Search results

This paper uses a historical case study, the controversy over the possibility of climatic extremes caused by hydrogen bomb tests on Pacific Ocean atolls during the 1950s, to show how, in a context of few scientific data and high uncertainty, political affiliations and public concerns shaped two types of argumentation, the “energy” and the “precautionary” arguments.

Systematic analysis of publications 1954–1956: scientific and semiscientific articles, publications of C.-N. Martin and contemporary newspaper articles, especially from the Asia–Pacific region.

First, epistemological and scientific reasoning about the likelihood of extreme natural events aligned to political convictions and pressure. Second, a geographical and social distribution of arguments: the relativizing “energy argument” prevailed in English-language scientific journals, while the “precautionary argument” dominated in popular journals and newspapers published worldwide. Third, while the “energy argument” attained general scientific consensus within two years, it lost out in the long run. The proponents of the “precautionary argument” raised relevant research questions that, though first rejected in the 1950s, later exposed the fallacies of the “energy argument” (shown for the case of the climatologist William W. Kellogg).

In contrast to the existing secondary literature, this paper presents a balanced view of the weaknesses and strengths of two lines of arguments in the 1950s. Further, this historical study sheds light on how once-discarded scientific theories may ultimately be reconsidered in a completely different political and scientific context, thus justifying the original precautionary argument.

The purpose of this paper is to contrast the behavior of a US homeowner exposed to hurricane risk with government policies designed to limit hurricane losses. Owners limit these losses by selecting structural improvements or mitigation and wind and flood insurance.

The paper uses mitigation costs, hurricane probabilities, and insurance premiums to frame rational cost‐minimizing choices for the homeowner.

First, even though nationwide hurricane damage costs are large, the cost‐minimizing response for an individual property owner may be to buy no mitigation or structural improvements, no flood insurance and minimal wind insurance, as probabilities of strong hurricanes striking particular locations are extremely low. Second, additional insurance is a less costly defense than structural improvement, even under much higher insurance premiums and hurricane strike probabilities. Third, federally subsidized flood insurance may reduce the effectiveness of government programs encouraging structural mitigation.

The last few years were underscored by the catastrophic damages of Hurricanes‐Katrina, Ike and Wilma. Enormous costs suffered by the public and private sectors could have been avoided with greater mitigation by homeowners. This paper examines the financial incentives for such mitigation. Those incentives are examined in a previously untested framework.

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, to give a concise account of the current global climate situation, its previous history according to the palaeoclimate record, and climate scientists’ predictions of the consequences of various scenarios of global climate change. Then to explain why so many people continue to be oblivious to the enormous risks of continuing with business as usual.

The approach is through a comprehensive study of the relevant evidence and the scientific and scholarly literature, interwoven with philosophical reflections on their significance.

The findings are as follows: the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of global warming is overwhelming, and the prognoses for continued burning of fossil fuels (sea level rise, extreme weather, etc.) are dire. The denial stems in large part from the undue influence of climate scepticism movements, lavishly funded by the fossil fuel industries, combined with a variety of psycho-social and economic factors.

The implications are several. Given the complex nature of global warming, scientists need to do a better job of communicating their findings to the general public, and scholars and academics need to find ways to expose the machinations of the fossil fuel industries. And given the global impact of climate change, citizens of the developed nations need to see that a radical change in their behaviour is demanded not only by considerations of social justice but also even by their own self-interest.

The value of this philosophical approach is that it affords a more comprehensive view of the situation around global warming than we get from the more specialised disciplines.

One of the sectors most affected by the variable weather events caused by climate change and global warming is the aviation sector. Especially in aircraft accidents, weather events increasing with climate change and global warming are effective. The purpose of this study is to determine how much the change in weather conditions caused by global warming and climate changes affect the aircraft in the world between the years 2010 and 2022.

In this study, it was investigated which weather events were more effective in aircraft crashes by determining the rates of air events and aircraft crashes in aircraft crashes with a passenger capacity of 12 or more that occurred between 2010 and 2022.

It is clearly seen that increasing weather conditions with global warming and climate change increase the effect of weather conditions in aircraft crashes.

The difference of this study from other studies is the evaluation of the data of the past 12 years, in which the increasing consequences of global warming and climate change have been felt more. It also reveals the necessity of further research on the effects of weather conditions on aircraft.