Is global warming more of a political issue than scientific?

Certainly politics comes into the picture when it comes to solutions to global warming. However, the idea that it might be invented in order to serve a political agenda is a load of rubbish.

If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion? Global warming is highly complex, and it takes a while to fully understand what it is, why it's happening and why it's a threat. This is a potential minefield to anyone who's not an expert on the subject. To illustrate the point try this: Google geocentric theory (the idea that the sun goes round the earth) and you'll find arguments that you won't be able to counter without resorting to some form of "But everyone knows most scientists say otherwise!"

It's understandable that people want to come to their own conclusions, but by far the best way to start doing that is to look not so much at what's being said, but at WHO is saying it. These are just some of the most significant people warning us of the human-caused global warming threat:

First, the scientists:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authors from 130+ counties, working more than 6 years to review thousands of peer-reviewed papers. They published their first report on climate change in 1990 and have published an updated one every 5 years since then. They conclude, among other things, that global warming is happening, that it's caused by humans, and that it's a potentially very serious threat to us. http://www.ipcc.ch/

The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC:

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified."

The National Academy of Sciences (US), (founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, 1 in 10 of its members is a nobel prize winner!)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (around since before the US Civil War. It's the largest scientific society in the world, with 144,000 members!)

Royal Society (United Kingdom),

Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Science Council of Japan,

Russian Academy of Sciences,

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),

Royal Society of Canada,

Académie des Sciences (France),

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),

Indian National Science Academy,

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),

Australian Academy of Sciences,

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,

Caribbean Academy of Sciences,

Indonesian Academy of Sciences,

Royal Irish Academy,

Academy of Sciences Malaysia,

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

See the full statement here: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1361...

Government sources:

In 2008 (i.e. still during the George W. Bush era), all 16 US intelligence agencies (who aren't normally known for being green), including the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency jointly produced a report known as the National Intelligence Assessment. The report warned of a wide of a wide range of national security threats if global warming isn't properly addressed.

The Pentagon, in 2003 (i.e. also in the George W. Bush era) released a study which warned: "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/...

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are meeting in Copenhagen in December this year to discuss what action to take against global warming.

John McCain promised to take action against climate change http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04spr/mccain1.asp?r=n (again, this would suggest that it's NOT in fact a liberal plot)

Also in Britain where I live, all the major political parties, including the conservative party agree that global warming is man-made and a threat.

China has declared that it will take action on climate change http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/13/china-signal... and has recently closed coal power plants with a total of 7,467 generating units.

The president of the Maldives made the following remarkable short speech: http://vimeo.com/3661273

Corporations:

One would have thought that big corporations would be the last people to accept that global warming is real, given that many of them, particularly oil companies, may stand to lose out if consumption of their products is necessarily reduced:

Exxonmobil is an oil giant, and the largest company in the world. For a long time they have funded those who deny global warming http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war... However, in 2007 they finally stated that global warming is a serious risk and must be addressed by governments.

80 global corporations including Shell, BP, Duke Energy, Michelin and British Airways wrote a document to G8 leaders calling for stronger action against climate change.

Wanna see even more sources? The list just goes on and on! Click the following link:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#...

____________________

So who are the skeptics?

At this date, there is only 1 professional scientific organization which does not concur that the science clearly points to man-made global warming being a serious threat. That's the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who state that the globe is warming but that their membership is divided on the degree of human influence. However, this is not all that surprising when you consider that they may feel that their jobs will be threated by action taken against global warming.

The Oregon Petition/petition project etc:

An online petition which anyone can sign. The number of signers is now up to 31,000, although you may hear it quoted as a lower number if someone isn't up to date. To sign you're supposed to hold a science degree, although it can be in ANY area of science, the names are not disclosed and nobody actually checks to see if the signers really do have degrees. http://www.petitionproject.org/

A compiled list of 400 scientists against global warming:

Amazingly, some people on this list are counted multiple times, and many are not scientists but engineers, inventors, economists etc.

A few think tanks and advocacy organizations (i.e. people with agendas to push, NOT scientists!):

e.g. The Heartland Institute, The Marshall Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute...

A tiny handful of oft-quoted individual scientists.

Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer etc.

Most of these skeptics are qualified in fields other than CLIMATE science, which is the relevant field.

A slew of journalists, writers, bloggers and documentary makers who present different versions of events, where global warming is portrayed as shambles/conspiricy/liberal plot. They are pretty successful at convincing people, because your average member of the public doesn't know any better.

__________________

It's easy to think that you've found a serious hole in the global warming argument, when in fact you simply haven't properly understood it. In particular, if you go searching for holes in the argument you will surely think you've found some. However, look deeper and there are solid answers to every single one of those supposed holes. To assume instead that ALL these scientists are lying or incompetant is paranoid to say the least! If you're curious about how certain parts of the picture add up, this website does a good job of answering the most popular skeptical concerns:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It's largely a scientific issue,but it has been made into a political issue by opportunists on both sides trying to scare the American people into knuckling under to them. It has been proven that it is a cyclical phenomenon, that WON'T kill us all, and yet some alarmists still feel the need to scare the gullible by claiming the reverse; the only reason I can think of is so that these gullible will hand them the reins and give them leave to give and/or take whatever they want from the American people in the name of "saving the Earth", when all they will really be saving is money in their bank accounts and influence. IT IS A SCAM, and the perpetrators of it should be jailed for fraud. Further, carbon Dioxide has been breathed by everything that breathes air(NOT just humans), and is therefore preposterous as an agent of Global Warming. Carbon MONOXIDE would be plausible as an agent of it, if it were true, because it is a pollutant, but carbon Dioxide is not, Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that's a scam.

Global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuel and environmental destruction is a scientific fact based on observation and analysis of the data.

We have to choose what future we want, that is a political issue.

If 9bn humans want to pursue a hollywood consumerist fantasy of big cars, big houses, over-consumption and waste as promoted by big business that is OK, so long as we are clearly informed about the consequences cf the smoking tried for a long time to discredit the scientific evidence that smoking injures and kills, and still it took government legislation to stop smoking in public places.

As a society we are addicted to cheap energy, trying to reason logically (scientifically) with an addict is a waste of time.

Good question; but no- the government has nothing to do with this disaster except for there "promise" to controle our environment while there fixing the economy. Which might or might not happen- but we also have the Green party with environmentalists that also help with this problem.

But its more of a scientific issue- because we have proof of the increase in temperatures thanks to science. I mean, come on! Global warming IS science so there really isnt any question to it.

Political

Like the first guy said science is not an issue. It is a method. It has rules that need to be followed. It is then laid out there for others to bash about or agree with.

Global Warming is a political issue.

Science is there to prove or disprove the validity of the argument

Global Warming seems to be one of the premier policy agendas of the Slanted Left with a significant amount of science to back it up.

Indeed in this age of using science to validate all kinds of research that may have ethical difficulties by Christian moralists, Left thinking has become the politically correct standard for scientific research.

There has been a very real concern for the environment through most of my adult life. The science that has developed Global Warming hypotheses seems to be the path that Left thinking scientists have used to congeal the scientific community to a path to save planet earth. This is much like Darwinism (and the theory’s updated offshoots) has become the politically correct scientific explanation of biological life on planet earth.

As it is near scientific heresy to buck the validity of Darwinism; so also it is becoming scientific heresy to buck the validity of Global Warming.

Those who are politically and scientifically against global warming usually involve free enterprise thinking. The Left thinking politically correct scientific community has developed an epithet for those disputing the conclusions of Global Warming theory. They are called Global Warming Deniers. This is reminiscent of the vitriol rightfully reserved for Holocaust Deniers.

I have even read that some Global Warming enthusiasts believe that it should be made a criminal offense to be a Global Warming Denier.

Here is a look at politically correct Global Warming:

"The current warming cycle falls within historical changes, and the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years."

It is true that the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold periods due to the interaction of many factors, including especially small variations in the planet's tilt and rotation. A big difference now is that it is our own pollution causing the climate to change. This change is very rapid by historical standards, and it wouldn't be happening at this fast rate if the amount of carbon dioxide humans put in the atmosphere was less. (More Pro-Global Warming …)

Here is a look at politically incorrect views on Global Warming:

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

Obviously I am no scientist. What I am seeing here though is a series of facts with two disputed conclusions.

This is just the science disagreement and how one side (the politically correct) has the ear of the Left while the other side (the politically incorrect) has the ear of the Right.

It is politics that is the friend of agenda focused science. It is the politics of the Left and the Right that tends to aid with the funding of science.

It is in the realm of politics that something is occurring that I am a relative novice in reading about. This is where the “Conspiracy Theory” paradigm raises its head.

I love a good conspiracy theory especially when the facts in the theory are difficult to pooh-pooh away with anything more than looking at the data and developing the theory behind it. Hence it becomes fun when it comes down to believing who said what. One of the great tools of conspiracy theory is to question the credibility of either the person promoting the facts or the science behind the facts.

I am seeing the promoters of a Global Warming conspiracy theory and the promoters of Global Warming science embarking on the ‘question the credibility’ campaign to discredit whatever to solidify a position.

Then I ran into a global one-world government directly related to Global Warming.

Currently, natural climate change or global warming is a very political issue backed by scientific research that has had to eliminate all previous warming periods back to the last major ice age and refuses to acknowledge that we are still exiting from a period called by historians the mini ice age.

When science ignores past history to come up with their temperature responses then there is something wrong.

Global Warming!! are they kidding or what! It`s supposed to be the middle of summer, and here I am, walking my dog with coat gloves and hat, and my dog has his coat on too. So where does the "warming" bit come in. Yet tomorrow it will probably be a nice warm day.! So I`m plumping for a political issue. Is it just to, hopefully, distract us from the serious plight of disharmony between certain countries, who could`nt live in harmony even if it was known the second coming of christ was imminent!! well I`m not fooled, the government can stick the "global warming" and the "lets go green" where the monkey shoves it`s nut`s. I`ve had enough.

It was a scientific issue, that turned into a political issue that sparked a religious following.

The governments use it as a political tool to gain votes and to show that they care and are doing something about it, when in reality they are the biggest cause for global warming. And now that the East are becoming more westernised, the result will be catastrophic.

The fact that the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling is scientific. The use made of "global warming" by politicians is a very convenient way of diverting funds, increasing taxes, and arguing for social and behavioural changes for the population.