Full Version: Global Warming...
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Environmental Debate
Winner, Best Topic: Environmental Debate 2003-2004
In another thread, I was tempted to derail it with my rants about the "global warming" phenomena.
Is "global warming" being caused by industrialization? Is it backed by a majority of scientists? Or is it a purely political issue?
The Reality of 'Global Warming' : Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
QUOTE
Editor's note: This is text of a House speech Tuesday night by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing global warming tonight, especially considering that President Bush has come under severe attack for his refusal to bow before the pressure of a very well-organized effort that they are trying to pressure him to accept the idea that the world is in peril because it is becoming more and more warm because of industrialization. It is vital that the public understand that what is going on in this attack against President Bush is about a political agenda; that global warming is not a scientific imperative. It is a politically-driven theory.
Those espousing global warming are building on public fear and apprehension. Young people in particular are being lied to about the environment and about global warming. Global warming, of course, is one of the worst falsehoods that they talk about. When I meet with student groups, it is clear they are being told false things about a lot of areas of the environment.
In fact, I meet every student group from my district that comes to Washington, D.C. I always ask them the same question: How many of them believe that the air today in Southern California is cleaner or worse than it was when I went to high school in Southern California 35 years ago? Consistently, 95 percent of these students who live in Southern California who are coming to my office say they believe that the air quality today is so much worse than it was when I went to high school and how lucky I was to live in an era, in the early 1960s, when we had such clean air in Southern California.
This, of course, is 180 degrees wrong. These young people have been systematically lied to about their environment. They are being told they are being poisoned by the air. But, in fact, the air quality in Southern California is better than it has ever been in my lifetime. They cannot believe it when they hear it.
Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing global warming tonight, especially considering that President Bush has come under severe attack for his refusal to bow before the pressure of a very well-organized effort that they are trying to pressure him to accept the idea that the world is in peril because it is becoming more and more warm because of industrialization. It is vital that the public understand that what is going on in this attack against President Bush is about a political agenda; that global warming is not a scientific imperative. It is a politically-driven theory.
Those espousing global warming are building on public fear and apprehension. Young people in particular are being lied to about the environment and about global warming. Global warming, of course, is one of the worst falsehoods that they talk about. When I meet with student groups, it is clear they are being told false things about a lot of areas of the environment.
In fact, I meet every student group from my district that comes to Washington, D.C. I always ask them the same question: How many of them believe that the air today in Southern California is cleaner or worse than it was when I went to high school in Southern California 35 years ago? Consistently, 95 percent of these students who live in Southern California who are coming to my office say they believe that the air quality today is so much worse than it was when I went to high school and how lucky I was to live in an era, in the early 1960s, when we had such clean air in Southern California.
This, of course, is 180 degrees wrong. These young people have been systematically lied to about their environment. They are being told they are being poisoned by the air. But, in fact, the air quality in Southern California is better than it has ever been in my lifetime. They cannot believe it when they hear it.
QUOTE
Dan Rather, let us take a look at Dan Rather's report in particular. Dan Rather on CBS news was perhaps the worst in terms of his bias and inaccuracy of the presentation of that report. His lead to the story stated uncategorically that the report had proved global warming was here and that humans were the cause. How many listeners noted that after 3 minutes of Dan Rather's report, that at the end of that report, Dan Rather's own correspondent stated that the National Academy had not stated that humans were the cause of the temperature increase, and that temperature increase was 1 degree over 100 years?
Now, how many people noticed that? You had Dan Rather leading into his report that the report stated unequivocally that there had been the global warming and that humans were the cause. Yet at the end of the report, his own reporter put a little tag on that that they could not absolutely say that it was caused by human actions and human activity.
The National Academy of Science report is filled with weasel words and caveats. That was true of many of the other scientific investigations. Almost every one of the scientific investigations, the findings about global warming were not conclusive enough to make any solid statement other than words to the effect that further research is necessary.
Just like Dan Rather, it totally misportrayed what that report was all about. Over and over and over again, the American people have heard about reports that global warming is absolutely here, and it has been misportrayed to them. That is not what those reports have said. Sometimes reports have said that, and you go back to who did the reports, just a very small group of radicals who are not respected by the scientific community in those reports. Yet we hear about the reports all the time, and we see these same misquoted reports as being used to justify dramatic headlines and very frightening reports over the broadcast news media.
Now, how many people noticed that? You had Dan Rather leading into his report that the report stated unequivocally that there had been the global warming and that humans were the cause. Yet at the end of the report, his own reporter put a little tag on that that they could not absolutely say that it was caused by human actions and human activity.
The National Academy of Science report is filled with weasel words and caveats. That was true of many of the other scientific investigations. Almost every one of the scientific investigations, the findings about global warming were not conclusive enough to make any solid statement other than words to the effect that further research is necessary.
Just like Dan Rather, it totally misportrayed what that report was all about. Over and over and over again, the American people have heard about reports that global warming is absolutely here, and it has been misportrayed to them. That is not what those reports have said. Sometimes reports have said that, and you go back to who did the reports, just a very small group of radicals who are not respected by the scientific community in those reports. Yet we hear about the reports all the time, and we see these same misquoted reports as being used to justify dramatic headlines and very frightening reports over the broadcast news media.
There are literally dozens of links debunking the myth of the global warming due to green house gas theory.
Here is one: Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth?
QUOTE
Everywhere today we hear that the Earth is warming up due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet the MSU satellite observations fail to see any warming. The surface observations, which are the main support for the greenhouse effect hypothesis, are poorly made and contaminated with urban effects and changing skyline effects. The surface temperature observations are made mostly in the 1% of the global areas that are heavily populated and built up. The spatial-temporal sampling of the surface network is not global and this under-sampling alone appears to be causing a spurious warming trend of 0.12 C (out of the observed 0.23 C warming trend between 1979 and 1994).
The old fashioned technique of using 30 year normals also forces climatologists to preferentially choose faulty or inappropriate locations. A station must make measurements within a specified 30 year window or it will not be included in the GISS or CRU temperature reconstructions. This technique alone causes them to throw out about 40% of the observations made before 1870. There are analysis methods which allow the use of all the data. Climatologists have not used them. There are analysis techniques that allow one to separate the urban heat island effect from other causes of climate change. Climatologists have not employed these techniques either. They are not published on this web page. When (and if) we get funding, we will show how to make the temperature trend analysis correctly.For those interested, here are the monthly temperature anomalies for GISS and MSU for 1997, each scaled to give a yearly mean anomaly of 0.00 C. The two time series disagree quite a bit from month to month. For another argument that the surface observations are incorrect and the satellite observations are correct, see this discussion.
The old fashioned technique of using 30 year normals also forces climatologists to preferentially choose faulty or inappropriate locations. A station must make measurements within a specified 30 year window or it will not be included in the GISS or CRU temperature reconstructions. This technique alone causes them to throw out about 40% of the observations made before 1870. There are analysis methods which allow the use of all the data. Climatologists have not used them. There are analysis techniques that allow one to separate the urban heat island effect from other causes of climate change. Climatologists have not employed these techniques either. They are not published on this web page. When (and if) we get funding, we will show how to make the temperature trend analysis correctly.For those interested, here are the monthly temperature anomalies for GISS and MSU for 1997, each scaled to give a yearly mean anomaly of 0.00 C. The two time series disagree quite a bit from month to month. For another argument that the surface observations are incorrect and the satellite observations are correct, see this discussion.
Melting The Global Warming Myth
is another:
QUOTE
Over 17,000 well-qualified scientists have signed the Oregon Institute Petition (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Here are just some facts they pronounce to unmask the myth.
Is global warming due to green house gases a myth, a hypothesis or a fact?
Just to check before we get to the meat of the debate, Amlord: are the ozone hole over Antarctica and the shrinking of our polar ice caps also myths or just temporary anomalies? And if you choose "temporary anomalies" as the answer, how temporary?
amf, as I understand it, the debate is not whether global warming is a myth, but whether or not the warming is caused naturally or is human induced. Amlord can you clarify this?
Amlord,
There is global warming…..a whole 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century.
Furthermore:
There is global warming…..a whole 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century.
QUOTE
Some scientist believe that a warming of the earth would actually be beneficial to mankind and to life in general: Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions." Furthermore, increases in carbon dioxide would boost the growth of crops and forests, which feed on this gas. Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly?
..............
Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/globalwarming.shtml
Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly?
..............
Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/globalwarming.shtml
Furthermore:
QUOTE
The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by 20 feet, isn't melting. Instead, it's thickening and Antarctica is getting cooler. A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year
http://www.nationalcenter.org/RR103.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/RR103.html
I found an interesting report about Global Warming at NASA's website that discusses both sides of the issue.
The same NASA report supports the idea that global warming could be beneficial to the environment in some ways by causing forests to become more lush and hardy and by increasing the temperature of the oceans, providing a more livable environment for some fish, but it also states that while some species will thrive, others will be harmed by the same process.
Additionally, it supports the idea that the Antartic Ice Sheet may be gaining mass, but future climate changes could create a scenario that would cause it and other ice sheets to lose mass.
The problem seems to be that we don't have enough data to work with to make an accurate prediction, and the current models for measuring climate change vary quite a bit. From a layman's standpoint, my initial response is that we need to continue to study the situation, and until we do have some more conclusive data, a healthy balance in policy seems prudent.
QUOTE
While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some prominent scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been greatly exaggerated. Skeptics take issue with the basic temperature data that demonstrate the Earth’s temperature has increased over the last century. Most of the pre-satellite, pre-1970 data were collected in urban areas using many types of thermometers that were spread far apart. Such measurements are subject to human error and do not give a clear depiction of ocean temperatures. Until satellite data are collected for several more decades, some researchers feel that the temperature data remain too unreliable to take at face value.
The same NASA report supports the idea that global warming could be beneficial to the environment in some ways by causing forests to become more lush and hardy and by increasing the temperature of the oceans, providing a more livable environment for some fish, but it also states that while some species will thrive, others will be harmed by the same process.
Additionally, it supports the idea that the Antartic Ice Sheet may be gaining mass, but future climate changes could create a scenario that would cause it and other ice sheets to lose mass.
The problem seems to be that we don't have enough data to work with to make an accurate prediction, and the current models for measuring climate change vary quite a bit. From a layman's standpoint, my initial response is that we need to continue to study the situation, and until we do have some more conclusive data, a healthy balance in policy seems prudent.
I would like to focus the debate on whether it is industrialization (i.e. pollution) which creates this effect, or whether or not it is simply a climate change.
The data is certainly there that temperatures in some areas are rising. Of course, there is statistical error and other procedural problems. I don't really dispute the fact that global temperatures are on the rise. What I want to explore is whether or not it is caused by greenhouse that are created by humans.
Let's see the evidence. Beladonna has links that state the Antarctic ice cap is thickening, not melting. Let's get the facts straight and then we can investigate the cause.
The data is certainly there that temperatures in some areas are rising. Of course, there is statistical error and other procedural problems. I don't really dispute the fact that global temperatures are on the rise. What I want to explore is whether or not it is caused by greenhouse that are created by humans.
QUOTE(amf)
Just to check before we get to the meat of the debate, Amlord: are the ozone hole over Antarctica and the shrinking of our polar ice caps also myths or just temporary anomalies? And if you choose "temporary anomalies" as the answer, how temporary?
Let's see the evidence. Beladonna has links that state the Antarctic ice cap is thickening, not melting. Let's get the facts straight and then we can investigate the cause.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 11 2003, 09:22 PM)
Let's see the evidence. Beladonna has links that state the Antarctic ice cap is thickening, not melting. Let's get the facts straight and then we can investigate the cause.
In regards to the information posted by Beladonna about Antarctica.
Media Goofed on Antarctic Data: Global warming interpretation irks scientists
QUOTE
Contrary to some news reports, "the ice-sheet growth that we have documented in our study area has absolutely nothing to do with any recent climate trends," Tulaczyk declared, emphasizing those words in an e-mail to The Chronicle.
The thickening of Antarctic ice in certain regions -- especially "Ice Stream C" of the Whillans Ice Stream, adjacent to the Ross Ice Shelf -- results from unexpectedly complex internal dynamics of the ice itself.
That the ice-flow changes are unrelated to global warming is illustrated by a simple fact: Such changes were occurring long before the Industrial Revolution boosted atmospheric levels of heat-trapping gases. The area with the greatest ice thickening is on an ice stream that stopped flowing about 150 years ago.
"I keep repeating to journalists that climate science is much like economics. Both deal with complex systems," Tulaczyk observed. "Just as a single stock going up or down cannot be interpreted as a reliable indicator of economic recovery or collapse, we have to accept the occurrence of contradictory trends in the global climate."
The thickening of Antarctic ice in certain regions -- especially "Ice Stream C" of the Whillans Ice Stream, adjacent to the Ross Ice Shelf -- results from unexpectedly complex internal dynamics of the ice itself.
That the ice-flow changes are unrelated to global warming is illustrated by a simple fact: Such changes were occurring long before the Industrial Revolution boosted atmospheric levels of heat-trapping gases. The area with the greatest ice thickening is on an ice stream that stopped flowing about 150 years ago.
"I keep repeating to journalists that climate science is much like economics. Both deal with complex systems," Tulaczyk observed. "Just as a single stock going up or down cannot be interpreted as a reliable indicator of economic recovery or collapse, we have to accept the occurrence of contradictory trends in the global climate."
Edited to add:
Additionally, here is a link to a NASA fact sheet about Polar Ice.
QUOTE
Over the past century, sea level has slowly been rising. This is in part due to the addition of water to the oceans through either the melting of or the "calving" off of icebergs from the world's land ice. Many individual mountain glaciers and ice caps are known to have been retreating, contributing to the rising sea levels. It is uncertain, however, whether the world's two major ice sheets--Greenland and Antarctica--have been growing or diminishing. This is of particular importance because of the huge size of these ice sheets, with their great potential for changing sea level. Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world's fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans. Measurements of ice elevations are now being made by satellite radar altimeters for a portion of the polar ice sheets, and in the future they will be made by a laser altimeter as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), which will provide much-more-accurate measurements over a wider area.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 11 2003, 11:22 PM)
I would like to focus the debate on whether it is industrialization (i.e. pollution) which creates this effect, or whether or not it is simply a climate change.
This is precisely what I think it is-- a climate change. Unfortunately, we haven't been collecting data long enough for my theory to be proven true or not.
I think the answer to this is simple: the sun is getting hotter. It only makes sense. A big burning ball of gas supplies the heat for our planet. The big burning ball of gas gets a bit hotter, and, big surprise, so does our planet.
This Space.com article basically sums it up:
QUOTE
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
Only time will tell what has caused temperatures to rise (way to state the obvious, huh?), but I'm willing to be that the big burning ball of gas a short 93 million miles away has something to do with the temperature of Earth...
Mike
Whether or not global warming is caused by industrialization or by natural climate change, I don't believe should affect our policies. After all, it would be hard to argue with any basis in science that increasing the amount of pollution we release into the atmosphere, the seas, or the earth, is beneficial.
The really political side of this issue is those folks who use debunking the global warming myths as a tool for decreasing environmental standards and regulations. The true "conservative" thinking would be to think of the issue in an extremely cautionary way. Because we can't say for sure what's causing global warming, it is best to play it safe. Even if this is not being caused by industrialization, becoming more conservative about how we do interact with our environment certainly isn't going to hurt!
To say, "global warming is not caused by industrialization, therefor we should scale back environmental regulations" is a perfect example of extremely illogical thinking. There is no science or common sense in the world that could argue logically that factories dumping even more toxic waste into the environment is actually good.
So I say, play it safe. After all, we're dealing with an issue that affects every living creature on this planet. The ethical lines are clear cut.
The really political side of this issue is those folks who use debunking the global warming myths as a tool for decreasing environmental standards and regulations. The true "conservative" thinking would be to think of the issue in an extremely cautionary way. Because we can't say for sure what's causing global warming, it is best to play it safe. Even if this is not being caused by industrialization, becoming more conservative about how we do interact with our environment certainly isn't going to hurt!
To say, "global warming is not caused by industrialization, therefor we should scale back environmental regulations" is a perfect example of extremely illogical thinking. There is no science or common sense in the world that could argue logically that factories dumping even more toxic waste into the environment is actually good.
So I say, play it safe. After all, we're dealing with an issue that affects every living creature on this planet. The ethical lines are clear cut.
In response to Mike, I'd like to bring to your attention on a study completed a few years ago which showed that the sun's activity is submitted to a cycle of 13 years or so. On our local level, it has two effects : hot summers and geomagnetic storms.
This has been verified in 1976, 1989 and 2002-2003. Each one of these years, we've had (in France at least) very hot summers or droughts. And each time, they were accompanied by geomagnetic storms in Spring and Autumn in the Northern hemisphere. IMO, the sun's mood has an impact on the temperature of the planet. But it would be more of a short term effect.
About green house gas effect, I have a broadened perception of things. As much as I believe that CO2, NO2, NH3 and CH4 have a long term effect, I don't know where to look for to find where they are being produced.
CO2 and NO2 are produced by industry, trucks and cars. NH3 and CH4 are more likely to be produced by cattle and animals in general... but how do you measure them? Can statistics and probability be used to make general systems? If so, do these systems reflect reality accurately?
The fact that we can't demonstrate global warming easily is enough of a cause to worry about our own human impact on nature and ourselves.
Global warming is a problem. Global littering is too. I am quite lucky to work in the Environment business, and waste is my specific field. As a professional, I don't have a single doubt that we damage the environment when we don't recycle waste properly. I have seen the damage caused by old landfills in terms of smells, aspect, and the decay of life and water caused by toxic waste dumped in them (metals, acids, hospital waste and so on). We have created bio-hazard and spread chemical chaos in the environment.
Laws prohibit such dangerous behaviors in countries like mine. But what about the others?
This has been verified in 1976, 1989 and 2002-2003. Each one of these years, we've had (in France at least) very hot summers or droughts. And each time, they were accompanied by geomagnetic storms in Spring and Autumn in the Northern hemisphere. IMO, the sun's mood has an impact on the temperature of the planet. But it would be more of a short term effect.
About green house gas effect, I have a broadened perception of things. As much as I believe that CO2, NO2, NH3 and CH4 have a long term effect, I don't know where to look for to find where they are being produced.
CO2 and NO2 are produced by industry, trucks and cars. NH3 and CH4 are more likely to be produced by cattle and animals in general... but how do you measure them? Can statistics and probability be used to make general systems? If so, do these systems reflect reality accurately?
The fact that we can't demonstrate global warming easily is enough of a cause to worry about our own human impact on nature and ourselves.
Global warming is a problem. Global littering is too. I am quite lucky to work in the Environment business, and waste is my specific field. As a professional, I don't have a single doubt that we damage the environment when we don't recycle waste properly. I have seen the damage caused by old landfills in terms of smells, aspect, and the decay of life and water caused by toxic waste dumped in them (metals, acids, hospital waste and so on). We have created bio-hazard and spread chemical chaos in the environment.
Laws prohibit such dangerous behaviors in countries like mine. But what about the others?
Unfortunately global warming is one of those scientific issues that has become incredibly affected by politics.
1) Global warming is caused mostly by CO2. Not because it is the most potent greenhouse gas in existence, but because so much of it is released. CH4 is also a potent greenhouse gas, about 1000 times more potent than CO2, however it is released in smaller amounts.
2) Whilst it is true that CO2 levels have varied dramatically over the lifetime of the earth, there has been a very sharp rise over the period of time that mankind has been using fossil fuels.
3) Linking the rise in CO2 to a rise in temperature is difficult however, as the temperature of the earth varies greatly over the last few million years. Modelling the earths climate is an incredibly complex task, and even the best of models is a huge simplification, often with several assumptions thrown in. Science is by no means apolitical, so often these assumptions can be as different as 'let us assume that this much CO2 will cause a temperature increase of this amount' to the other extreme of 'supposing that the effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to natural processes such as changes in orbit that the earth goes through anyway'.
4) This then gives rise to a variety of conclusions ranging from the idea the global warming is pseudo science, to the stance that global warming is the most devastating thing we could possibly do to ourselves. Taking the first stance is dangerous if it is wrong, as assuming that CO2 emission does no damage when in fact it may may lead us to being taken unawares by severe climate changes around the world. Taking the second stance requires us to stop using the most convenient and powerful source of energy mankind has ever had. This would lead to economic collapse.
5) So countries try to adopt a balance by taking what the majority of scientist believe to be the probably affects of certain levels of CO2 emissions. However, academic opinion varies hugely, so consensus is difficult to achieve.
The political ramifications are huge - pro-business politicians will promote the scientific conclusions that say we do not need to worry about global warming, wheras more traditional left wing politicians take the opposing view. IMO politicians support the views which allow them to act in a manner which will be supported by their voters, because there is NO simple answer.
It is too early to tell to what extent global warming will occur. Unfortuately, by the time we KNOW the answer then it may well be too late to make any changes to prevent the problem (if there is one). Alternatively, if there is no problem and we vastly cripple our economies by reducing fossil fuel usage, then we will have replaced an environmental problem with huge social and economic problems.
I would like to see a reduction in our use of fossil fuel, for two reasons - a) to adopt a precautionary approach and
oil and gas rich countries often cannot handle the huge amounts of money that we pay them for their fuel. This has lead to political and social turmoil in many areas around the world - the middle east, africa, latin america. The EU will soon be dependant upon Russia for gas - I cannot say i think that that will be a good thing for the EU as I think that Russia is not going to become the happy stable democracy it claims to be anytime soon.
1) Global warming is caused mostly by CO2. Not because it is the most potent greenhouse gas in existence, but because so much of it is released. CH4 is also a potent greenhouse gas, about 1000 times more potent than CO2, however it is released in smaller amounts.
2) Whilst it is true that CO2 levels have varied dramatically over the lifetime of the earth, there has been a very sharp rise over the period of time that mankind has been using fossil fuels.
3) Linking the rise in CO2 to a rise in temperature is difficult however, as the temperature of the earth varies greatly over the last few million years. Modelling the earths climate is an incredibly complex task, and even the best of models is a huge simplification, often with several assumptions thrown in. Science is by no means apolitical, so often these assumptions can be as different as 'let us assume that this much CO2 will cause a temperature increase of this amount' to the other extreme of 'supposing that the effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to natural processes such as changes in orbit that the earth goes through anyway'.
4) This then gives rise to a variety of conclusions ranging from the idea the global warming is pseudo science, to the stance that global warming is the most devastating thing we could possibly do to ourselves. Taking the first stance is dangerous if it is wrong, as assuming that CO2 emission does no damage when in fact it may may lead us to being taken unawares by severe climate changes around the world. Taking the second stance requires us to stop using the most convenient and powerful source of energy mankind has ever had. This would lead to economic collapse.
5) So countries try to adopt a balance by taking what the majority of scientist believe to be the probably affects of certain levels of CO2 emissions. However, academic opinion varies hugely, so consensus is difficult to achieve.
The political ramifications are huge - pro-business politicians will promote the scientific conclusions that say we do not need to worry about global warming, wheras more traditional left wing politicians take the opposing view. IMO politicians support the views which allow them to act in a manner which will be supported by their voters, because there is NO simple answer.
It is too early to tell to what extent global warming will occur. Unfortuately, by the time we KNOW the answer then it may well be too late to make any changes to prevent the problem (if there is one). Alternatively, if there is no problem and we vastly cripple our economies by reducing fossil fuel usage, then we will have replaced an environmental problem with huge social and economic problems.
I would like to see a reduction in our use of fossil fuel, for two reasons - a) to adopt a precautionary approach and
oil and gas rich countries often cannot handle the huge amounts of money that we pay them for their fuel. This has lead to political and social turmoil in many areas around the world - the middle east, africa, latin america. The EU will soon be dependant upon Russia for gas - I cannot say i think that that will be a good thing for the EU as I think that Russia is not going to become the happy stable democracy it claims to be anytime soon.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.