[10]

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. [11] [12]

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

[13] 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." [14]

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,"

[15] says this Ceres report. [16]

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."[17] This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later[18], "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.'"[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. 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,"

[20] 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

[21] in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient. [22] 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

[23] , and has been all along. [24] [25] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[13]

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.[14]