Diferencia entre revisiones de «Controversia sobre el calentamiento global»

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
Explorar historial interactivamente
← Ir a diferencia anteriorIr a siguiente diferencia →
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
VisualWikitexto
Página blanqueada
Deshecha la edición 32979749 de 80.24.61.237 (disc.) Vandalismo
Línea 1: Línea 1:
{{enobras}}La '''controversia sobre el calentamiento global''' es una disputa científica acerca de la naturaleza, causas, consecuencias del [[calentamiento global]] [[antropogénico]]. Los aspectos disputados incluyen las causas de los incrementados [[registro instrumental de temperaturas|Tº global media del aire]], especialmente desde mitad del [[s. XX]], si esa tendencia de calor es sin precedentes o dentro de las variaciones normales climáticas, y si ese incremento es total o parcialmente una incertidumbre por erróneas mediciones. Disputas agregadas conciernen a las estimaciones de la sensibilidad climática, predicciones de calentamientos adicionales, y posibles consecuencias del calentamiento global. La controversia es significativamente más pronunciada en los medios populares que en la literatura científica.<ref>{{cite doi | 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001}}</ref>

== Historia ==
=== Opinión pública ===
En la [[Unión Europea]], el calentamiento global ha sido una asignatura prominente y sustancial. Todos los miembros de la Unión Europea ratificaron el [[Protocolo de Kioto]] de [[1997]], y muchos países europeos han tomado acciones para reducir las emisiones de gases de invernadero desde [[1990]]. Por ejemplo, [[Margaret Thatcher]] abogó por acciones contra el cambio climático antropogénico en [[1988]],<ref>Discurso a la [[Royal Society]] (27 de septiembre 1988), [http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346 Public Statement, Archivos del Habla], ''Margaret Thatcher Foundation''. Visto 9 de abril 2007.</ref> y Alemania comenzó a tomar acciones luego que el [[Partido Verde]] tuvo asientos en el Parlamento en los [[1980s]]. Actividades sustanciales de las [[ONG]]s tuvieron lugar también y eficientemente.<ref>{{cita libro|páginas=265-272|título=Confronting climate change|nombre=Irving M.|apellidos=Mintzer|editorial=Cambridge University Press|fecha=1992}}</ref> Tanto el "calentamiento global", y el más políticamente neutral "cambio climático" se listaron en el [[Global Language Monitor]] como palabras de moda políticas, y/o [[latiguillo]]s en [[2005]].<ref>{{cita web|url=http://www.languagemonitor.com/?page_id=27|título=The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006|editorial=Global Language Monitor|fechaacceso= 14 de abril 2007}}</ref> En [[Europa]], la noción de influencia humana en cuestiones climáticas ganó amplia aceptación y más rapidamente en Europa que en en [[EE.UU.]].<ref>{{cita web|título=Más información en Europa sobre el clima de preocupación que en EE.UU., muestra una encuesta |nombre=Thomas|apellido=Crampton|fecha=4 de enero 2007|editorial=International Herald Tribune|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/04/news/poll.php|fechaacceso= 14 de abril 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cita web|título=Little Consensus on Global Warming – Partisanship Drives Opinion – Summary of Findings|editorial=Pew Research Center for the People and the Press|fecha=12 de julio 2006|fechaacceso= 14 de abril 2007|url=http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280}}</ref>

Hubo un debate entre comentaristas de opinión acerca de cuanto peso y cobertura en los medios se da a cada lado de la controversia científica. [[Andrew Neil]] de [[BBC]] declaró que: "Hay un gran peligro de que en algunos temas nos estemos convirtiendo en un Estado de partido único en el que estamos destinados a tener sólo un tipo de vista. Usted no tiene porque ser un negacionista del cambio climático para reconocer que hay una gran variedad de opiniones sobre el tema."<ref>McCarthy, Michael, [http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece Global Warming: Demasiado Caliente para Manejar por la BBC], ''Independent'', 6 de septiembre 2007</ref> [[Martin Gardner]], por otro lado, ve a los medios de comunicación en los Estados Unidos haciendo lo imposible por dar tiempo igual a ambas partes, cuando [[pseudociencia]] y [[ciencia]] están en desacuerdo.<ref>Gardner M (1957). Fads and fallacies in the name of science. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-20394-8.</ref>

La tabla debajo muestra como son y como han cambiado las percepciones públicas acerca de la existencoa e importancia del [[calentamiento global]] en EE.UU.<ref>{{Citation|first=Spencer|last=Weart|author-link=Spencer R. Weart|contribution=The Public and Climate Change|contribution-url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm|title=The Discovery of Global Warming|editor-first=Spencer|editor-last=Weart|editor-link=Spencer R. Weart|url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html|publisher=American Institute of Physics|year=2006|access-date=2007-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cita web|título=Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity|apellido=Langer|nombre=Gary|fecha= 26 de marzo 2006|fechaacceso= 12 de abril 2007|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492&page=1|editorial=ABC News}}</ref><ref name="bbcpoll2007">{{cita web|título=Man causing climate change - poll|fecha= 25 de septiembre 2007|fechaacceso= 25 de septiembre 2007|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7010522.stm|autor=GlobeScan and the [[Program on International Policy Attitudes]] at [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]]|editorial=BBC World Service}}</ref> El consenso de todo el mundo es que el cambio climático es un problema grave.<ref>{{cita web|título=30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem|apellido=Program on International Policy Attitudes|fecha= 5 de abril 2006|fechaacceso= 20 de abril 2007|url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187|editorial=[[Program on International Policy Attitudes]]}}</ref>

{|class="sortable wikitable"
! Declaración!!% acuerdo!!Año
|-
|La actividad humana es una significativa causa del cambio climático||79||2007
|-
|Cambio climático es un serio problema||90||2006
|-
|Cambio climático es un serio problema||78||2003
|-
|Es necesario tomar medidas drásticas cuanto antes||65||2007
|}

En junio de 2007 [[Ipsos Mori]] llevó a cabo una encuesta en [[RU]] hallando un 56 % de 2.032 adultos creían que científicos aún cuestionaban el cambio climático. El estudio sugería que [[terrorismo]], [[graffiti]] y [[crimen]] debían tener más presencia que el cambio climático. El director del Ipsos Mori de estudios ambientales, Phil Downing, dijo que la gente había sido influída por los argumentos en contra.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm BBC News: 'Escepticismo' sobre el cambio climático]</ref>

El [[presentador]] [[Canadá|canadiense]] de [[ciencia]] y activista [[ambiente|ambiental]] [[David Suzuki]], informó de que grupos de discusión organizados por la "[[:en:David Suzuki Foundation|Fundación David Suzuku]] mostró que el público tiene una pobre entendimiento acerca de la opinión de la ciencia detrás del calentamiento global.<ref>{{cita web|url=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly08180601.asp|título=Public doesn't understand global warming|autor=[[David Suzuki]]|editorial=David Suzuki Foundation|fecha=18 de agosto 2006|fechaacceso= 18 de agosto 2007}}</ref> Esto es a pesar de la reciente publicidad a través de diferentes medios, incluyendo las películas de ''[[Una verdad incómoda]]'' y [[The 11th hour|''The 11th Hour'']].

Ejemplos de pobre entendimiento es la confusión pública entre calentamiento global antropogénico y [[Agujero de ozono|agotamiento del ozono]] u otros problemas ambientales.<ref>{{cita web|url=http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol8/fall/bord+.htm|título=¿Es adecuada la comprensión del calentamiento global necesaria para promover la voluntad de sacrificio?|autor=Richard J. Bord, Ann Fisher & Robert E. O'Connor|año=1997|fechaacceso= 29 de febrero 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cita publicación|autor=Richard J. Bord, Robert E. O'Connor, Ann Fischer|título=In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?|publicación=Public Understanding of Science|año=2000|volumen=9|número=3|url=http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205?ck=nck|fechaaceso= 29 de febrero 2008|páginas=205|mes=julio |day=01}}</ref>

En [[2006]], una encuesta de 15 naciones conducida por [[:en:Pew Research Center|Pew Global]] halló que hay "una brecha importante en la preocupación por el calentamiento global - aproximadamente dos tercios de los [[Japón|japoneses]] (66%) y de [[India]] (65%) dicen que personalmente se preocupan mucho sobre el calentamiento global. Aproximadamente la mitad de la población de [[España]] (51%) y de [[Francia]] (46%) también expresa gran preocupación por el calentamiento global, sobre la base de los que han oído hablar de la cuestión. Pero no hay pruebas de alarma sobre el calentamiento global en cualquiera de los estadounidenses o [[China|chinos]] - los dos mayores productores de gases de efecto invernadero. Sólo el 19% de los estadounidenses y el 20% de los chinos que han oído hablar del tema, dicen que les preocupa mucho el calentamiento global - los porcentajes más bajos en los 15 países encuestados. Por otra parte, casi la mitad de los estadounidenses (47%) y algo menos de chinos (37%) expresan poca o ninguna preocupación por el problema."<ref>[http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/252.pdf No Hay Alarma calentamiento global en EE.UU. y en China] - Encuesta a 15 Naciones de "Pew Global". Lanzado 13 de junio 2006.</ref>

Y una nueva encuesta a 47 naciones por "Pew Global" en 2007 halló "La gran mayoría de 25 de 37 países dicen que el calentamiento global es un «muy grave» problema".<ref>[http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/256.pdf Creciente preocupación ambiental en Encuesta a 47 Naciones]. Pew Global Attitudes. 27 de junio 2007.</ref>

Hay una diferencia notable entre la opinión de los científicos y la del público en general en EE.UU. Una encuesta de 2009 de [[Pew Research Center]] encontró que "mientras que el 84% de los científicos dicen que la tierra se está calentando debido a actividades humanas como la quema de combustibles fósiles, sólo el 49% de la población está de acuerdo con ello."<ref>[[Pew Research Center]]: "[http://people-press.org/report/528/ Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media]" 9 de julio 2009.</ref>

=== Controversias ===
Mucha de la crítica sobre la visión consensuada del calentamiento global se ha puesto de acuerdo, en todo o en parte, con el consenso científico sobre otros aspectos, particulalmente con los relacionados con riesgos ambientales, como [[agujero de ozono]] y [[fumador pasivo]].

[[Chris Mooney]], autor de ''[[:en:The Republican War on Science|a Guerra de los Republicanos en Ciencia]]'', ha argumentado que la aparición de grupos superpuestos de científicos escépticos, los comentaristas y grupos de reflexión en los resultados de las controversias aparentemente no relacionadas con un intento organizado para sustituir el análisis científico con ideología política-partidaria. Mooney afirma que la promoción de dudas sobre las cuestiones que son políticas, pero no científicas, se hizo cada vez más prevalente en virtud de la Administración Bush y que constituía una "guerra republicana en la ciencia". Este es también el tema de un reciente libro del abogado ambientalista [[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]] titulado: ''Crímenes contra la naturaleza: Cómo George W. Bush y la Corporación Pals están saqueando el país y secuestrando nuestra democracia.'' Otro texto sobre este tópico es ''[[:en:The Assault on Reason|El Asalto a la Razón]]'' del ex vicepresidente [[Al Gore]]. Instancias más tempranas también se incluyeron en el libro ''El Calor está'' de [[Ross Gelbspan]].

Algunos críticos del consenso científico sobre el calentamiento global han argumentado que estas cuestiones no deben estar vinculadas y que la referencia a ellos constituye un injustificado ataque de [[argumento ad hominem]].<ref>{{cita web|url=http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/How%20to%20think%20about%20GW.htm|título=NEW ON THE SEPP WEB|fechaacceso= 23 de mayo 2007|obra=}}</ref> El politicólogo [[:en:Roger A. Pielke (Jr)|Roger Pielke, Jr.]], respondiendo a Mooney, ha argumentado que la ciencia está inevitablemente entrelazado con la política.<ref>{{cita noticia|nombre=Roger A.|apellido=Pielke Jr.|enlaceautor=Roger A. Pielke (Jr)|título=Aceptando a la Política en la Ciencia|editorial=Washington Post|fecha= 10 de enero 2005|fechaacceso= 24 de abril 2007|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61928-2005Jan9.html|página=A17}}</ref>

== Políticas ==
<!--
{{seealso|Politics of global warming|Economics of global warming}}

[[File:H&WWonWashMon.png|thumb|The [[Washington Monument]] illuminated with a message from [[Greenpeace]] criticizing American environmental policy]]

In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan [[Politics of the United States|political issue]]. Republicans tend to oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproven, while Democrats tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming and its effects through the control of greenhouse gas emissions.<ref>{{cite web|title=GOP still cool on global warming|first=Lisa|last=Mascaro|publisher=[[Las Vegas Sun]]|date=12 February 2007|url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2007/feb/12/566676824.html|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>{{Dead link|date=March 2008}} Recently, bipartisan measures have been introduced.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Safe Climate Act of 2007|first=Henry|last=Waxman|authorlink=Henry Waxman|publisher=Rep. Henry Waxman|date=20 March 2007|url=http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm|quote={{USBill|110|HR|1590}}|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>

[[Kevin E. Trenberth]] stated:

{{Cquote|The [[Summary for policymakers|SPM]] was approved line by line by governments[...] .The argument here is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia. This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what should be uncontroversial text... The most contentious paragraph in the IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much debate, the following was carefully crafted: "In the light of new evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations.<ref>{{Citation|journal=Journal of the Forum for Environmental Law, Science, Engineering, and Finance|year=2001|issue=8-26|first=Kevin|last=Trenberth|author-link=Kevin E. Trenberth|title=The IPCC Assessment of global warming 2001|url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html|access-date=2007-04-14|format={{dead link|date=June 2008}} – <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3ATrenberth+intitle%3AThe+IPCC+Assessment+of+global+warming+2001&as_publication=Journal+of+the+Forum+for+Environmental+Law%2C+Science%2C+Engineering%2C+and+Finance&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=2001&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup>}}</ref>}}

As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:

# The social and environmental impacts
# The appropriate response to climate change
# Whether decisions require less uncertainty

The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:
{{Cquote|Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine."&nbsp;... [The] point is that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been--globally averaged, we're talking--fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. ([[Stephen H. Schneider]]<ref>{{cite web|title=What's up with the weather: the debate: Stephen H. Schneider|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/schneider.html|publisher=[[PBS Nova]] & [[Frontline (US TV series)|Frontline]]|date=|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref>)}}

The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of [[fossil fuel]]s to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.{{citation needed|date=February 2007}}

Due to the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the [[Cato Institute]], a [[libertarian]] [[think tank]], who feel strongly that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.<ref name="taylorspeech">{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html|title=Global Warming, the Anatomy of a Debate: A speech by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute}}</ref> They claim that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.<ref name="PBSpalmer" />

{{Cquote|The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the United States is as clear as it can be. And it is required for the way we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and for our future. Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer, President of Western Fuels Association<ref name="PBSpalmer">{{cite web|title=What's up with the weather: the debate: Fred Palmer|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html|publisher=[[PBS Nova]] & [[Frontline (US TV series)|Frontline]]|date=|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref>)}}

Conversely, others feel strongly that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.<ref name="SternCh7">{{Citation|title=Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change|chapter=7. Projecting the Growth of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions|publisher=[[HM Treasury]], [[Cambridge University Press]]|editor1-first=Nicolas|editor1-last=Stern|editor1-link=Nicholas Stern|isbn=9780521700801|chapter-url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3F8/81/ch_7_projecting_growth_of_ghg_emissions.pdf|url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm|year=2006|author=Nicholas Stern.|format={{dead link|date=March 2009}} – <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=intitle%3AStern+Review%3A+The+Economics+of+Climate+Change&as_publication=&as_ylo=2006&as_yhi=2006&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup>}}</ref> In his December 2006 book, ''[[Hell and High Water (book)|Hell and High Water]]'', energy technology expert [[Joseph J. Romm]]
{{Cquote|discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... Romm gives a name to those such as [[ExxonMobil]] who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... Romm gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. ...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort' (''Hell and High Water'', p. 25).<ref>[http://environmentalblogging.org/?p=780 Review from Environmentalblogging.org], February 21, 2008</ref>}}

Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into consideration other potential impacts of any change.
-->
=== Protocolo de Kioto ===

{{main|Protocolo de Kioto Protocol}}
<!--
The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far<ref>{{cite web|title=A Guide to Kyoto: Climate Change and What it Means to Canadians: Does the Kyoto treaty go far enough... or too far?|first=Ian|last=Darragh|publisher=[[International Institute for Sustainable Development]]|year=1998|url=http://www.iisd.org/pdf/kyotoprimer_en.pdf|accessdate=2007-04-14|format=PDF}}</ref> or not nearly far enough<ref>{{cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf|publisher=UNFCCC|title=Kyoto protocol status|accessdate=2006-11-07|format=PDF}} ([[Niue]],The [[Cook Islands]],[[Nauru]] consider reductions "inadequate")</ref> in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of controversy is the fact that China and India, the world's two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to reduce or even limit the growth of carbon emissions under the present agreement even though when [[List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita|listed by greenhouse gas emissions per capita]], they have rankings of 121st largest per capita emitter at 3.9 Tonnes of [[Carbon dioxide equivalent|CO<sub>2</sub>e]] and 162nd largest per capita emitter at 1.8 Tonnes of [[Carbon dioxide equivalent|CO<sub>2</sub>e]] respectively, compared with for example the USA at position of the 14th largest per capita [[Carbon dioxide equivalent|CO<sub>2</sub>e]] emitter at 22.9 Tonnes of [[Carbon dioxide equivalent|CO<sub>2</sub>e]]. Nevertheless, China is the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, and India 4th (see: [[List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|countries by greenhouse emissions]]). Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11707-chinas-emissions-to-surpass-the-us-within-months.html|title=China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007|author=Catherine Brahic|date=25 April 2007|publisher=[[New Scientist]]|accessdate= 20 de mayo 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1962439.ece|author=Saeed Shah|title=China to pass US greenhouse gas levels by 2010|publisher=[[The Independent]]|date=8 de noviembre 2006|accessdate= 20 de mayo 2007}}
</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK78904.htm|publisher=Reuters [[AlertNet]]|title=China fears disasters, grain cut from global warming|date=27 December 2006|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref> and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.<ref name="ChinaNo1">[http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html China now no. 1 in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions; USA in second position][[Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency]] retrieved 20 June 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.energybulletin.net/31156.html China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter|EnergyBulletin.net|Peak Oil News Clearinghouse]</ref><ref>[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter|Environment|guardian.co.uk]</ref>

Additionally, high costs of decreasing emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are not covered under the treaty, such as India and China, claims [[Fred Singer]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Climate Policy –From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond|location=[[Stanford University]]|series=Essays in Public Policy, No. 102|publisher=[[Hoover Institution]]|first=S. Fred|last=Singer|authorlink=S. Fred Singer|date=May 24, 2000|accessdate=2007-04-13|isbn=0-8179-4372-2|page=49|url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary}}</ref> As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is claimed to cause additional carbon emissions.

The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the USA ([[List of Kyoto Protocol signatories|see signatories]]). The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers {{citation needed|date=August 2007}}.
-->
=== Financiación de partidarios ===
<!--
Both sides of the controversy have alleged that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.

Several skeptical scientists—[[Fred Singer]], [[Fred Seitz]] and [[Patrick Michaels]]—have been linked to organizations funded by [[ExxonMobil]] and [[Philip Morris USA|Philip Morris]] for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism <ref name="ExxonSecrets.org-SoundScienceCoalition">[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=6 ExxonSecrets Factsheet: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]</ref><ref name="monbiot06">{{cite web|title=The denial industry|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2|accessdate=2007-08-11|publisher=Guardian|quote="By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."}}</ref>. Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the [[George C. Marshall Institute]], have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html|first=David|last=Adam|publisher=Guardian|title=Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'|date=27 January 2005|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>

On February 2, 2007, ''[[The Guardian]]'' stated<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html|first=Ian|last=Sample|publisher=Guardian|title=Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study|date=2 February 2007|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp|title=Climate Controversy and AEI: Facts and Fictions|publisher=[[American Enterprise Institute]] for Public Policy Research|date=9 February 2007|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with [[American Enterprise Institute|AEI]], had sent letters<ref>{{cite web|url=http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf|title=AEI Letter to Pf. Schroeder|date=5 July 2006|first=Steven F.|last=Hayward|coauthors=Kenneth Green|accessdate=2007-04-14|format=PDF}}</ref> to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering [[United States Dollar|US$]]10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]].

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the [[Intermountain Rural Electric Association]] (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, [[New Hope Environmental Services]], and solicited additional private donations from its members.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1 ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming] ABC August 2006</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/files/lewandowski_memo.pdf|title=Lewandowski memo|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-12-29}}</ref><ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01433004.htm FEATURE-Carbon backlash: coal divides corporations] ''James, Steve'' Reuters, July 2007</ref>

The [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite web|title=Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science|publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]]|month=January|year=2007|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[[underwriting]] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[[funnelling]] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics] MSNBC January 2007</ref> though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.<ref>[http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007 Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers] Greenpeace May 2007</ref>

The [[Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change]], a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"<ref>{{cite web|title=Links|url=http://www.westernfuels.org/links.htm|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060115152729/http://www.westernfuels.org/links.htm|archivedate=2006-01-15|accessdate=2007-04-13|publisher=Western Fuels}}</ref>

[[Donald Kennedy]], editor-in-chief of [[Science (journal)|Science]], has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/ap/tech/mainD8J4GH300.shtml|title=Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic|first=Seth|last=Borenstein|publisher=[[CBS News]] from [[Associated Press]]|date=27 July 2006|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>

A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist [[Reid Bryson]] said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"<ref>[http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local//index.php?ntid=199677 ]{{dead link|date=December 2008}}</ref> Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist [[Marcel Leroux]],<ref>"In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a 'scientific' deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French) [http://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/spip/ae_article.php3?id_article=1]</ref> NASA's [[Roy Spencer (scientist)|Roy Spencer]], climatologist and IPCC contributor [[John Christy]], University of London biogeographer [[Philip Stott]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Must-See Global Warming TV|publisher=[[Fox News]]|month=March|year=2007|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258993,00.html|accessdate=2007-05-14}}</ref>[[Accuracy in Media]],<ref>Trulock, Notra, [http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html "Science for Sale: the Global Warming Scam,"] Accuracy in Media, August 26, 2002</ref> and [[Ian Plimer]] in his 2009 book ''[[Heaven and Earth (book)|Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science]]''.

[[Richard Lindzen]], the [[Alfred P. Sloan]] Professor of [[Meteorology]] at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], makes the specific claim that "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [at MIT], lost [[National Science Foundation]] funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggests four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming.<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate of Fear|publisher=Wall Street Journal|month=April|year=2006|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220|accessdate=2007-05-14}}</ref> Lindzen himself, however, has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as [[OPEC]] and the [[Western Fuels Association]], including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dieoff.org/page82.htm|title=The Heat Is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial|first=Ross|last=Gelbspan|authorlink=Ross Gelbspan|publisher=[[Harper's Magazine]]|month=December|year=1995|accessdate=2008-02-08}}</ref> as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]], and [[NASA]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf|title=Reconciling observations of global temperature change|last=Lindzen|first=Richard S.|authorlink=Richard Lindzen|coauthors=Constantine Giannitsis|year=2002|journal=Geophysical research letters|volume=29|issue=12|pages=24–26|accessdate= 10 de septiembre 2007|format=PDF|doi=10.1029/2001GL014074}}</ref>
-->
=== Cambiando posiciones de escépticos ===
<!--
In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. [[Ronald Bailey]], author of ''Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths'' (published by the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml|title=We're All Global Warmers Now|date=August 11, 2005|author=Ronald Bailey|publisher=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason Online]]|accessdate=2008-04-27}}</ref> By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change [[Pollyanna principle|Pollyannaism]] is no longer looking very tenable".<ref>{{cite web|first=Ronald|last=Bailey|authorlink=Ronald Bailey|title=Global Warming—Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html|publisher=[[Reason (magazine)]]|date=2 February 2007|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref> Others have shifted from claims that global warming is unproven to advocating [[Adaptation to global warming|adaptation]], sometimes also calling for more data, rather than take immediate action on ''[[Mitigation of global warming|mitigation]]'' through consumption/emissions reduction of fossil fuels. "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures," says Danish academic [[Bjørn Lomborg]].<ref>{{cite web|first=Bjørn|last=Lomborg|authorlink=Bjørn Lomborg|title=Why Kyoto will not stop this|publisher=Guardian|date=17 August 2001|accessdate=2007-04-13|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4240581,00.html}}</ref> Lomborg has been severely questioned by groups in Denmark.<ref name="fog">{{cite web|url=http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/|title=Lomborg Errors|last=Fog|first=Kåre|accessdate=27 November 2009|location=Denmark}}</ref> Nordhaus and Schellenberger<ref name="breakthrough">{{cite web|url=http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/|title=The Breakthrough Institute: blog|publisher=Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc|accessdate=27 de noviembre 2009|location=Oakland, CA}}</ref> present similar, more sophisticated, arguments in favor of adaption.

"There are alternatives to its [(the climate-change crusade's)] insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us." says Steven F. Hayward of [[American Enterprise Institute]], a conservative think-tank.<ref>{{cite web|first=Steven F.|last=Hayward|title=Acclimatizing - How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming|date=May 15, 2006|url=http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24401/pub_detail.asp|publisher=[[American Enterprise Institute]]|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref> Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive"—the [[space sunshade]] example of so-called [[geoengineering]] for [[solar radiation management]].

In 2001 Richard Lindzen in response to the question, ''"Kyoto aside for a moment, should we be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Do our concerns about global warming require action?"'' said "We should prioritize our responses. You can't just say, "No matter what the cost, and no matter how little the benefit, we'll do this." If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?"<ref>{{cite web|title=How Dangerous Is Global Warming?|publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]]|archivedate=2001-06-17|accessdate=2007-04-14|archiveurl=http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/2nd/howdangi.htm|date=17 June 2001|url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/74167018.html?dids=74167018:74167018&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+17%2C+2001&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=M.3&desc=DIALOGUE}}</ref>

Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. Large developing nations such as India and China are predicted to be major emitters of greenhouse gases in the next few decades as their economies grow.<ref>{{cite web|title=World to celebrate Kyoto Protocol start|first=Michelle|last=Keller|date=15 February 2005|publisher=[[The Stanford Daily]]|url=http://daily.stanford.org/article/2005/2/15/worldToCelebrateKyotoProtocolStart|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Harrison|first=Paul|coauthors=Fred Pearce|editor=Victoria Dompka Markham|title=AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment|url=http://atlas.aaas.org/|chapter=Foreword by Peter H. Raven|chapterurl=http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/foreword01.html|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] & [[University of California Press]]|isbn=0-520-23081-7|page=215|year=2000|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>

The conservative [[National Center for Policy Analysis]] whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change skeptics including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer<ref>{{cite web|title=Environmental Task Force|publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]]|url=http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s162/s162i.html|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
says, "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO 2 emissions."<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate Change: Consensus Forming around Adaptation|first=H. Sterling|last=Burnett|publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]]|date=September 19, 2005|url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba527/index.html|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>

The adaptation only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil’s plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur. The company’s plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership,"<ref>{{cite web|title=ExxonMobil’s Corporate Governance on Climate Change|first=Andrew|last=Logan|coauthors=David Grossman|publisher=[[Ceres (organization)|Ceres]] & [[Investor Network on Climate Risk]]|month=May|year=2006|url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_XOM_corp_gov_climate_change_053006.pdf|accessdate=2007-04-14|format=PDF}}</ref>
says this Ceres report.<ref>{{cite web|title=Letter to Michael J. Boskin, Secretary Exxon Mobil Corporation|publisher=[[Investor Network on Climate Risk]]|date=May 15, 2006|url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_INCR_letter_XOM_051806.pdf|accessdate=2007-04-14|format=PDF}}</ref>

Gregg Easterbrook characterized himself as having "a long record of opposing alarmism". In 2006, he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert".<ref name="Easterbrook">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24easterbrook.html|title=Finally Feeling the Heat|last=Easterbrook|first=Gregg|publisher=New York Times|accessdate=23 November 2009}}</ref>

The Bush administration has also voiced support for an adaptation only policy. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report [''U.S. Climate Action Report 2002''] to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions—mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". The report however "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming."<ref>{{cite web|title=Bush climate plan says adapt to inevitable Cutting gas emissions not recommended|first=Andrew C.|last=Revkin|publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|date=3 June 2002|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/03/MN215596.DTL|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later,<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate Compendium: International Negotiations: Vulnerability & Adaptation|publisher=Climate Change Knowledge Network & [[International Institute for Sustainable Development]]|year=2007|url=http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> "The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation,' said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough money to do everything.'"<ref>{{cite web|title=US Pullout Forces Kyoto Talks To Focus on Adaptation - Climate Talks Will Shift Focus From Emissions|first=Andrew C.|last=Revkin|publisher=New York Times (reprinted by heatisonline.org)|date=October 23, 2002|url=http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4117&method=full|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> see also.<ref>{{cite web|first=Juliet|last=Eilperin|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html|title=U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down|pages=A05|publisher=Washingtonpost.com|date=April 7, 2007|accessdate=2008-12-30}}</ref> The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however:

{{Cquote|''"Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate, the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior Secretary Hodel’s proposal that the government address the hole in the ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses, suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of air-conditioning&nbsp;... Far from proposing solutions to the climate change problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners."''<ref>{{cite web|title=Letter to The Honorable George W. Bush — State Attorneys General – A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers of the Following States: Alaska • California • Connecticut • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • Rhode Island • Vermont|date=17 July 2002|url=http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> Letter from 11 State Attorneys General to George W. Bush.}}

Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an inherent bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption) and for the prolonging of profits to the oil industry at the expense of the environment. "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says UK Journalist George Monbiot<ref>{{cite web|title=Costing Climate Change|first=George|last=Monbiot|authorlink=George Monbiot|publisher=[[New Internationalist]]|month=December|year=2006|url=http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2006/12/01/essay/|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient.<ref>{{cite web|title=An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security|first=Peter|last=Schwartz|authorlink=Peter Schwartz (futurist)|coauthors=Doug Randall|publisher=[[Global Business Network]] for the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]]|month=February|year=2004|url=http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
See also [[Copenhagen Consensus]].

To be sure, though not emphasized to the same degree as mitigation, adaptation to a climate certain to change has been included as a necessary component in the discussion early as 1992,<ref>{{cite book|title=Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base|author=Engineering, and Public Policy (U. S.) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming Committee on Science|publisher=[[National Academies Press]]|isbn=0-309-04386-7|page=944|year=1992|url=http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1605|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
and has been all along.<ref>{{cite book|title=Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|editor=Robert T. Watson, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss|isbn=052156431X|date=May 31, 1996|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report|publisher=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]]|year=2001|url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref>
However it was not to the ''exclusion'', advocated by the skeptics, of ''preventative'' mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.
-->
=== Presiones políticals sobre los científicos ===
<!--
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.<ref>[http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074 US climate scientists pressured on climate change], NewScientist, 31 January 2007</ref> In a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General it has been revealed that NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/world/Nasa-39played-down39-global-.4147975.jp Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush - Scotsman.com News]</ref>

U.S. officials, such as [[Philip Cooney]], have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,<ref>Campbell, D. (June 20, 2003) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,981127,00.html "White House cuts global warming from report"] ''Guardian Unlimited''</ref> many of whom, such as [[Thomas Knutson]], have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.<ref>Donaghy, T., ''et al.'' (2007) [http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf "Atmosphere of Pressure:"] a report of the [[Government Accountability Project]] (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)</ref><ref>Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, July 27. [http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/media-interviews.html Obtained via FOIA request on [[July 31]] 2006.] and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, September 29. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Commerce_Department_tells_Nationa_1004.html "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved"] ''The Raw Story,'' October 4. Accessed December 22, 2006</ref><ref>Zabarenko, D. (2007) [http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-03-08T222736Z_01_N08259521_RTRUKOC_0_US-POLARBEARS-SCIENTISTS.xml "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists"] ''Reuters''</ref> Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist [[Chris Mooney]] in his book ''[[The Republican War on Science]].''

Climate scientist [[James Hansen]], director of NASA's [[Goddard Institute for Space Studies]], claimed in a widely cited ''New York Times'' article<ref>{{cite web|first=Andrew C.|last=Revkin|title=Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him|publisher=New York Times|date=29 January 2006|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all}}</ref>
in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." [[NASA]] denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] have made similar complaints;<ref>Eilperin, J. (April 6, 2006) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House"] ''Washington Post''</ref> once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The [[BBC]]'s long-running current affairs series ''[[Panorama (TV series)|Panorama]]'' recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear|publisher=BBC Panorama|date=1 June 2006|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm}}</ref>

On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor [[Ted Kulongoski]] publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.<ref>[http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/facts_about_geo.html HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"]</ref><ref>[http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington]</ref> As a result of scientific doubts he has expressed regarding global warming, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reportedly attempted to remove [[David Legates]] from his office of Delaware State Climatologist.{{citation needed|date=September 2007}} In late 2006, Virginia Governor [[Tim Kaine]] (D) reportedly began an investigation of Virginia State Climatologist and global warming skeptic [[Patrick Michaels]].

Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."<ref>{{cite web|title=Chaotic world of climate truth|first=Mike|last=Hulme|publisher=BBC News|date=November 4, 2006|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm}}</ref>

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

{{Cquote|Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.}}

{{Cquote|The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."<ref>{{cite web|title=Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming|publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] and [[Associated Press]]|date=30 January 2007|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml}}</ref>}}

Critics writing in the ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial page claim that the survey<ref>{{cite book|first=Timothy|last=Donaghy|coauthors=Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz|chapter=Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)|title=Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science|publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] & [[Government Accountability Project]]|month=February|year=2007|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf|chapterurl=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Full-survey-instrument-with-responses.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref>
was itself unscientific.<ref>{{cite web|first=James|last=Taranto|authorlink=James Taranto|title=They Call This Science?|publisher=[[OpinionJournal.com]]|date=1 February 2007|accessdate=2007-04-14|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009609}}</ref>
-->
=== Litigios ===
<!--
Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, [[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]] before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] allowed the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] to regulate greenhouse gases under the [[Clean Air Act]]. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General [[Bill Lockyer]] who filed a lawsuit [[California v. General Motors Corp.]] to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed out.<ref>[http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/142464.html ]{{dead link|date=December 2008}}</ref> A third case, [[Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.]], a class action lawsuit filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming. Described as a [[Frivolous litigation|nuisance lawsuit]], it was dismissed by District Court.<ref>{{cite web|first=Justin R.|last=Pidot|publisher=[[Georgetown University Law Center]]|year=2006|url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf|title=Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues|accessdate=2007-04-13|format=PDF}}</ref> However, the District Court's decision was overturned by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]], which instructed the District Court to reinstate several of the plaintiffs' climate change-related claims on October 22, 2009.<ref>http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf</ref> The [[Sierra Club]] sued the U.S. government over failure to raise [[Fuel economy in automobiles|automobile fuel efficiency standards]], and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit|url=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-12/a16037.htm|publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]|date=12 August 2005|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=The [[Sierra Club]] vs. [[Stephen L. Johnson]] ([[United States Environmental Protection Agency]])|court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]]|date=20 January 2006|opinion=03-10262|url=http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf|accessdate=2007-04-13|format=PDF}}</ref>
-->
=== Apuestas ===
<!--
A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change.<ref>{{cite web|first=James|last=Annan|authorlink=James Annan|title=Betting on climate change|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161|publisher=[[Realclimate]]|date=14 June 2005|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|first=Richard A.|last=Kerr|title=Climate Change: Hedging Your Climate-Change Bets|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]]|doi=10.1126/science.310.5747.433|year=2005|volume=310|number=5747|page=433|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5747/433|pmid=16239459}}</ref> British climate scientist James Annan proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of [[United States Dollar|US$]]10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003.<ref>{{Citation|first=Jim|last=Giles|title=Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|doi=10.1038/436897a|year=2005|volume=436|issue=7053|page=897|url=http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=james+annan+sceptic&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=NATURE&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all}}</ref>
Annan first directly challenged [[Richard Lindzen]]. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures. Lindzen, however, claims that he asked for 2-1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4&nbsp;°C.<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html Reason Magazine - Betting on Climate Change]</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' columnist [[George Monbiot]] challenged [[Myron Ebell]] of the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] to a [[Pound sterling|GB£]]5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling.<ref>{{cite web|first=David|last=Adam|title=Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world|publisher=Guardian|date=19 August 2005|accessdate=2007-04-13|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1552092,00.html}}</ref> Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted,<ref>{{cite web|first=James|last=Annan|authorlink=James Annan|title=Betting Summary|url=http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html|publisher=James' Empty Blog|date=9 June 2005|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref> including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by [[Patrick Michaels]] in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/yet-more-betting-on-climate-with-world.html|title=Yet more betting on climate with World Climate Report|publisher=James' Empty Blog|date=2005-05-24|accessdate= 30 de diciembre 2008}}</ref> A different, $6,000-to-$9,000 bet, where both sides expect warming but differ on the amount, with one break-even point at 0.15&nbsp;°C/decade, was made between software engineer David Evans and Brian Schmidt.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html|title=New global warming bet for $6-$9 thousand established; question is how much of a rise will occur over 10, 15 and 20 years|publisher=Backseat driving|date=April 24, 2007|accessdate=2008-12-30}}</ref> Evans explained his reasons as a combination of the following: skepticism in global dimming as an explanation for recent cooling, evidence against causation by CO2 of historical warming, and the existence of a sound alternative hypothesis (warming caused by variations in the solar magnetic field).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html|title=A climate skeptic's guest post: Why David Evans bet against Brian Schmidt over global warming|publisher=Backseat driving|date= 30 de abril 2007|accessdate= 30 de diciembre 2008}}</ref>
-->
== Enlaces internos ==
* [[Controversia del gráfico de hockey]]
* [[Climagate]]

== Referencias ==
{{listaref|colwidth=30em}}

== Enlaces externos ==
* [http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=21211&fID=345 ResearchChannel - The American Public's Views of Global Climate Change]. Video de una conferencia de Jon A. Krosnick, [[Ciencias sociales|científico social]], [[Stanford University]]. Producido por [[National Science Foundation]], 25 de octubre 2007
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/21/astroturf_activism_leaked_memo_reveals_oil Leaked Memo Reveals Oil Industry Effort to Stage Rallies Against Climate Legislation] - video reporte de ''[[Democracy Now!]]''
* [http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/spirit-that-freed-south-africa-must-now-rescue-the-planet-20091022-hbch.html Spirit that Freed South Africa Must Now Rescue the Planet] por [[Desmond Tutu]]

[[Categoría:Cambio climático]]
[[Categoría:Controversias científicas]]
[[Categoría:Calentamiento global]]

[[de:Kontroverse um die globale Erwärmung]]
[[en:Global warming controversy]]
[[fi:Ilmastonmuutoskeskustelu]]
[[fr:Controverses sur le réchauffement climatique]]
[[ja:地球温暖化に関する論争]]
[[no:Klimaskepsis]]
[[pl:Kontrowersje wokół globalnego ocieplenia]]

Revisión del 11:12 13 ene 2010

Uno o varios wikipedistas están trabajando actualmente en este artículo o sección. Es posible que a causa de ello haya lagunas de contenido o deficiencias de formato.
Si quieres, puedes ayudar y editar, pero antes de realizar correcciones mayores contáctalos en sus páginas de discusión o en la del artículo para poder coordinar la redacción.
Uso de esta plantilla: {{En desarrollo|nombre de usuario|t={{sust:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}} o {{sust:En desarrollo}}

La controversia sobre el calentamiento global es una disputa científica acerca de la naturaleza, causas, consecuencias del calentamiento global antropogénico. Los aspectos disputados incluyen las causas de los incrementados Tº global media del aire, especialmente desde mitad del s. XX, si esa tendencia de calor es sin precedentes o dentro de las variaciones normales climáticas, y si ese incremento es total o parcialmente una incertidumbre por erróneas mediciones. Disputas agregadas conciernen a las estimaciones de la sensibilidad climática, predicciones de calentamientos adicionales, y posibles consecuencias del calentamiento global. La controversia es significativamente más pronunciada en los medios populares que en la literatura científica.[1]​

Historia

Opinión pública

En la Unión Europea, el calentamiento global ha sido una asignatura prominente y sustancial. Todos los miembros de la Unión Europea ratificaron el Protocolo de Kioto de 1997, y muchos países europeos han tomado acciones para reducir las emisiones de gases de invernadero desde 1990. Por ejemplo, Margaret Thatcher abogó por acciones contra el cambio climático antropogénico en 1988,[2]​ y Alemania comenzó a tomar acciones luego que el Partido Verde tuvo asientos en el Parlamento en los 1980s. Actividades sustanciales de las ONGs tuvieron lugar también y eficientemente.[3]​ Tanto el "calentamiento global", y el más políticamente neutral "cambio climático" se listaron en el Global Language Monitor como palabras de moda políticas, y/o latiguillos en 2005.[4]​ En Europa, la noción de influencia humana en cuestiones climáticas ganó amplia aceptación y más rapidamente en Europa que en en EE.UU..[5]​[6]​

Hubo un debate entre comentaristas de opinión acerca de cuanto peso y cobertura en los medios se da a cada lado de la controversia científica. Andrew Neil de BBC declaró que: "Hay un gran peligro de que en algunos temas nos estemos convirtiendo en un Estado de partido único en el que estamos destinados a tener sólo un tipo de vista. Usted no tiene porque ser un negacionista del cambio climático para reconocer que hay una gran variedad de opiniones sobre el tema."[7]​ Martin Gardner, por otro lado, ve a los medios de comunicación en los Estados Unidos haciendo lo imposible por dar tiempo igual a ambas partes, cuando pseudociencia y ciencia están en desacuerdo.[8]​

La tabla debajo muestra como son y como han cambiado las percepciones públicas acerca de la existencoa e importancia del calentamiento global en EE.UU.[9]​[10]​[11]​ El consenso de todo el mundo es que el cambio climático es un problema grave.[12]​

Declaración % acuerdo Año
La actividad humana es una significativa causa del cambio climático 79 2007
Cambio climático es un serio problema 90 2006
Cambio climático es un serio problema 78 2003
Es necesario tomar medidas drásticas cuanto antes 65 2007

En junio de 2007 Ipsos Mori llevó a cabo una encuesta en RU hallando un 56 % de 2.032 adultos creían que científicos aún cuestionaban el cambio climático. El estudio sugería que terrorismo, graffiti y crimen debían tener más presencia que el cambio climático. El director del Ipsos Mori de estudios ambientales, Phil Downing, dijo que la gente había sido influída por los argumentos en contra.[13]​

El presentador canadiense de ciencia y activista ambiental David Suzuki, informó de que grupos de discusión organizados por la "Fundación David Suzuku mostró que el público tiene una pobre entendimiento acerca de la opinión de la ciencia detrás del calentamiento global.[14]​ Esto es a pesar de la reciente publicidad a través de diferentes medios, incluyendo las películas de Una verdad incómoda y The 11th Hour.

Ejemplos de pobre entendimiento es la confusión pública entre calentamiento global antropogénico y agotamiento del ozono u otros problemas ambientales.[15]​[16]​

En 2006, una encuesta de 15 naciones conducida por Pew Global halló que hay "una brecha importante en la preocupación por el calentamiento global - aproximadamente dos tercios de los japoneses (66%) y de India (65%) dicen que personalmente se preocupan mucho sobre el calentamiento global. Aproximadamente la mitad de la población de España (51%) y de Francia (46%) también expresa gran preocupación por el calentamiento global, sobre la base de los que han oído hablar de la cuestión. Pero no hay pruebas de alarma sobre el calentamiento global en cualquiera de los estadounidenses o chinos - los dos mayores productores de gases de efecto invernadero. Sólo el 19% de los estadounidenses y el 20% de los chinos que han oído hablar del tema, dicen que les preocupa mucho el calentamiento global - los porcentajes más bajos en los 15 países encuestados. Por otra parte, casi la mitad de los estadounidenses (47%) y algo menos de chinos (37%) expresan poca o ninguna preocupación por el problema."[17]​

Y una nueva encuesta a 47 naciones por "Pew Global" en 2007 halló "La gran mayoría de 25 de 37 países dicen que el calentamiento global es un «muy grave» problema".[18]​

Hay una diferencia notable entre la opinión de los científicos y la del público en general en EE.UU. Una encuesta de 2009 de Pew Research Center encontró que "mientras que el 84% de los científicos dicen que la tierra se está calentando debido a actividades humanas como la quema de combustibles fósiles, sólo el 49% de la población está de acuerdo con ello."[19]​

Controversias

Mucha de la crítica sobre la visión consensuada del calentamiento global se ha puesto de acuerdo, en todo o en parte, con el consenso científico sobre otros aspectos, particulalmente con los relacionados con riesgos ambientales, como agujero de ozono y fumador pasivo.

Chris Mooney, autor de a Guerra de los Republicanos en Ciencia, ha argumentado que la aparición de grupos superpuestos de científicos escépticos, los comentaristas y grupos de reflexión en los resultados de las controversias aparentemente no relacionadas con un intento organizado para sustituir el análisis científico con ideología política-partidaria. Mooney afirma que la promoción de dudas sobre las cuestiones que son políticas, pero no científicas, se hizo cada vez más prevalente en virtud de la Administración Bush y que constituía una "guerra republicana en la ciencia". Este es también el tema de un reciente libro del abogado ambientalista Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titulado: Crímenes contra la naturaleza: Cómo George W. Bush y la Corporación Pals están saqueando el país y secuestrando nuestra democracia. Otro texto sobre este tópico es El Asalto a la Razón del ex vicepresidente Al Gore. Instancias más tempranas también se incluyeron en el libro El Calor está de Ross Gelbspan.

Algunos críticos del consenso científico sobre el calentamiento global han argumentado que estas cuestiones no deben estar vinculadas y que la referencia a ellos constituye un injustificado ataque de argumento ad hominem.[20]​ El politicólogo Roger Pielke, Jr., respondiendo a Mooney, ha argumentado que la ciencia está inevitablemente entrelazado con la política.[21]​

Políticas

Protocolo de Kioto

Artículo principal: Protocolo de Kioto Protocol

Financiación de partidarios

Cambiando posiciones de escépticos

Presiones políticals sobre los científicos

Litigios

Apuestas

Enlaces internos

Referencias

  1. ↑ Por favor, pon la referencia que aparece aquí.
  2. ↑ Discurso a la Royal Society (27 de septiembre 1988), Public Statement, Archivos del Habla, Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Visto 9 de abril 2007.
  3. ↑ Mintzer, Irving M. (1992). Confronting climate change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 265-272. 
  4. ↑ «The Top Politically inCorrect Words for 2006». Global Language Monitor. Consultado el 14 de abril de 2007. 
  5. ↑ Crampton, Thomas (4 de enero de 2007). «Más información en Europa sobre el clima de preocupación que en EE.UU., muestra una encuesta». International Herald Tribune. Consultado el 14 de abril de 2007. 
  6. ↑ «Little Consensus on Global Warming – Partisanship Drives Opinion – Summary of Findings». Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 12 de julio de 2006. Consultado el 14 de abril de 2007. 
  7. ↑ McCarthy, Michael, Global Warming: Demasiado Caliente para Manejar por la BBC, Independent, 6 de septiembre 2007
  8. ↑ Gardner M (1957). Fads and fallacies in the name of science. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-20394-8.
  9. ↑ Weart, Spencer (2006), «The Public and Climate Change», en Weart, Spencer, ed., The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, consultado el 14 de abril de 2007 .
  10. ↑ Langer, Gary (26 de marzo de 2006). «Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity». ABC News. Consultado el 12 de abril de 2007. 
  11. ↑ GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes at University of Maryland (25 de septiembre de 2007). «Man causing climate change - poll». BBC World Service. Consultado el 25 de septiembre de 2007. 
  12. ↑ Program on International Policy Attitudes (5 de abril de 2006). «30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem». Program on International Policy Attitudes. Consultado el 20 de abril de 2007. 
  13. ↑ BBC News: 'Escepticismo' sobre el cambio climático
  14. ↑ David Suzuki (18 de agosto de 2006). «Public doesn't understand global warming». David Suzuki Foundation. Consultado el 18 de agosto de 2007. 
  15. ↑ Richard J. Bord, Ann Fisher & Robert E. O'Connor (1997). «¿Es adecuada la comprensión del calentamiento global necesaria para promover la voluntad de sacrificio?». Consultado el 29 de febrero de 2008. 
  16. ↑ Richard J. Bord, Robert E. O'Connor, Ann Fischer (1 de julio de 2000). «In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?». Public Understanding of Science 9 (3): 205.  Parámetro desconocido |fechaaceso= ignorado (se sugiere |fechaacceso=) (ayuda);
  17. ↑ No Hay Alarma calentamiento global en EE.UU. y en China - Encuesta a 15 Naciones de "Pew Global". Lanzado 13 de junio 2006.
  18. ↑ Creciente preocupación ambiental en Encuesta a 47 Naciones. Pew Global Attitudes. 27 de junio 2007.
  19. ↑ Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media" 9 de julio 2009.
  20. ↑ «NEW ON THE SEPP WEB». Consultado el 23 de mayo de 2007. 
  21. ↑ Pielke Jr., Roger A. (10 de enero de 2005). «Aceptando a la Política en la Ciencia». Washington Post. p. A17. Consultado el 24 de abril de 2007. 

Enlaces externos

Obtenido de «https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversia_sobre_el_calentamiento_global&oldid=32979755»