Global Warming for Scientific Moderates

[Amelia]

Can someone please recommend a site about climate change which is not politicized. Specifically one which is not-Al-Goreized.

Al Gore makes me puke but I'm not anti-science and I want to help out the cause of science by finding some good information which some of my more conservative friends would be able to stomach.

I'm getting very angry at my party for glorifying preachers of ignorance like Bachmann and calling people like me RINO's. But at the same time, if the people on the left really really really really cared about the environment and not just about sitting around and laughing at ignorant people on the right, they would realize how much damage that hypocritical blowhard Al Gore has done to their cause and they would try to find a way to get the message out which didn't sound so much like liberal dogmatism.

To that end ... do you know a good nonpartisan site on this topic?

 

[konradv]

Can someone please recommend a site about climate change which is not politicized. Specifically one which is not-Al-Goreized.

Al Gore makes me puke but I'm not anti-science and I want to help out the cause of science by finding some good information which some of my more conservative friends would be able to stomach.

I'm getting very angry at my party for glorifying preachers of ignorance like Bachmann and calling people like me RINO's. But at the same time, if the people on the left really really really really cared about the environment and not just about sitting around and laughing at ignorant people on the right, they would realize how much damage that hypocritical blowhard Al Gore has done to their cause and they would try to find a way to get the message out which didn't sound so much like liberal dogmatism.

To that end ... do you know a good nonpartisan site on this topic?

Only the skeptic/deniers care about Gore. What has Gore done but publicize the problem? Calling him a blowhard is more a reflection of poltical bias than a reflection of anything he's done. Maybe he goes a little overboard sometimes, but that's for public consumption. The people feeding him the data know what they're doing and the reasons are a lot less political than their opponents'.

 

[Amelia]

Gore has pushed the green agenda to curry political favor and to line his pockets. If cap and trade had gone through, he would have made a killing.

He has hyped it up, made dire and demonstrably false claims, and positioned himself as a priest of what looks like a global warming religion to a huge swath the population - a portion of the population with a lot of electoral and financial clout.

So, do you have helpful links or not? I would like to be part of the solution and the first part of my attempt to be part of the solution is to say with conviction that thrusting ManBearPig on us and choking us with Smug are just not the way to go. Not if you actually believe that the planet is threatened and care more about a solution than you do about gloating at deniers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy"-- IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's hard to take these climate nuts seriously when the only solution they have is global communism.

Then you factor in the data manipulation and lies, of course you have the solar activity evidence...

AGW nuts are full of shit and have an alternative agenda that has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with politics and getting rich.

I believe even some global warming nuts know this but are too suborn to admit they've been had by a bunch of clowns.

 

[Cuyo]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can someone please recommend a site about climate change which is not politicized. Specifically one which is not-Al-Goreized.

Al Gore makes me puke but I'm not anti-science and I want to help out the cause of science by finding some good information which some of my more conservative friends would be able to stomach.

I'm getting very angry at my party for glorifying preachers of ignorance like Bachmann and calling people like me RINO's. But at the same time, if the people on the left really really really really cared about the environment and not just about sitting around and laughing at ignorant people on the right, they would realize how much damage that hypocritical blowhard Al Gore has done to their cause and they would try to find a way to get the message out which didn't sound so much like liberal dogmatism.

To that end ... do you know a good nonpartisan site on this topic?

RealClimate

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can someone please recommend a site about climate change which is not politicized. Specifically one which is not-Al-Goreized.

Al Gore makes me puke but I'm not anti-science and I want to help out the cause of science by finding some good information which some of my more conservative friends would be able to stomach.

I'm getting very angry at my party for glorifying preachers of ignorance like Bachmann and calling people like me RINO's. But at the same time, if the people on the left really really really really cared about the environment and not just about sitting around and laughing at ignorant people on the right, they would realize how much damage that hypocritical blowhard Al Gore has done to their cause and they would try to find a way to get the message out which didn't sound so much like liberal dogmatism.

To that end ... do you know a good nonpartisan site on this topic?

Only the skeptic/deniers care about Gore. What has Gore done but publicize the problem? Calling him a blowhard is more a reflection of poltical bias than a reflection of anything he's done. Maybe he goes a little overboard sometimes, but that's for public consumption. The people feeding him the data know what they're doing and the reasons are a lot less political than their opponents'.

Are you trying to tell me the climate scientists that are calling him out for exaggerating the problem are deniers?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

In what universe can science not be deceptive?

What makes scientists so fucking honest and benevolent?

So all I have to do is spend 4 more years in college - get a masters in something scientific and you will only then believe me??

I didn't know trust was for sale.

Any real scientist would question anyways - thats what they do and that's how they advance science.

It just so seems politics are at the forefront of science these days rather than actual science. And these same assholes rely on the laymen to submit to them because they're laymen that will believe absolutely anything they cannot understand just as long as it comes from the right corrupter.

The notion that the scientific community is somehow honest and benevolent is downright bullshit and I feel sorry for anyone that believes that.

Now, I'm very fond of Geology and real geology contradicts nearly everything the AGW nuts have been spewing...

Not only that but there was once a time when AGW nuts were spewing human made global cooling using the same evidence they use today.

The geological record PROVES warming is a natural process and there are 20+ layers to prove that.

Only a dumbass would be shocked by "climate change" and would attempt to blame man given the notion that the climate has been changing since we had a "climate."

 

[Amelia]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

You guessed wrong.

You need to reassess the quality of your assumptions.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Amelia]

RealClimate

Thank you. ( :

The entry page looked a little heavy. But then I found the "start here" tab. Looks promising.

 

[rdean]

When right wingers hear something they don't want to, it always means it's been "politicized".

 

[Mr.Nick]

When right wingers hear something they don't want to, it always means it's been "politicized".

When progressives hear something they want to - it always means it's true.

 

[Cuyo]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

You guessed wrong.

You need to reassess the quality of your assumptions.

Thanks for nothing.

I told you what to do if I was right, and I told you what to do if I was wrong.

But your churlish, indignant little response to me further re-enforces my hypothesis.

 

[Amelia]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

You guessed wrong.

You need to reassess the quality of your assumptions.

Thanks for nothing.

I told you what to do if I was right, and I told you what to do if I was wrong.

But your churlish, indignant little response to me further re-enforces my hypothesis.

Churlish? What kind of response do you usually get to insulting, condescending posts? Never mind, I don't care.

 

[Cuyo]

You guessed wrong.

You need to reassess the quality of your assumptions.

Thanks for nothing.

I told you what to do if I was right, and I told you what to do if I was wrong.

But your churlish, indignant little response to me further re-enforces my hypothesis.

Churlish? What kind of response do you usually get to insulting, condescending posts? Never mind, I don't care.

What do you think of the site QW posted?

 

[Amelia]

I had to Google AGW. That's how little I know. (Didn't know what the A stood for.) When I googled it, I was set straight on the A. But also my eye caught on this article:

The AGW Smoking Gun
Archived-Articles: The AGW Smoking Gun


If anyone reading this thread knows enough to understand what that is saying, and whether it has merit, I'd be interested in your input. In the meantime, back to the RealClimate link. And thanks again for the help.

 

[Amelia]

I told you what to do if I was right, and I told you what to do if I was wrong.

But your churlish, indignant little response to me further re-enforces my hypothesis.

Churlish? What kind of response do you usually get to insulting, condescending posts? Never mind, I don't care.

What do you think of the site QW posted?

I've just started reading there. It seems like it might be exactly what I was looking for. And I posted something to that effect already.

Why? What do you think of it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

You guessed wrong.

You need to reassess the quality of your assumptions.

Thanks for nothing.

OK, Amelia, here is a site for the history of the study of GHGs in the atmosphere;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site.

About the American Institute of Physics

Another source of information, Publications of the National Academy of Science;

Global temperature change

Global temperature change
James Hansen * , † , ‡ , Makiko Sato * , † , Reto Ruedy * , § , Ken Lo * , § , David W. Lea ¶ , and Martin Medina-Elizade ¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Abstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

The American Geophysical Union is the scientific society that has more climate scientists in it than any other in the world, and here is their statement concerning global warming.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

There are many more scientific sites, such as that of the Royal Society, the British equivelant of the National Academy of Science, and the oldest scientific society in the world, where one can get non-political information concerning the warming of the globe.

 

[Cuyo]

Churlish? What kind of response do you usually get to insulting, condescending posts? Never mind, I don't care.

What do you think of the site QW posted?

I've just started reading there. It seems like it might be exactly what I was looking for. And I posted something to that effect already.

Why? What do you think of it?

Then maybe I was wrong about you. Knee-jerked and got called for it, my bad.

And no on American Thinker, it's an extremely right-wing publication.

If you don't mind my asking, however, why did you thank that idiotic post by Frink?