Treatment of Homosexuality in Restoration and Enlightenment

Treatment of Homosexuality in Restoration and Enlightenment Homosexuality and the Problem of Identification in Restoration and Enlightenment England Restoration and Enlightenment England undeniably inherited, and to a large extent carried on the social, religious, and legal prejudices, or restrictions towards homosexual men that already existed for many centuries. The pronounced and extensive feelings against homosexuality in England which could be regarded as homophobic, as else where were strongly related to Christian theology and its strong influence upon prevailing social attitudes. There are several outright and clear condemnations of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments that influenced Christian theology to refute homosexuality as a deeply sinful and immoral act.[1] Outside of Judeo- Christian theology and ideology, homosexuality had not always been condemned or morally and socially vilified. Indeed in classical Greece and Rome being openly homosexual seemingly left men without detrimental social, religious, or legal consequences, which meant that few men had bothered to cover up their homosexual identities, fee lings, activities, and lifestyles. All that had changed once Christianity had become the dominant religion throughout Europe and taught that homosexuality was abnormal and sinful behaviour, and led to actions which were morally indefensible.[2] The Renaissance had rekindled interest in classical Greek and Roman art, literature, and sculpture, which in parts mentioned homosexuality as a normal and un-sinful part of everyday life. An unintended by product of the Renaissance had been the realisation that male homosexuality had not always been socially, or religiously taboo, and that it had not therefore been illegal in classical Greece or Rome. These earlier societies had not held homosexual men in disdain or made them social outcasts’ yet they were supposed to be immoral and degenerate compared to Christian societies. The realisation that only Judeo-Christian societies were so predominantly homophobic provided an impetus for homosexual men to alter their societies by arguing th at they were free to chose how they lived their lives and were not actually morally depraved. The initial moves to allow homosexual men to live openly started in Southern Europe before having an impact in Renaissance and Enlightenment England.[3] Arguably the Reformation disrupted the liberalising effects of the Renaissance, yet would eventually lead to increased levels of secularisation, and to the more liberal academic, social, and scientific attitudes of the Enlightenment. The more immediate consequences of the Reformation was increased attempts to rid Western European societies of false theology and cleanse it of immorality such as homosexuality, although the resulting conflicts between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism received the most attention amongst contemporaries and historians alike.[4] In England the onset of the Reformation had not altered the difficult situations that homosexual men faced if they wished to live their lives openly. That was due to the Protestants whether within the Church of England or the non-conformists outside of it being as opposed to male homosexuality as the Roman Catholic Church had always been. For the churches, homosexual thoughts or desires were just as sinful as actually performing homosexual acts. However if homosexual men refrained from acting upon their desires they would at least escape earthly punishment for their sins, which would be judged by God on their Judgement Day. Homosexual men either had to hide their sexual preferences or deny them completely. For they had virtually no alternative to concealing their orientation or gender identifications, and leading clandestine private lives. Hiding sexual orientation could make all the difference between been socially and economically successful or been disgraced, and possibly executed. Rumours of being homosexual could prove to be ruinous whether such allegations were proven or not. If actual homosexual acts could be proved to have taken place beyond doubt in an English Crown Court it would be fatal to those convicted. The high risks involved in leading a homosexual life even in secret helps to explain the lack of evidence that homosexual men left behind about themselves, as leaving information in writing or talking to the wrong people could leave to being convicted and then executed.[5] The concealment of homosexual identification was almost universally considered to be essential in England prior to the Restoration and Enlightenment eras, and remained highly important throughout those times. For men that held powerful social, economic, political, and religious positions being publicly identified or just rumoured to be a homosexual could prove to be disastrous for the maintenance of their position. Such rumours could reach the top of the political, social, and religious orders. During the 1590s until his death, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift came under suspicion of being sexually involved with another man. Whitgift was lucky enough to maintain the confidence of Elizabeth I as well as James I and therefore was not disgraced or removed from his post. Clergy had to be above suspicion of immoral sexual conduct whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature. The fact that England as a Protestant country allowed clerical marriage meant that the clergy could gratify heterosexual needs through marriage, whilst homosexual clergy if they existed had to preach the teachings of a religion that despised their sexuality.[6] The higher position a man held the greater the effort he would have put into hiding his homosexual orientation and identification. For instance, in the 14th century Edward II’s known homosexuality, when combined with his political ineptness contributed to his removal from the throne, and his subsequent murder. Kings were expected to be more masculine than any other men within society are, as they were expected to lead their countries during wartime, for kings to be suspected or known to be homosexual was detrimental for their chances of reigning over their countries successfully. Nearer to the Restoration and Enlightenment eras, the Duke of Buckingham was widely believed to have become the most influential and powerful royal favourite, not to mention the chief minister via his rumoured homosexual relationship with James I. Buckingham managed to form a similarly close relationship with Charles I, who seemed oblivious to the Duke’s unpopularity and incompetence. Rumours o f homosexuality did not damage Buckingham as much as his ineptness, yet they did not help improve his popularity either.[7] For homosexual men in Restoration and Enlightenment England, their social, political, and religious exclusion if their sexual orientation became public knowledge was attributable to the way in which homosexuality was regarded as being tantamount to sodomy by a majority of the heterosexual population. Sodomy was deemed to be as serious a sin as heresy and witchcraft, as the definition of sodomy incorporated all sexually deviant acts.[8] In earlier periods, males caught committing homosexual acts were usually trialed and punished by Church courts. The law was changed in 1534 in order for people accused of buggery to be trialed by Crown courts. The legislation of 1534 made it even more dangerous for male homosexuals to be known as being sexually active, or even to have their orientation known. The maximum punishment for any man caught and convicted for this crime was execution. Thus making buggery a crime punishable by death, in line with the sentences for heresy and witchcraft. The onl y difference was that the practice of executing heretics and alleged witches had gone by the end of the Enlightenment era, whereas the carrying out of homosexual activities was still a capital offence until 1861 and a crime until the 1960s[9]. Immediately prior to the Restoration period had been the Commonwealth, which had attempted to rigorously enforce all moral and religious values to meet with its fundamentalist Protestant ideology, including all heterosexual and homosexual sex outside of marriage. Whilst the Puritanical regime inspired by Oliver Cromwell had intended to cleanse the whole of Britain of its sins, it failed. During the Commonwealth period heterosexual adulterers as well as respectable Anglicans had to lead clandestine existences just like homosexuals and Roman Catholics had done for many decades.[10] Charles II’s return from exile ushered in the era of the Restoration, which brought a relaxation of the draconian moral codes of the Commonwealth, especially in the Royal Court. Despite his own immoral behaviour, Charles II only went as far as wanting religious toleration rather than officially supporting a relaxation of moral and sexual standards of behaviour. Even had Charles wished to improve the l egal position of homosexual men he would have not been prepared to face public and Parliamentary opposition to such plans.[11] Whilst the Restoration may have meant a more relaxed moral attitude at the Royal Court, there was no change in the legal position of men caught performing homosexual acts.[12] Concealment of homosexual identification or the protection of men in high social and religious positions was the best way to stay clear of prosecution and ultimately execution.[13] Living in towns and cities in general and in London in particular improved the chances of homosexual men not being caught, and leading a more fulfilling existence.[14] Homosexual men to an overwhelming extent publicly appeared to fit in with the gender role models during the Restoration and Enlightenment eras in England. As not conforming to conventional gender role models would have revealed their identity as homosexual men, many therefore decided to cover up their true identity to avoid persecution and their own personal disgrace. Homosexual men therefore, had to perform the gender roles expected of heterosexual men, such as being husbands, fathers and acting as heads of their households. Getting married and having children was the best means of concealing homosexual identification and removing suspicions of any sexual wrongdoing or immorality. Men of all social, economic and religious status were homosexuals, yet the higher their status the more they had to lose by revealing their sexual orientation. Self-preservation was presumably a greater motivation than self-expression or self-fulfilment. Although it must have made countless numbers of homo sexual men in Restoration and Enlightenment England the Reformation had weakened the hold of Christianity over society unknown to anybody at that time. The main long-term consequence of Protestantism was to increase the level of secularisation in England, although other social values reinforced prejudices towards homosexual men.[15] The Enlightenment continued the process of secularisation started by the Renaissance and only delayed by the Reformation, which slowly made English social and genders values more liberal and less repressive.[16] In many respects social prejudices against homosexual men outlasted the religious reasons for homosexuality being illegal in England in the first place. The fear of sodomy as an unnatural form of sexual behaviour persisted even as English society became increasingly secularised.[17] The treatment of homosexual men in Restoration and Enlightenment England was not the same throughout the country. London was a city in which homosexual men could attempt to be more open about their sexual orientation and worry less about fulfilling expected gender roles. As one of the biggest cities in the world, London was place in which homosexual men had an increased level of opportunities to be true to themselves, rather than outwardly conform to social and religious norms with regard to sexual conduct. Homosexual men that remained publicly unknown had to carry on living up to widespread masculine stereotypes.[18] These comments have to be qualified, as although London was a cosmopolitan centre where it was possible to lead different lifestyles that differed from the Christian and heterosexual norm. London was also the part of England in which the letter of the law could be enforced most vigorously, as it was the seat of government and Courts and magistrates would not want to be seen as unable to tackle criminal and immoral activities. As individuals homosexuals may have been able to lead homosexual lives with the protection of people in high places. However, at the end of the day it still remained sensible for homosexual men to hide their orientation as the legislation that could result in their conviction and execution remained upon the statute books.[19] For the majority of homosexual men in Restoration and Enlightenment England the opportunities to be readily identifiable as homosexuals were strictly limited and even when those chances were available it remained dangerous to take them. Some careers such as acting or singing gave a few homosexual men the chance to appear less masculine in public without raising undue suspicions of their sexual orientation. The majority of homosexual men were in the situation where they had to perform the social, economic, religious, or political functions that their position at birth had put them into. The majority of so cial, political, religious, and economic positions in Restoration and Enlightenment meant that all men had to perform their tasks in masculine ways. [20] Therefore, it could be concluded that the circumstances of the times made it very difficult for homosexual men to clearly allow themselves to be identified as such by their contemporaries in Restoration and Enlightenment England. It has also made it harder for modern historians to qualify and quantify the number and the experiences of homosexual men during that period. As was explored and evaluated above there were various reasons for homosexual men to conceal their sexual orientation from becoming general public knowledge, and to carry out any homosexual activities in secret, if at all. The overwhelmingly Christian nature of England before, during, and after the Restoration and Enlightenment eras had a very strong upon how homosexual men had to hide their sexual preferences from English society as a whole. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had wide acceptance of its theology and opinions with regard to male homosexuality. The Roman Catholic Church had taught that all male homosexual activities should be regarded as deadly sins, which stemmed from all homosexual men having morally deviant thoughts that inevitably led to behaviour which needed to be severely punished, even to the point of executing homosexual men. Basically, Christian ideology was opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that it was an intolerable sin, just like heresy and witchcraft, which needed to be eradicated. The Reformation did not change the Christian perspective that male homosexuals should be punished as and when they were caught performing homosexual acts. Indeed the legislation that allowed the English Crown Courts to prosecute and execute people convicted of buggery was passed by the Reformation Parliament that enacted the break away of the English Church from the Papacy. The knowledge that being caught performing homosexual acts would result in execution meant that all men that performed such acts by and large did so in complete secrecy to avoid capital punishment. T he need for self preservation meant that the vast majority of homosexual men concealed their identities to stay alive and free, with the options to carry out homosexual activities in secret, or abstain from meeting other men altogether. To remain successfully hidden from people that might have them prosecuted the majority of homosexual men would chose not to leave written documentary evidence of their sexual activities or their feelings towards other men, as such material could easily have led to their conviction and subsequent execution. Homosexual men could have been from any social and economic background, as homosexuality seems to occur naturally within some men. After all it would hardly have been nurtured within Restoration and Enlightenment societies in England that overwhelmingly regarded homosexuality as being wrong and unnatural. Only limited numbers of homosexual men felt save enough not to hide their orientation, living in London, or having rich and powerful protectors w ere the factors that might allow some degree of openness. Bibliography Ashley M, (2002) A brief history of British Kings Queens, Robinson, London Betteridge T, (2002) Sodomy in Early Modern Europe, Manchester University Press, Manchester Fernandez-Arnesto, F Wilson, D (1996) Reformation Christianity and the World 1500-2000, Bantam Press, London Gardiner Wenborn (1995) The History Today Companion to British History, Collins and Brown Ltd, London Lenman, (2004) Chamber’s Dictionary of World History, Chambers, Edinburgh MacCulloch D, Reformation – Europe’s House Divided (2004) Penguin Books, London Schama, S (2001) A History of Britain The British Wars 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide, London 1 Footnotes [1] MacCulloch, 2004 p. 620 [2] MacCulloch, 2004 p. 620 [3] Betteridge, 2002 pp. 71 – 74 [4] Roberts, 1996 p. 235 [5] MacCulloch, 2004 p. 209 [6] MacCulloch, 2004 p. 209 [7] Betteridge, 2002 p. 46 [8] MacCulloch, 2004, p.622 [9] Gardiner Wenborn, 1995, p.388 [10] Schama, 2001, p.235 [11] Ashley, 2002, p.320 [12] Gardiner Wenborn, 1995, p.646 [13] Betteridge, 2002, pp.71-74 [14] MacCulloch, 2004, p.620 [15] Fernandez-Armesto Wilson, 1996, p.290 [16] Lenman, 2004, p.264 [17] Gardiner Wenborn, 1995, p.388 [18] Betteridge, 2002, pp. 71-74 [19] MacCulloch, 2004, p.622 [20] Betteridge, 2002 pp. 71-74

Othello – Iago’s Deception of Roderigo

In this passage, Iago is trying to persuade Roderigo that they both have a common enemy, Othello, and that they should work together in their revenge against him. Iago wants revenge because Othello gave the promotion of lieutenant to Cassio instead of him. Roderigo wants revenge because Othello is married to Desdemona, the woman Roderigo is madly in love with. The passage then ends with Roderigo leaving the stage, leaving Iago alone to recite a soliloquy, revealing his true emotions to the audience for the first time. In his first speech, Iago seems very controlling over Roderigo; he starts his speech by two consecutive gestures implicating that he is the superior character in the scenario. He starts by telling Roderigo how he feels towards Iago, â€Å"Thou art sure of me†, leaving no room for Roderigo to question him. This boldly tells the audience that Iago is the decision maker in this duo, as he is making an important decision for Roderigo, whether to trust Iago or not. Roderigo’s indecision has made him ‘weak’. Iago then immediately orders Roderigo to go ‘make money’, which further emphasizes Iago’s superiority. Iago then goes on to trying to comfort Roderigo with the orders and decisions Iago is making for him, in a sense, by showing him how they are both in common and want the same final outcome (that they both hate Othello and want him to suffer). â€Å"I have told thee often, and I retell thee again and again, I hate the moor†, Iago uses the words ‘again and again’ to emphasize and make clear and definite how much he loathes Othello, and then says ‘my cause is hearted’ to express how important it is for him to have revenge on Othello (he craves it deep down in his heart, hence it is hearted). Iago then proposes that he and Roderigo should work together in an accumulative effort to avenge against Othello, and continues to try and persuade him to trust him. He says ‘ if thou canst cuckold him, thou dost thyself a pleasure, me a sport’ to ensure Roderigo that he can help him in sleeping with Desdemona, which will bring great pleasure to Roderigo, and will be easy to accomplish for Iago, much like a ‘sport’. The word ‘sport’ is particularly interesting as, in my opinion, it makes Iago seem very wicked because it seems as if sabotaging relationships is a sport to him, an act that brings him joy and others sorrow. ‘For I mine own gained†¦. But for my sport and profit’, this sentence which Iago says in his soliloquy, suggests to the audience that Iago is a selfish or self-empowering person, meaning that he would not spend time or waste knowledge unless it somehow benefited him. In Iago’s soliloquy, it is the first time the audience gets to see how he processes the events of the play and how he thinks and plans his revenge against Othello. He reveals how he plans to turn Othello and Cassio against one another and, by doing so, ‘eliminating two birds with one stone. This also stimulates a sense of suspense, as the audience is aware of the damage that will happen in the future but are not aware of how it will happen. During the soliloquy, Iago presents his two-faced character, which the audience by now will have suspected he has. After Roderigo leaves, Iago immediately starts his soliloquy by expressing how much of a fool Roderigo is, and how Iago is only using him as a sort of personal piggy bank. â€Å"Thus do I ever make my fool my purse†. This immediately makes it clear and obvious to the audience that Iago is not what he seems and what the other characters believe him to be, honest and loyal. This bluntly imprints Iago’s true personality into the minds of the audience.

The Negative Effects of Violence on TV Essay

The sum of force on telecasting presents is inacceptable. The stuff that you see on shows that are â€Å"supposedly for kids† merely don’t seem like it. As more and more violent telecasting shows and plans are aired every individual dark. childs are affected by it in a negative manner. Surveies have shown that disclosures of force to childs at early ages will impact them mentally. They will either get down to believe nil of force. or be over-frightened because of what he/she may hold seen on Television. The Television channels should non be allowed to expose this sort of stuff and force to childs at such early ages. because of the aftereffects it will hold on the adolescents and kids. First of all. there is manner excessively much force on telecasting whether it is on some premier clip channel. or even a Saturday forenoon sketch plan. For some premier clip Television shows. there are three to five hours violent Acts of the Apostless per hr. For every Saturday plan for childs. there are about twenty to 25 violent Acts of the Apostless per hr. ( Frazier ) This shows how much force there is on â€Å"children shows† . In a sample for the National Television Violence Study. it was found that around 60 per centum of ten-thousand telecasting plans contained violent stuff. ( Kunkel ) That is a batch! That survey â€Å"identified an norm of 6. 000 violent interactions in a individual hebdomad of programming across the 23 channels that were examined. including both broadcast and overseas telegram webs. More than half of the violent shows ( 53 % ) contained deadly Acts of the Apostless. and one in four of the plans with force ( 25 % ) depicted the usage of a gun. ( Kunkel ) That means that the bulk of telecasting shows. whether for kids or non. will hold force on that plan more than half the time. ) Statisticss besides showed that the mean plan for kids more frequently contained more force so the mean Adult Television. Even in some â€Å"G† rated films. there is force. That is excessively unhealthy particularly because of the effects it causes. Now. if you put that stat along with how much kids watch Television daily. â€Å"An mean American kid tickers telecasting 21-23 hours per hebdomad. ( Frazier ) That means per hebdomad. 60 per centum of those 20s or so hours will hold something violent that will hold a negative consequence on the kids. Besides. harmonizing to the American Psychiatric Association in 1996. striplings will hold viewed 10. 000 fake slayings and 200. 000 Acts of the Apostless of force by the age of 18. ( Frazier ) Besides repeated exposure to force from telecasting is unhealthy for the child’s character. With childs being around force while watching â€Å"kid’s shows† . â€Å"the child becomes less sensitive towards its effects on victims and the human enduring it causes. ( Boyse ) Research has proven in the past old ages that the force on telecastings so has a negative consequence on kids. Research from the National Institute of Mental Health in 1982. force is said to take to aggressive behaviour by kids and adolescents. Even before this. one of the most well-known surveies done in 1963 by Bandura proved that force has a important consequence on the people that view it. â€Å"He had a group of kids view a Television picture of a theoretical account who kicked and punished an hyperbolic plastic doll. After the screening. the kids were placed in a rumpus room with other kids who had non seen the picture. Those that saw the picture displayed significantly more aggressive behaviour than those who didn’t. † Other surveies showed that childs who saw violent sketchs had a high opportunity to non portion their playthings with others. Another survey made in 1972 with Liebert and Baron. confirmed the findings of Bandura. â€Å"This survey investigated children’s willingness to ache other kids after sing aggressive Television plans. Two groups of kids watched a different Television plan. one of which had aggressive content and one of which was impersonal. Those who saw the aggressive plan ( The Untouchables ) were found to be more willing to ache another kid after sing the plan than those who watched the impersonal plan ( a path race ) . † ( Frazier ) These harmful effects from the force portrayed on telecasting are grouped into three primary classs ; â€Å"children’s acquisition of aggressive attitudes and behaviours ; desensitisation. or an increased unfeelingness towards victims of force ; and increased or overdone fright of being victimized by force. While all of these effects reflect inauspicious results. it is the first – an increased leaning for violent behaviour – that is at the nucleus of public wellness concern about televised force. † ( Kunkel ) Back to desensitisation. â€Å"According to the article â€Å"Media Violence. † the American media shows heroes justifiably utilizing force as a agency to decide struggle. The American Academy of Pediatrics website suggests that drawn-out exposure to this type of force additions credence of force as a agency of work outing jobs. The 1995 to 1997 AAP National Television Study showed that 61 per centum of programming â€Å"portrayed interpersonal force. much of it in an entertaining or glamorized mode. † Children are drawn to such scheduling when the violent act seems phantasmagoric and the deficiency of effect attractive. † ( Adams ) He besides stated that force is both sanitised. â€Å"By sanitized. immediate hurting and agony by victims of force is included in less than half of all scenes of force. More than a 3rd of violent interactions depict unrealistically mild injury to victims. grossly minimizing the badness of hurt that would happen from such actions in the existent universe. In amount. most word pictures sanitize force by doing it look to be much less painful and less harmful than it truly is. By glamorized. I mean that force is performed by attractive function theoretical accounts who are frequently justified for moving sharply and who suffer no compunction. unfavorable judgment. or punishment for their violent behaviour. More than a 3rd of all force is committed by attractive characters. and more than two-thirds of the force they commit occurs without any marks of penalty. † ( Kunkel ) One other job kids might confront is overexposure to force. â€Å"Overexposure to force. and peculiarly realistically depicted force. may take kids to believe that the universe is chiefly a unsafe and insecure topographic point. They may get down to overrate the possibility that they will be victims of force. go forthing them with undue anxiousness and emphasis. ( Frazier ) Other than doing emotional jobs. it can do some harm to a child’s turning character or ethical motives. â€Å"Sigmund Freud believed that kids need to develop a sense of morality by the age of five or they could see troubles later in life. If a kid doesn’t learn to understand the difference between right and incorrect. she will non develop a proper apprehension of guilt or compunction. and will therefore be more likely to prose cute heedlessly in behaviours that are considered socially and morally incorrect. The article â€Å"Children. Adolescents. and Television† states that research has shown telecasting force to hold a negative consequence on the academic public presentation. gender. organic structure constructs. and self-images of immature viewing audiences. which can take to violent or aggressive behaviour and substance maltreatment. † ( Adams ) Nowadays. with all of these â€Å"reality shows† on MTV. The E Network. etc. it’s easy and normal to see force. Childs that watch â€Å"The Kardashians† and â€Å"Teen Mom† see their favourite famous persons act in a manner that is unprofessional on telecasting. but they don’t know better. They want to be merely like them. Television shows like those really use force and â€Å"incidents† to assist raise their evaluation and popularity. ( Caning ) With all of these mental effects caused from excessively much screening of force. this proves how telecasting scheduling should be more sensitive for the content made for kids. In add-on. parents should besides seek and lend in filtrating what their kids watch on telecasting. There are different stairss you can take. that can perchance let your kid to non be exposed to such force on Television shows. You can seek and watch telecasting with your childs. That manner. you’ll know what they watch. and you can command the content. ( Boyse ) Other options include previewing the content of the plan or possibly merely assigning them a shorter sum of clip to watch Television. At least that manner. there is a smaller opportunity for force in the smaller clip slot. ( Frazier ) One other good manner to maintain your child’s mind off of telecasting would be to seek and acquire them involved like other activities. Sports. reading. jobs. etc. ; anything like that. Another good thought would be to seek and speak to your childs about force in media. If you can explicate to them why force is incorrect. so you can be more alleviated and swear them. ( Boyse ) Good communicating is cardinal. If you try to convert to your kid that you are merely seeking to be concerned and caring. they’ll understand the point you are seeking to do. In decision. I believe that kids deserve better than what is presently traveling on. As their function theoretical accounts. we need to assist do their â€Å"future† safe. We need to ban all force from children’s scheduling. Television channels shouldn’t be allowed to expose inappropriate stuff and force to striplings. It causes them a batch of emotional hurting. even physical. Children are like sponges. They absorb what they hear or learn. If at an early age. they are exposed to force. killing. particularly on telecasting. where effects aren’t even addressed†¦ That’s non a healthy manner for kids to turn up. It’s best that we keep that off from the inexperienced person.

About Global Warming IPCCs AR4

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a series of reports in 2007 that set forth conclusions about the causes and effects of global warming as well as the costs and benefits of solving the problem. The reports, which drew on the work of more than 2,500 of the world’s leading climate scientists and were endorsed by 130 nations, confirmed the consensus of scientific opinion on the key questions related to global warming. Taken together, the reports are intended to help policymakers worldwide make informed decisions and develop effective strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and control global warming. What Is the Purpose of the IPCC? The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide a comprehensive and objective assessment of scientific, technical and socio-economic information that could lead to a better understanding of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and the options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC is open to all members of the United Nations and the WMO. The Physical Basis of Climate Change On February 2, 2007, the IPCC published a summary report from Working Group I, which confirms that global warming is now â€Å"unequivocal† and states with more than 90 percent certainty that human activity â€Å"very likely† has been the primary cause of rising temperatures worldwide since 1950. The report also says that global warming is likely to continue for centuries and that it is already too late to stop some of the serious consequences it will bring. Still, the report also says there is still time to slow global warming and to lessen many of its most severe consequences if we act quickly. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability The effects of global warming in the 21st century and beyond are expected to be disastrous, according to the summary of a scientific report issued on April 6, 2007, by Working Group II of the IPCC. And many of those changes are already under way. This also makes it clear that while poor people worldwide will suffer most from the effects of global warming, no person on Earth will escape its consequences. The effects of global warming will be felt in every region and at all levels of society. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change On May 4, 2007, Working Group III of the IPCC released a report showing that the cost of controlling greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and avoiding the most serious effects of global warming is affordable and would be partially offset by economic gains and other benefits. This conclusion refutes the argument of many industry and government leaders who say that taking serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would lead to economic ruin. In this report, scientists outline the costs and benefits of strategies that could reduce global warming over the next few decades. And while controlling global warming will require significant investment, the consensus of scientists who worked on the report is that nations have no choice but to take immediate action. â€Å"If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble,† said Ogunlade Davidson, co-chair of the working group that produced the report.