Which side of the global warming 'debate' cares more about facts and reality?

J

jack_scar_action_hero

New member
The true-believers who listen to algore, and sights like wikipedia, or their personal political websites as proof?

Or the skeptic's who believe that the scientific method should be used, and all non-corrupted (I.E. altered) non-manipulated data should be used and made completely transparent and public?
 
This is what is called a leading question.

Neither 'side' is right, because by taking a side they are choosing not to be critical and unbias. You have clearly picked a side, yet you waffle on about the scientific method like most hypocrites do. Frankly this question is made null and void by the words you have used; I think you just want to have people agree with your opinion to justify your placing of yourself on some sort of twisted moral high ground.
 
Nothing to do with that johnny-come-lately Al Gore. AGW was identified as an official concern in 1979, and the underlying science goes back about a century before that.

You will find VOLUMES of data from numerous publicly available sources in these links:

There is an outstanding summary of the situation in December 18 SCIENCE, free download

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646

That’s … sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646

Presidential Address:
Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures
James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University

An outstanding, well-referenced, review of the situation. It’s all there; history of the global warming concept, role of solar fluctuations, the actual temperature record with ranking of years, the extent to which predictions since 1995 have been justified and indeed amplified by events.

The National Academies Press has released a book (free online) discussing the climate for the past 2000 years, and how well we know it:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

That’s

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=11676

There is a very detailed discussion of the relative importance of different kinds of influence in Hansen, J., et al. (2005), Efficacy of climate forcings, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.,

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov
/docs/2005/2005_Hansen
_etal_2.pdf

The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that global warming is real, serious, unprecedented, driven mainly by human activity, and requires appropriate action. This conclusion is reached even after taking natural variation, such as that connected to the sunspot cycle, into account. See the NSF overview:

"Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems"

through: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/advisory.cfm

...nsf.gov/geo/ere/
ereweb/advisory.cfm
There are some excellent web sites, e.g.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/newsarchives.php

that’s ….skepticalscience.com
/newsarchives.php

that rebuts the catalogue of zombie (dead but won’t lie down) denialist objections one by one, with real scientific data and references to publications. This site is NOT politicvally vetted but will give you the real data with *real links to the actual research papers written by real scientists*.

As well as http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/launch.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_51

and statement at

http://royalsociety.org/Joint-Royal-Society-NERC-Met-Office-climate-science-statement/

with endorsements or similar statements endorsed by the [US] National Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Russian Academy of Sciences etc listed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science

(note: you can trace all the original statements through Wikipedia, which like you I do NOT regard as a primary source of data)

and eg The Hot Topic, Dvd King, Prof. Cambridge (now Oxford); Global Warming 4th ed. 2009, John Houghton, Prof. AtmosphericSci., Oxford

There is a lot of disinformation out there, and a lot of fossil fuel money being spent to push it. All too successfully, to judge from YA
 
Nothing to do with that johnny-come-lately Al Gore. AGW was identified as an official concern in 1979, and the underlying science goes back about a century before that.

You will find VOLUMES of data from numerous publicly available sources in these links:

There is an outstanding summary of the situation in December 18 SCIENCE, free download

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646

That’s … sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646

Presidential Address:
Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures
James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University

An outstanding, well-referenced, review of the situation. It’s all there; history of the global warming concept, role of solar fluctuations, the actual temperature record with ranking of years, the extent to which predictions since 1995 have been justified and indeed amplified by events.

The National Academies Press has released a book (free online) discussing the climate for the past 2000 years, and how well we know it:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

That’s

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=11676

There is a very detailed discussion of the relative importance of different kinds of influence in Hansen, J., et al. (2005), Efficacy of climate forcings, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.,

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov
/docs/2005/2005_Hansen
_etal_2.pdf

The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that global warming is real, serious, unprecedented, driven mainly by human activity, and requires appropriate action. This conclusion is reached even after taking natural variation, such as that connected to the sunspot cycle, into account. See the NSF overview:

"Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems"

through: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/advisory.cfm

...nsf.gov/geo/ere/
ereweb/advisory.cfm
There are some excellent web sites, e.g.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/newsarchives.php

that’s ….skepticalscience.com
/newsarchives.php

that rebuts the catalogue of zombie (dead but won’t lie down) denialist objections one by one, with real scientific data and references to publications. This site is NOT politicvally vetted but will give you the real data with *real links to the actual research papers written by real scientists*.

As well as http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/launch.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_51

and statement at

http://royalsociety.org/Joint-Royal-Society-NERC-Met-Office-climate-science-statement/

with endorsements or similar statements endorsed by the [US] National Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Russian Academy of Sciences etc listed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science

(note: you can trace all the original statements through Wikipedia, which like you I do NOT regard as a primary source of data)

and eg The Hot Topic, Dvd King, Prof. Cambridge (now Oxford); Global Warming 4th ed. 2009, John Houghton, Prof. AtmosphericSci., Oxford

There is a lot of disinformation out there, and a lot of fossil fuel money being spent to push it. All too successfully, to judge from YA
 
Back
Top