We continue to develop resources related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See COVID-19 initiatives on Appropedia for more information.

Difference between revisions of "Climate change"

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Contrarian views)
(probabilities)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
==Contrarian views==
 
==Contrarian views==
While global warming is accepted as the scientific consensus and {{WP|climate change skeptics}} are a very small minority of scientists, there is more disagreement over the best solutions. For example, the role of [[nuclear energy]] and the relative importance of climate change as opposed to directly addressing poverty are open to debate.<ref>{{WP|Bjorn Lomborg}}
+
Global warming is accepted as the scientific consensus and {{WP|climate change skeptics}} are a very small minority of scientists. This does not require proving it beyond doubt: consider the practice of the insurance industry to plan for outcomes of varying degrees of likelihood. As the scientific consensus is that there is a very strong probability (the IPCC says 90%{{fact}}) that humans are causing significant climate change, it is vital to prepare for it.
 +
 
 +
There is less agreement over the best solutions. For example, the role of [[nuclear energy]] and the relative importance of climate change as opposed to directly addressing poverty are open to debate.<ref>{{WP|Bjorn Lomborg}}
  
 
Critical analysis of technologies and strategies are important, though of course each side of an argument can have its own bias.  
 
Critical analysis of technologies and strategies are important, though of course each side of an argument can have its own bias.  

Revision as of 13:10, 14 April 2007

NOTE: This tag is deprecated - please use an interwiki link section instead. Discuss.
Information on Climate change can be found at Wikipedia. What's this?


Contrarian views

Global warming is accepted as the scientific consensus and climate change skepticsDEPRECATED TEMPLATE - PLEASE USE {{W}} INSTEAD. are a very small minority of scientists. This does not require proving it beyond doubt: consider the practice of the insurance industry to plan for outcomes of varying degrees of likelihood. As the scientific consensus is that there is a very strong probability (the IPCC says 90%[verification needed]) that humans are causing significant climate change, it is vital to prepare for it.

There is less agreement over the best solutions. For example, the role of nuclear energy and the relative importance of climate change as opposed to directly addressing poverty are open to debate.<ref>Bjorn LomborgDEPRECATED TEMPLATE - PLEASE USE {{W}} INSTEAD.

Critical analysis of technologies and strategies are important, though of course each side of an argument can have its own bias.

Such contrarian viewpoints and critical analysis can be found at:

Note: this is not an endorsement of arguments found at these websites. However, if a site is assessed in depth and found to be seriously inaccurate and misleading, it should be removed from this page, and the reasons given on the talk page (where the decision can be noted and reviewed by the Appropedia community).

See also




Aprologo-shiny-clearest.png This page is a "stub" - it needs more content.

You are invited to add your knowledge.

No registration needed - just edit.
We monitor for spam and to keep these pages improving.