Global Warming : Resources
Most of the climate change debate is being conducted on the political front, and partisans tend to become a bit strident in their presentation of facts. So I thought I would provide some of the links to sites I’ve found that are less strident in their positions.
Best PRO Sites
Real Climate, is a great site with plain English explanations of the science behind the idea of climate change. Of particular interest for those wanting more information, they have a great resource page of their own named “Start Here”. It includes links to the UN reports, Oxford University, NASA, the PEW Center, etc. The Responses to Common Contrarian Arguments provides answers to several questions, and is a well presented challenge to those of us who harbor some doubts about global warming.
Gristmill’s How to Talk to a Skeptic is a Q&A page with common objections to the idea of increased CO2 emissions causing warming. It is very well done and not “over the top” with histrionics. Supporters and those who don’t support the idea of man-induced global warming should be familiar with the data presented here.
Britain’s National Environmental Research Council sponsored an on-line debate between scientists and (mostly) laypeople for 6 weeks starting in December, 2006. The archive of the discussion is presented at that link, divided into topics. NERC uses the term “sceptic” (“skeptic”) rather than the politically charged “global warming denier” that is used in political discussions.
Best AGAINST Sites
Climate Audit doesn’t take an official position on global warming, but does criticize and analyze the data from ground temperature stations. Steve McIntyre did find a glaring error in the data for US Temps over the last 100 years, removing 1998 as the hottest year. This site is often cited by skeptics of global warming.
A debate held on March 14, 2007 in New York City, with Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott, for the proposition that Global Warming is Not a Crisis (420kb PDF file). Arguing against the proposition was Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C.J. Somerville. (The audience voted that the pro side won by 46% to 42%).
A listing of scientists who opposed the Kyoto Treaty is contained in The Leipzig Declaration; while they don’t take a position on global warming itself, the oppose the extreme emission standards they see as unworkable.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petition:
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.
Another list of references for the AGAINST side is at ARN’s Resources on Global Warming. It includes several sources I’ve included above, but also lists several books by scientists who are converts to the AGAINST position.
My View
I alternate between FOR and AGAINST positions, primarily because of the claims made by the FOR side that seem at odds with what I know about scientific inquiry. However, none of the science sites, like those I’ve listed above, include that dooms-day language. I give more credence to the CO2 levels as measured in ice core samples than I do computer modeling. Where I differ from most of the “greens” in the debate is the severity of the problem and what, if anything, should be done about it (or, even if we CAN do anything about it).
