fun betting
The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, what the consequences are, and what action should be taken (if any). Individuals, corporations, and political organizations are involved, so the debate is vigorous in the popular media and on a policy level.
In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990 (for example, Margaret Thatcher advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988[1] and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in 1983). Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by the Global Language Monitor as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005.[2] In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[3][4]
There has been a debate among public commentators about how much weight and media coverage should be given to each side of the controversy. Andrew Neil of the BBC stated that "There's a great danger that on some issues we're becoming a one-party state in which we're meant to have only one kind of view. You don't have to be a climate-change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject."[5]
The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S. and elsewhereA June 2007 Mori poll conducted in the UK found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti and crime were all of more concern than climate change. Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said people had been influenced by counter-arguments.[10]
The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming.[11] This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour.
An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.[12][13]
A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming – roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China – the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming – the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem."[14] A 47-nation poll conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem"Main article: Scientific opinion on climate changeThere may be questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science.[7][8][16] Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground [17].
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[18][19][20] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[23] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[24] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[25] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[26][27][28] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism [29], also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[27][30]
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[31] Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,[32]
“ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. ”
Similarly, Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."[33]
At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities [17] or risk losing funding.
In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion,[34][35][36] to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[37][38] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[39] and miasma.[40]
In 2008, Fergus Brown, Roger A. Pielke and James Annan submitted a paper titled "Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?" [41] It was rejected for publication by the AGU publication EOS and Nature Precedings. Pielke writes: “From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.” [42]
PetitionsTo support his claim of a lack of consensus, the website of prominent skeptic Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing."[43] The petitions are:
The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," signed by 47 scientists, claims "such policy initiatives [those concerning the Earth Summit scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree." [44] The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners.[45] This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific environmental issue, but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions". Singer's "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997). Critics point out that most of the signatories lack credentials in the specific field of climate research or even physical science in general.[46] Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.[47] The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz and contains 17,800 signatures. Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology[48][49] and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 17,100 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."[50] In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.[51] For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.[52] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.[53] In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.[54][55]
The IPCCMain article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeA joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:
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.[56] Many other science academies and scientific organizations support the conclusions of the IPCC. Nonetheless, the work of the IPCC has attracted controversy and criticism, including some from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels. [57]
In blog posts, Roger A. Pielke contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned anthropogenic global warming.[58] These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley.[59][60] Pielke also perceived a conflict of interest in the IPCC assessment process, since the "same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! ... Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research."[58] There is no obvious solution to this problem, since scientists with sufficient knowledge of the field to serve on the IPCC and scientists who have written noteworthy papers in the field are essentially the same group.[60]
Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."[61], because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct";[62] the IPCC replied that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4.[63] Roger Pielke, Jr. commented that "Both [Landsea and Trenberth] can and should feel vindicated... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent summary for policy makers".[62]
In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and its "played-down" positive aspects of global warming.[64] The main claims of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government[65] and by the Stern Review.
John Christy, an IPCC lead author and global warming skeptic, wrote that contributing authors and reviewers have little influence, so that "to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."[66]
While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming. [67] Climate scientist James Hansen argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters—enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of FloridaAttribution to greenhouse gasesAttribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence. Nonetheless, one argument against anthropogenic global warming claims that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming.[69]
Reproduction of the temperature record using historical forcingsGeneral circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. Models and observations agree on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. It is uncertain whether the discrepancy is attributable to deficiencies in model formulation, biases in the observations, or both. The present view is that because of large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends along with other evidence for tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause), the more likely explanation is observational bias.[70] Furthermore, if greenhouse gases were causing the climate warming then scientists would expect the troposphere to be warming faster than the surface, but observations do not bear this out [71]. Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled[72]. Studies of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations [73]. This argument assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing [74], the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2 (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 shows that the recent observed CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.[75] Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down slightly, even though carbon dioxide levels went up. This could be attributed to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols [76][77]. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 383 parts per million by volume (ppm) of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 278 ppm in the 1880s to over 380 ppm in 2005. Carbon dioxide itself causes 9-26% the natural greenhouse effect. The Earth has been in an ice age with a much higher level of CO2. The Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 estimated at 4400ppm[78] (or 0.44% of the atmosphere). However, a recent study suggests the Ordovician period began with a reduction in CO2.[79] As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, which is consistent with the findings of the IPCC which has stated that: "Greenhouse gas forcing [largely the result of human activities] has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years"[80] (See also: attribution of recent climate change
http://www.enterbet.com
meta name="keywords" content="Online Betting, Betting on Websites, Betting for Fun Online" ... one particular type of betting, which allows the website to
How to Start an Office Betting Pool. An office betting pool can be fun and create camaraderie among employees from every department. Done simply it doesn't have to
Quality Inn & Suites at Cedar Point Dr., Sandusky, OH: Fun - Kids Loved it. - Visit TripAdvisor for 34 unbiased reviews of Quality Inn & Suites at Cedar Point Dr
Labels: british open golf betting, fun betting, golf betting rules, nassau golf betting, open golf betting, sports betting golf, us open golf betting
