The Controversy over Global Climate Change (2001)

Scientists disagree over models that predict the extent of future global warming -- though such conflicts are common in rapidly advancing fields of science, and a clear majority of climate scientists since the early 1990s accept that industrial and agricultural practices are contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere sufficient to influence Earth's climate. (For a history of human understanding of climate change, click here.)

The political controversy surrounding predictions of global warming is hotter still, because the stakes are high: if greenhouse gases are destabilizing the atmosphere, and threaten to harm populations throughout the world, then certain industries and the leading industrialized nations (many politicians feel) must take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

It is hardly the only major scientific controversy of the second half of the twentieth century – debates over safe levels of background low-level radiation exposure, over the causes of salmon decline, the cause of mass extinction events, and the relative contributions of heredity versus environmental factors on human intelligence and ability also come quickly to mind. But it is undoubtedly one of the most ferociously fought.

A flashpoint in the conflict involves the Kyoto Protocol -- a plan hammered out by scientists and political representatives in Rio de Janeiro in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol calls on developed nations, including the United States, to play a leading role in reducing contributions of greenhouse gases. Meeting the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocols would require greater efficiencies in heavy industries, and potentially limit the use of certain kinds of energy production, such as fossil fuels. The United States (through the Executive Branch) signed the Protocols in 1998. Early in 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the U.S. would not adhere to the treaty . (A history of recent Congressional maneuvering on this issue may be found here.)

Several private foundations and news organizations have created web sites that address the science of global climate change. Among the best of these are the Pew Center for Climate Change, including a separate link for research in the environmental sciences, and the Washington Post's on-line page on global warming. A website linked to the PBS documentary, What's Up with the Weather? is no less informative and helpful. A U.S. National Academy of Sciences scientific review committee in June 2001 found strong evidence favoring human contributions to global warming, which led to top-level briefings on climate change in Washington.

But such sites are overwhelmed and overshadowed by partisan sites that either strongly back or ridicule theories of global warming and the anticipated social and human consequences of rapid climate change. Only a handful of examples are offered here. A site which offers strong support for taking the threat of global warming seriously (and points out misstatements by pro-industrial groups), is Ross Gelbspan's The Heat is On. By contrast, the fossil-fuels industry supports The Greening Earth Society, which advocates the benefits of increased warming, while writer Alan Caruba's site (The National Anxiety Center) mocks much contemporary environmental science research and treats the science of global climate change solely as a political issue. In the contemporary controversy surrounding global warming, readers must be aware of the political and ideological axes that backers of many ostensibly "objective" sites have to grind.