The debate on Global Warming

Is Global Warming A Genuine Threat To The Earth?
by Linda L Smith
What do we have as security if not the earth? It is the air we breathe and ground we walk on. It is the blue sky and azure waters. It is the lush green hills and pastures and the arid deserts, Tropical Island and snowy White Mountains. We fish, we swim, we hunt, we farm, we graze our herd animals, and we ski. The feral animals depend on the earth for their food. We are all bound here by gravity and dependence. Our climate system is tied to our ability to sustain our lives. That is why citizens and scientists alike are concerned about a possible threat to our planet earth from global warming and the possibility of irreversible damage, which could have a devastating effect on civilization as we know it. Some of the perils we may encounter due to global warming could be droughts, flooding, famine, and devastating hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones.
According to some of the most prominent scientists in the world our planet might be in danger if we do not change our habits. These scientists are warning us that there is much to change in order that we do not exacerbate global warming. Most scientists do admit that there is a natural heating and cooling of the earth. However, we need to decide how much responsibility man has in this process, as part of the debate, as well as, what power man might be capable of having over controlling global warming.
Recently, climate scientists met at a hastily organized conference, put together by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in San Diego. All participants expressed great concerns as to how the media covered the last few months, when climate critics used every little error or glitch in the data they could find to argue that climate change was not happening. Because many critics are lobbiests and people representing special interests that feel action on global warming is not in their interests many of which belong to groups that specialize in public communication (the modern term for propaganda), they can spin the story in such a manner that appeals to people's emotions, without actually conveying any form of scientific content. Unfortunately people fall for much of the hyperbole and dysphemisms, and rhetorical force used to persuade the public. According to recent polls, a growing number of people in the United States, for example, are not only losing their belief that climate change is taking place as we speak, but also that science in general is not to be trusted. Blame can be placed on senator’s such as Imhoffe who using strong emotive language called global warming a hoax.
There are many reasons for believing global warming is a eminently impending threat and that we can do something about it. Global warming has become perhaps the most complex and one of the most contentious issues facing world leadership today (Revkin, A. C. 2010 Feb). On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin still remain complex, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown (Revkin, A. C. 2010 Feb).
We have a responsibility to the planet; we are responsible for Stewardship of the planet, not only for the sake of our current, existence, but for the sake of those who come after us.
There are many people according to statistics that do not believe that global warming exists, or if it does exist, they are not sure if man has any was responsibility for it. There are those who do not believe any regulation should be implemented. Furthermore a number of people feel that the information on planet warming has been fraudulent and global warming is a hoax.
A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that an alarming number of Americans believe scientists have falsified their data to sell global warming to the public. Add this to some embarrassing comments made in the e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in England, and it has been a long, hot autumn for climate scientists. There have been many challenges arising to the question of possibility of Global warming. According to some in opposition, there are many contending theories and unknowns variables about climate change. It is therefore impossible to claim that a consensus exists and until a true consensus exists, no significant action should be taken (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Over 30,000 scientists have signed the "Oregon petition" that states that human impacts on the climate can’t be reasonably proven (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Others argue, despite what computer models say there is no evidence of global warming. Some claim, there was some warming earlier in the last century but it stopped in 1998 and there is now evidence that the globe is cooling (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) there are some key points of certainties: ” Understanding of how development planners incorporate information about climate variability and change into their decisions is limited. This limits the integrated assessment of vulnerability. The evolution and utilization of adaptive and mitigative capacity depend on underlying socio-economic development pathways. Barriers, limits and costs of adaptation are not fully understood, partly because effective adaptation measures are highly dependent on specific geographical and climate risk factors as well as institutional, political and financial constraints Estimates of mitigation costs and potentials depend on assumptions about future socio-economic growth, technological change and consumption patterns. Uncertainty arises in particular from assumptions regarding the drivers of technology diffusion and the potential of long-term technology performance and cost improvements. Also little is known about the effects of changes in behavior and lifestyles. The effects of non-climate policies on emissions are poorly quantified” (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Many of the opponents of global warming have observed recent winters have been exceptionally cold and snowy which shows that average U.S. temperatures are going down, not up. Annual mean temperature in the U.S. has fluctuated for decades and the primary cause is changing solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not CO2. A number of those in opposition argue that the current warming is just a natural cycle (Bretherton, Mantua, and Mote, P., 2009).
Some of the critics believe is that there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming. Oppositionists to global warming say CO2 traditionally follows temperature, not the other way around. It has been pointed out by opponents of the Global warming theory that Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well and since there are no humans there burning fossil fuels, CO2 can't be the cause of Global Warming (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
One opposing point of view is that, annual mean temperature in the U.S. has fluctuated for decades and the primary cause is changing solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not CO2. One of the opposing arguments is that, there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming. Climate models can't explain periods when it was even warmer than today, let along predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what they say about 50 or 100 years from now. Another popular argument is that “The Hockey Stick graph”, which is the basis of global warming theory, has been debunked many times. (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)
While few climate scientists deny the reality of climate change, some have said that the IPCC report overemphasized the threat of climate change because no data supports the view that a dangerous tipping point is imminent in the near future. Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
“Scientists from Around the World Dissent” is a Senate report that lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate (Marino, M.2007). The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in varied fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore (Marino, M.2007).
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears (Marino, M.2007).

The Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was produced by over 600 authors from 47 countries, and reviewed by over 600 experts and governments. In addition, every major international scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly beyond natural variability and the primary cause is human-induced CO2 emissions. One of the claims of the opposition is that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of extremists, which is an Ad Hominem attack against the organization.
According to the CL Initiative report:
“The different social cultures and political systems these organizations operate within make it hard to see how they would all be environmental extremists The organization members include: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies ,U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ,U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society ,American Institute of Physics National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Academie des Sciences (France), The Royal Society of the UK , Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina(Germany), Royal Irish Academy, Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Indian National Science Academy, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Australian Academy of Sciences, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of New Zealand, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences” cause ( Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Some people and organizations have claimed the IPCC is biased because it refused to acknowledge information that disproves or downplays the significance of global warming.
After reviewing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, some of which supported human-induced global warming and others that didn't, the IPCC concluded through its consensus peer-review process that the preponderance of evidence “unequivocally” supported the conclusion that the earth is warming beyond natural variability and that humans are the primary cause ( Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

The mean temperature over the U.S. or any other region does fluctuate from year to year. Some continents, and some portions of different continents, will be warmer or cooler at any given time than other regions. Nevertheless, the average temperature over all major continents and oceans has warmed too much over the past century to attribute purely to random fluctuations. There is no evidence for significant fluctuations in solar radiation over the recent past when temperatures have rapidly risen. There are natural variations in ocean temperature such as El Nino, but again these do not explain why the ocean surface has warmed as much as we have measured. On the other hand, increased greenhouse gases cause the ocean surface to warm, just like the land. (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Through its nonlinear dynamics and involvement in past abrupt climate shifts the thermohaline circulation (THC) represents a key element for the understanding of rapid climate changes. The expected THC weakening under global warming is characterized by large uncertainties, and it is therefore of significant importance to identify ocean circulation changes over the last century. By applying various statistical techniques on two global sea surface temperature datasets two THC-related modes are separated. The first one involves relatively slow adjustment of the whole conveyor belt circulation and has an interhemispherically symmetric pattern. The second mode is associated with the relatively fast adjustment of the North Atlantic overturning cell and has the seesaw structure. Based on the separation of two patterns show that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that the North Atlantic overturning cell suffered an abrupt shift around 1970. The distinction between the two modes provides also a new frame for interpreting past abrupt climate changes (Dima, M. & Lohmann, G. 2010).

Although Senator Inhofe was quick to point out the cold weather conditions we are having and skillfully ridiculed it, Joseph Romm, a former Energy Department official in President Bill Clinton's administration and the editor of the Centre for American Progress's Climate Progress blog, said "Record snow is not in any way, shape, or form evidence against climate science and in fact it is largely consistent with it,"(Berger.M, 2010)
It is hard to argue with straw men, smoke screens and scare tactic fallacies that are continuingly being used to distort factual discussions and strong inductive arguments. Jim Hansen, is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute, is a proponent for the theory of global warming he stated “Most people feel stewardship toward the Earth, but can the public understand the climate issue and see through the smokescreen thrown up by special interests?”(Hanson, J. n.a.)
When opponents of Global warming claim there is no proof that rising CO2 causes global warming, that is a blatant falsehood and downplaying the reality of the situation. According to the Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon:
There is very strong evidence - laboratory, satellite, and ground measurements – which shows that higher levels of CO2 by themselves would cause warming. The long-term geological record shows that temperature and the abundance of CO2 are closely correlated throughout time. Analysis of ice taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets provides a continuous record going back over 600,000 years [IPCC chapter 6]. The air trapped in the ice of cores drilled into the glaciers provides samples of past atmospheric conditions. A vast data bank of oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and methane levels is thus now available to scientists. The date of the air can be credibly analyzed and this information shows that when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were high so were temperatures, and ice ages occurred when CO2 was very low. This data gives climate scientists great confidence that temperature and the abundance of CO2 are closely correlated. Further, there is no theory of climate where rising atmospheric CO2 levels does not increase global mean temperatures. There is no dispute about the reality of the “greenhouse effect.” Certain gases, including CO2, methane and others, absorb heat in the atmosphere and re-radiate it downward to the Earth. This process helps to regulate the earth’s temperature (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).

One of the opposition’s arguments is that CO2 traditionally follows temperature, not the other way around. Contrary to that opinion, proponents claim, it actually makes no difference whether CO2 follows or leads:
During the ice ages, ice cores suggest that that CO2 increased almost simultaneously with global mean temperature. It is hard to interpret the ice core record exactly enough to tell whether CO2 rose precisely at the same time as global mean temperature. In fact, scientists would not expect this, because the climate also interacted with the slow growth and melt back of ice sheets. Our present climate change is simpler to understand, because we are increasing CO2 so quickly. The warming effects of CO2 have been known for more than 100 years. CO2 has not risen above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years until now and it is unequivocal that human activities are the cause of this increase (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)

Critics claim”, Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no humans there burning fossil fuels, CO2 can't be the cause of Global Warming”. This is a red herring because there is very little evidence of warming on Mars and even if there was, it has nothing to do with warming on Earth. The only factor that the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming on Mars were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. Solar variability on Earth has been measured very carefully and scientists have affirmed that it is not the primary cause of the warming of the past 60 years (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
Scientific American reported in 2001, the so-called “Oregon petition” is a sham, reporting the information and the science it claims is blatantly false, is misleading and is a scientifically irresponsible charade. They stated, “A simple analysis of the people listed on the petition shows that veterinarians, physicians, business executives and many other non-climate scientists supposedly have signed it” (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009).
According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change .Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt. A wide range of mitigation options is currently available or projected to be available by 2030 in all sectors. The economic mitigation potential, at costs that range from net negative up to US$100/ tCO2-equivalent, is sufficient to offset the projected growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions to below current levels in 2030. Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels. Delayed emissions reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts., The range of stabilization levels for GHG concentrations that have been assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialized in coming decades, provided that appropriate and effective incentives are in place and barriers are removed. In addition, further RD&D would be required to improve the technical performance, reduce the costs and achieve social acceptability of new technologies. The lower the stabilization levels, the greater the need for investment in new technologies during the next few decades will be. Making development more sustainable by changing development paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to reducing vulnerability. Decisions about macro-economic and other policies that seem unrelated to climate change can significantly affect emissions ( Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.).2007).

According to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements; 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C, exclaiming, we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.” (Goddard 2008)
The hockey stick as mentioned above is constantly debunked by the opposition as mentioned in the Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon report
The so-called 'Hockey Stick' graph shows relatively constant global temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 1900, and then a dramatic increase from 1900 to 2000 when emissions from the industrial revolution and land use changes accelerated (thus the graph looks like a hockey stick lying flat with the blade pointing upwards). The conclusion is that human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes have disrupted the climate over the past 100 years. Evidence of rising global temperatures over the past 100 years does not depend on this reconstruction of temperature change. To the contrary, the Hockey Stick is just one of many independent lines of study confirming rising temperatures in the past 100 years. The second reason the objection is false is that although there were some methodological problems with the original paper (by Mann et al) describing the past 1000 years of temperature, they were examined by other climate scientists and found to be minor. The subsequent technical changes made to the methodology did not change the study results. Further, a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperature change by different organizations all show similar patterns: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record and warming was most dramatic after 1920 (Bretherton, C., Mantua, N., and Mote, P., 2009)
The consensus among scientists on climate change includes the following:

“The climate is warming beyond the range of natural variability. The major cause of most of the observed warming is raising levels of the greenhouse gases including CO2, methane, and others. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels and land use changes that have eroded the earth's ability to breakdown and dissipate emissions. Today's 387 ppm of CO2 equivalent concentrations in the atmosphere (more than 30% above the historic levels) signifies that temperatures will continue to rise for the next half century even if greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced. If CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over this century, the warming will continue and likely accelerate; and the high-end temperature increase projected by the IPCC (more than 11.5o F by century's end) will pose significant danger to civilization. Even the IPCCs 'low scenario' of increased warming of 3.2 F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2° F will produce very serious economic, social, ecological and political consequences” (Pachauri, & Reisinger, Eds.. 2007).

“It’s time for the skeptics, to get off the atmospheric temperature kick and read the earth. Science clearly indicates that humans are playing a new and critical role in driving that warming. But, lack of clarity in the exact degree that humans are causing global warming should not be used as an excuse to ignore the monumental changes that rising sea level and changing climate will bring to the planet, and our society” (Pilkey, O., H., & Young, R. (2010, January 7). In action would be a mistake and would be in the category of the perfectionist fallacy. This principle downgrades policy simply because it isn’t perfection. It is a version of the false dilemma because it says an affect these are the policy is perfect or we must reject it (Moore & Parker 2007 p.181). It is better for us to take actions to try to slow down further damage, even if we are not certain of the exact percentage of damage done by mankind, because the consequences of inaction could result in severe costs to our planet. As already mentioned” Even the IPCCs 'low scenario' of increased warming of 3.2 F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2° F will produce very serious economic, social, ecological and political consequences” (Pachauri, & Reisinger, (Eds.). 2007)
In the style of an argument from outrage fallacy, Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and uses McCarthy-like tactics to threaten and intimidate scientists. (Hanson ,J. n.a.) The anti-climate change consensus relies on the mistaken belief that gaps in a scientific theory represent fatal flaws. "The idea that there's uncertainty and gaps in the theory doesn't mean it’s wrong - it just means the theory hasn't been fully articulated yet” (Galef, J. 2010).
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today made the following remarks regarding the Republican plan to introduce a resolution blocking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gas
“Pollution endangers public health and public welfare” Senator Boxer said:
"The Republican proposal to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding is a threat to America's families who deserve to have their health and communities protected. The endangerment finding is clear - it says in part that greenhouse gases "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." The endangerment finding indicates that greenhouse gas pollution poses many risks, including the risk of illness and death from factors such as high temperatures, increased air pollution and extreme weather events. Debating over policy about unchecked global warming is fair, but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America's leading scientists and public health experts is radical in the extreme. I am urging my colleagues to distance themselves from these dissenters and not to interfere with the independent work of scientists and public health experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations. Republicans are using scare tactics and false economic arguments to support this effort - the same scare tactics that were used to oppose every major environmental law, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Each of these laws has been successfully implemented while America has led the world in economic growth. Time has disproven the special interest argument that a clean and healthy environment harms the economy - it is just a scare tactic that has been debunked." (Boxer, B. 2009 Dec 17)


The most recent anecdotal evidence of warmer temperatures in the Himalayan Mountains is that: Climbers are complaining about houseflies at base camps on Mount Everest, once too frigid for the insects' survival. But there's more to worry about than having to carry a fly swatter up the world's highest mountain. Global warming is making glaciers in the Himalayas melt faster than anywhere else in the world, according to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That's cause for apprehension because the region is home to the third-largest perennial ice mass on Earth, and seasonal melting of its glacial ice and snow feeds the major rivers of Asia. Scientists say some of the consequences will be the melting ice could first produce floods and later, as the glaciers recede and finally disappear, catastrophic drought. The IPCC reported that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear entirely by 2035. Some glaciologists dispute the date as far too soon. Many millions of lives depend on the rivers - and the glaciers that sustain them (Donovan, D.2010).


All types of rhetorical ploys, such as scare tactics, slanters, negative hyperbole, for political and monetary gain are being used by the opponents who are opposed to taking any action against Global warming. As with any issue of this nature, there are pros and cons. However, the evidence suggests that the pros of global warming outweigh the cons. After examining both sides of this controversial issue, the logical course of action based on the evidence is to recognize the fact that global warming is a serious threat to the planet, and that we need to recognize that fact and do as much as we possibly can to rectify it through recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading experts around the world
References
Berger. M. (2010 February). CLIMATE: SNOWFALL IN NATION'S CAPITAL PROMPTS WARMING DEBATE: Global Information Network; Retrieved; February 16, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1963111441).
Boxer,B. (2009 December 17). Statement on Republican Proposal to Block EPA Endangerment Finding Retrieved: Saturday, February 27, 2010 from http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9e3efb3c-802a-23ad-4c22-95b5c4e97e57&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Bretherton, C., Mantua, N. and Mote, P. , (2009). Setting the record straight: Responses to common challenges to climate. Science Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon. Retrieved on February 21, 2010 from: http://climlead.uoregon.edu
Dima, M. & Lohmann, G. (2010). Evidence for two distinct modes of large-scale ocean circulation changes over the last century. Journal of Climate 23(1), 5-7, 9-16. Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library (Document ID: 1939489261).
Donovan, D.(2010). ASEE Prism. Washington: Jan 2010. Vol. 19, Iss. 5; pg. 15, 1 pgs Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library. ProQuest document ID: 1949149651
Galef, J. (2010). Uncertainty in Science The Humanist. Washington, D.C.: Jan/Feb 2010. Vol. 70, Iss. 1; pg. 10, 4 pgs
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation (2008) Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved February 22, 2010 From: Godard http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Hanson, J. (n.a.) Global warming .Retrieved February 22, 2010,from: http://www.earthrestorationservice.org/page/78/global-warming.htm
Kennedy, R. (2010). Full Circle. Alternatives Journal, 36(1) 9. Retrieved, January 28, 2010, from Research Library (Document ID: 1942106231).
Marino, M. (2007). U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 . Retrieved February 21, 2010 from http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority. Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.). (2007) Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang; Core Writing Team, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104.Retrieved Febuary22, 2010 from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
Pilkey, O., H., & Young, R. (2010, January 7). Doubt global warming? The planet won't tell a lie. USA Today, A.7. Retrieved, February 18, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID:1934861131).