Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconkajm: More from Kajm


Featured in Collections

Political Social Religious by amanda2324




Details

Submitted on
April 3, 2011
File Size
6.0 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,376
Favourites
19 (who?)
Comments
65
×
Climate Change Resource Page - (updated as recently as 17 Dec 2012, with 16 new sites linked)

I've wrestled with an opening to this piece for the last week, and I've finally decided to just go ahead and lay it all out for those who wish to make use of it.

Knowledge is power, and knowledge of climate-change science is serious lacking for a lot of reasons. Those reasons, however, are NOT what the True Believers in 'man-made' global warming would have you believe.

A lot of people on this site believe that things are not as dire as the heavily politicized IPCC and those governments which back it, would have us believe. Most of you do not really have the time to find the information you need to counter the often scientifically illiterate responses you get from those who would blame the human race, and more specifically the Right / Conservatives / Christians / the US / White people, for what we believe is just another phase in half a billion years of climate change.

They are the ones who, for the most part, are truly ignorant. Yet they would project their fears and limited understanding upon you.

Well, I'd like to provide a little help, if I may. In the author's comments below you will find links to over 120 sites related to the Skeptical side of the climate change argument.

Many of these sites are run by the very scientists involved in trying to expose 'man-made' global warming for what it truly is. Some of the sites are news warehouses, linking to environmental and climate stories from across the globe, presenting the Skeptics' view of climate events, and the massive politics which seek to portray those events in a fashion detrimental to all of us.

You will find several sites which link to thousands of peer-reviewed papers, which find problems with the 'science' behind 'man-made' global warming. And some of these information sites were created by scientists who used to be part of the IPCC, and whom have now come to see the climate situation in a much different light, and are speaking out against the fear-mongering which supports it.
That list of disillusioned IPCC scientists is Growing.

I haven't put them in any kind of order, sorry about that. I would rather you peruse them and find what suits you best, for your arguments. I think you will find a lot of them very useful.

This list is by no means complete. I will add to it from time to time as I find more Skeptical sites.

Before I end this piece, a little bit of how I came to this point:

I once believed in 'man-made' global warming.

I graduated from college in 1981, with a degree in Geology. Although I didn't know it at the time I had come away from college with some 'progressive' thinking- if by progressive, one means going Backwards. While I was not at All pleased with how Carter had screwed over the country- especially bringing us a mullah-led Iran as part of his legacy- I was not a Reagan fan. I was and am an avid hiker, and Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watts, was the antithesis of what an Interior Secretary should be.
He still is, in my opinion. But Reagan turned out to be one of the best things which ever happened to the US, and my opinion of him changed greatly around the time his efforts helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

When I discovered Rush Limbaugh, who at the time was quite new to talk radio, I thought he was an Idiot. Especially where it came to global warming. Note I say 'global warming' and not 'man-made' global warming. I didn't see any distinction at the time, despite my training in the sciences. And Rush was a political commentator. What would he know about global warming? Of course at the time, I didn't know that Al Gore and company had already pretty well politicized 'man-made' global warming. But I was learning.

So I went through most of the 80s believing that the human race was screwing up the climate. I didn't even know that CO2 was being blamed as the main culprit- wasn't the fact that we are polluting the world quite enough?
Not even close. Even in the 80s, the US had already come a long way in improving air and water quality. By the end of the 20th Century, we had reduced many particulate pollutants, some by up to 87%. Companies mining for coal had long since begun following environmental guidelines, and cleaning up the mess they made- something today's liberals won't even acknowledge they do- well, the ones who are aware that they do, that is. It isn't something they admit to up and coming generations. That would be telling the truth, and they can't have the younger generations understanding both sides of the story.
Of course I didn't know that at the time, either.

Sometime towards the end of the 80s I came across two bits of information which piqued my curiosity. Two newspapers articles, not more than a few weeks apart. The first, a new discovery in the Pacific: the El Nino. It had of course been named centuries ago by Spanish colonists on the West Coast, for the winds it spawns- but the cause was only now being discovered and mapped out.
The second article dealt with hurricanes. Scientists were having a hard time figuring out why they went through the cycles they were seeing. (It has been over 20 years since I read the article, I don't recall the exact phrasing).
I confess to a bit of serendipity (detractors might say, arrogance? If they knew words that big): The two articles came together for me. El Nino plays a role in how hurricanes function. It seemed immediately obvious to me, why didn't the climate scientists see it yet?

And How The Hell can people who haven't even made such connections yet, claim that they know we are changing the climate?

I've learned a hell of a lot since then, and I will Not stand for deliberate ignorance. We get too much of that on DA, let alone the rest of the world.
This written work is both copyright and property of Myself. Reproduction or alteration of said work, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden. Use of any of my concepts or characters is forbidden save by hand-written permission from myself.

If those arguing with you choose to use Wikipedia to back up their claims about Skeptical scientists, please take advantage of the following links! The wikipedia climate editor was a pro-‘man-made’ global warming LIAR. He altered over 5000 climate pieces, banned the original writers of those pieces so they could not correct them, and distorted or outright lied about the records of Skeptics. He has since been banned. I do not know if those pieces have been corrected, but wiki is Not reliable as far as skeptics of ‘man-made’ global warming is concerned, and as such is a Bogus argument.

Wiki’s own Arbitration board concerning LIAR William Connolly, pro-AGW propagandist [link]

Backup articles:

[link]

[link]

NOTE: New sites will be appended at the bottom of the list, until I can properly sort things out.


Climate sites:

The Skeptics’ Handbook- created by Australian Jo Nova, this guide to the science of Climate Change is available in English, German, French, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Portuguese, Turkish, Danish, Japanese, Spanish, Thai, Lao and Italian. [link]

The Medieval Warm Period Project – an interactive map of the globe, which requires Java to run. Clicking upon any of the icons on the map will give you the peer-reviewed papers for that region. [link]

C3 in their own words: C3 Headlines attempts to identify and point to articles, papers, postings, videos, charts, and images that tell the scientific story about historical climate change; that tell about current climate conditions; and, tell about the foibles and failures of the global warming, the pseudo-science (empirical evidence not allowed science) and its stunningly hypocritical advocates.

[link]

Australian Climate Madness [link]

Bishop Hill blog [link]

Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre, who discovered the MASSIVE problems with michael mann’s ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph) [link]

Climate Depot- one of several climate change news warehouses, where one can find links to thousands of articles. [link]

Climate Etc – hosted by scientist Judith Curry. Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.

[link]

Climate Lessons - A blog aiming to share information about materials presented to children on climate, especially those which seem intended to frighten or mislead them.

[link]

Climate Quotes – remembering what they want us to forget they said.

[link]

Climate Realists [link]

Climate Research News [link]

Climate Resistance [link]

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. [link]

Climate Science [link]

Climate Science International [link]

Climate Skeptic [link]

CO2 insanity [link]

CO2 Science- a warehouse of peer-reviewed papers on climate change, with over 12,000 papers listed and linked to, and growing: [link]

The Daily Bayonet [link]

DeSmog Me [link]

Digging in the Clay [link]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation [link]

Global Warming [link]

Global Warming Science [link]

Global Warming Skeptics [link]

Al Gore Lied [link]

Green Hell blog [link]

Greenie Watch [link]

Haunting the Library [link]

Heliogenic Climate Change [link]

The Hockey Shtick [link]

An Honest Climate Debate [link]

I Love CO2 [link]

IceCap – climate news warehouse [link]

The Inconvenient Skeptic [link]

Jo Nova (Australia) [link]

Tom Nelson [link]

No Tricks Zone – P Gosselin (German scientist) [link]

Real Science (Steven Goddard, Scientist) [link]

Roger Pielke Jr [link]

The Resilient Earth [link]

Skeptical Real Climate [link]

Roy Spencer (scientist) [link]

The Science and Public Policy Institute (This is the blog; a link on that page will take you to the heavy science) [link]

No Frakking Consensus [link]

The Unbearable Nakedness of Climate Change [link]

Watts Up With That [link]

World Climate Report [link]

The Air Vent [link]

The Blackboard [link]

Musings from the Chiefio [link]

The Reference Frame (Lubos Motl, physicist, Sweden) [link]

Is there Global Warming? [link]

Climate Change Reconsidered [link]

Institute for Energy Research [link]

Master Resource [link]

Energy Tribune [link]

The Green Agenda [link]

Kill Carbon [link]

Andrew Bolt (Australia) [link]

EU Referendum [link]

Hall of Record [link]

Planet Gore [link]

Global Warming Hoax [link]

Global Climate Scam [link]

The Skeptic’s Corner [link]

Bob Carter’s Global Warming Info [link]

Climate Science New Zealand [link]

Global Warming Questions [link]

Global Warming – Reason Magazine [link]

Popular Technology [link]


Junk Science [link]

Ecoworld (environmental news) [link]

Surface Stations [link]

The Heartland Institute [link]

Environmental Effects [link]

Global Warming: a Chilling Perspective [link]

US Senate Committee on the environment – minority blogs [link]

National Center for Policy Analysis [link]

Ecomyths [link]

Errors in IPCC Climate Science [link]

Australian Science Climate Coalition [link]

Bob Tisdale Climate Observations [link]

Friends of Science [link]

Global Warming Debate [link]

Gust of Hot Air (Australia) [link]

Hans Erren Global Warming Comments [link]

Ian Mott (legal analysis of environmental legislation) [link]

IceCap (Climate news warehouse) [link]

Jennifer Marohasy [link]

NZ Climate Science [link]

Calder’s Updates (former member IPCC) [link]

Dalton Minimum Returns (Solar scientist) [link]

IPCC Report Card (findings on the Massive problems with the IPCC report 2007) [link]

1100 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of ‘man-made’ global warming [link]

Climategate (climate news warehouse) [link]

History of Climategate (pdf file) [link]

Climate Fact Europe [link]

William Briggs, Statistician [link]

Bratstvo Vukcevic, Solar physicist [link]

Cooler Heads [link]

Herkinderkin [link]

Climate Change Dispatch [link]

Global Shamming [link]

I Hate al gore [link]

The Global Warming Challenge [link]

Joe Bastardi [link]

Joe D’Aleo [link]

The Carbon Sense Coalition [link]

James Delingpole [link]

Hide the Decline [link]

Global Warming Issues [link]

Changement Climatique (France) [link]

The Climate Scam (Sweden) [link]

Copenhagen Consensus (Denmark) [link]

Harmless Sky (UK) [link]

Skeptical Swedish Scientists [link]

Challenging Climate [link]

Climate Debate Daily [link]

Archeoclimatology (research site) [link]

Science and Environmental Policy Project (Dr. Fed Singer) [link]

Rayn Maue Tropical Cyclone Study [link]

The Marshall Institute [link]

Warwick Hughes (analysis of data) [link]

Slaying The Sky Dragon: [link]

Polar Bear sites (providing real information, rather than AGW hype):

Polar Bear Science, is here [link]

Polar Bear Alley is here [link]

The Polar Bear Specialist Group is here [link]

ClimateSense: [link]

Frontiere Center [link]

Global Warming Policy Foundation [link]

NZ Climate Truth Newsletter [link]

Climatesense - norpag [link]

Dr. Starck's blog [link]

Niche Modelling - [link]

Climate Science International - [link]

Living on the Real World - [link]

John O'Sullivan - [link]

EIKE (German-language Skeptic site) - [link]

Science Skeptical blog (German) - [link]

Principia Scientific - [link]

New Zeeland Climate Change - [link]

Die Kilazwieble (German) - [link]

Matt Ridley blog (Rational Optimist) [link]

Somewhat Reasonable [link]



Related articles:



A Question of IgnoranceSome months back I put up an article regarding seven prominent physicists, who have written peer-reviewed and published papers on climatology. These scientists are merely seven out of thousands across the globe, who have expressed the fact that there are problems with the theory of AGW, or 'man-made' global warming.
A number of people have commented since then, but one in particular stood out. One uncledartanian stopped by to ask me this:

Why is it that AGW deniers always accuse those who accept the fact of global warming as falling prey to the 'appeal to authority' fallacy, and yet, nearly every argument they put forth against global warmi



-------

Another article I have created is here: [link]
Said article is a response to the hypocritical efforts of closed minds like :limbaugh-is2liberal:, who try to demonize and demean those they hate, rather than carry out an Intelligent conversation between equals with differing but Valid points of view.
Add a Comment:
 

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconzogtheangrychipmunk:
ZogtheAngryChipmunk Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2012
Before I waste any time on the links, and highlight some of them if what I'm about to say is wrong, but being environmentally friendly is anything but detrimental to us. Recycling alone can actually provide us with better materials that cost less. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? That's been linked to several health problems, including by yours truly. Living near a road actually caused me frequent migraines due to the fumes. In addition, suspicion of gasoline is leading us to other, alternative fuels which are sustainable. For example, we are working on ways to generate indefinite fuel using water and emitting water.

For another thing, alternative fuels could prevent disasters like oil spills, which killed plenty of innocent wildlife and may or may not have made humans sick. Recycling material like plastic can serve a similar function, as plastic is made using oil. For a third, did you know that most directly manufactured products can contain poisons like arsenic and lead, whereas recycled matter like repurposed rope (instead of zip ties or plastic strands) does not?
In addition, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal actually generates small amounts of radioactivity, which leak into the surrounding environment. Similar facts are true of many non-renewable practices. Instead, shouldn't we look toward the future and work on safe, renewable energy?

Moving on to whether or not climate change is man made. Calculate how much the emission of greenhouse gases has increased since pre-Industrial Revolution, then look me in the eye (so to speak) and tell me that there is no way that such a dramatic change could not possibly have adverse affects.
For another, which link talks about the last time there was a hole in the ozone layer? Because that seems to have happened since we as a species started cranking out chemicals. Coincidence? Coincidence my ***.

Oh, and one last thing. Most greenhouse gas emitting materials (fossil fuels are among the most prominent) are not renewable. The future won't have those. Isn't it best to work on clean energy now, simply so that, in 2100, we haven't burned literally everything?
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Oh, a thought about coincidence:

Hurricane numbers took a big jump upwards in the 60s. Before then, the only way one could tell if there Was a hurricane, was if it hit or came close to land, or ships and planes happened to pass thru it. But then we put up satellites... and the numbers Jumped. And of course, some have claimed since then, that this was due to 'man-made' global warming... even as one of the Premiere hurricane scientists, Dr William Gray, tried to tell everyone the Exact opposite would be the case. He has been vilified for decades because of that- and Hurricanes are at a 30-year Low.

Tornado numbers have increased, also. Seems that when Doppler radar came out, they discovered there are a Lot more tornadoes occurring than they thought- mostly F1s- but they are very often neither seen nor reported, because they don't last long and rarely touch ground.
But they are counted, so the numbers went up. So people believe there have been more, again, due to claims of 'man-made' global warming.

Coincidence.... or improvement in technology or, for that matter, the tech did Not Exist to detect such things as the Ozone hole, before.
Reply
:iconzogtheangrychipmunk:
ZogtheAngryChipmunk Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2012
True, we see more of the globe than ever and that can falsely boost statistics. However, it could also be possible that a series of space launches has yet-unknown effects on the atmosphere, true? Plus, we know for a fact that global warming really exists. The ice caps are slowly, slowly melting (although this is partly due to several physics experiments that involve drilling the ice), the water is warmer and the weather patterns are behaving oddly. The question is what causes them.

Now, here's another question for you... do you believe that humans have any negative effects on the environment at all, whether it be pollution, extinction of species or the Gulf of Mexico being filled with topsoil that's being washed into the Mississippi?
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
To answer your one question, Yes, we do have an effect upon the environment. (not sure why I chose to answer this one now, I only have minutes...). And Yes, some of those effects can be huge, and some of them will likely never be totally fixed, because they are in areas where you'd basically have to strip out the human population and everything they had built there, to allow nature to reclaim and cleanse it.

And then there are side-effects of civilization which disappear fairly quickly, partly due to the fact that we Do make efforts to clean them up. And of course a whole set of scenarios in between. But one thing ought to be noted: Nature can and Does clean them up, if given the chance.
BP deepwater oil spill, for example. They thought it would be decades until things got back to normal down there.
They are Already just about back to normal. Seems there are organisms down there that love oil.

But do I believe we do enough damage to influence the climate? On a small scale, yes, as there are micro-climates.
On a large scale... that is one place you will find disagreement among skeptics. Just about every skeptic actually believes there is some effect, but at most, it is still less than half of the total.
I myself, believe our influence is about 10%.

But here's the tricky part: the vast majority of us, do not believe CO2 plays much, if Any role, in climate change. There's a whole host of other impacts, having to do with human population, agriculture altering the landscape, water usage...
And of course, there are the Natural cycles.

Gah. Time's up. I really need about two hours for that one. But you see a problem here, I hope: IF we are having a major effect, then part of the mitigation process is severe reduction of human population.

back later!
Reply
:iconzogtheangrychipmunk:
ZogtheAngryChipmunk Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2012
Global warming is mostly blamed on CO2, but it's easily possible for other things humans do to influence global warming. When we use vast amounts of fuel, we generate heat simply from that. Since the human population is over 7 billion, almost everyone burning lots and lots of stuff, that can cause a tiny fraction of difference. But as many people predict, the ocean's temperature rising just a few degrees overall could result in disaster. Certain chemicals in hair spray can destroy thousands of ozone atoms per atom of the chemical.

While those may not really impact anything, my point is that the possibility for human-caused climate change exists even if you subtract CO2.
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Oh, I definitely like you! *g* Very good questions, I gots a Conversation! :D

Sorry, you don't know how long I've waited for someone who Thinks! if you read in author's comments for that piece, you saw me mention some of the NON-thinkers who have attacked me for believing other than the majority... I think you and I shall be talking for a while.

I can touch on one thing at the moment: The Gulf of Mexico. That's where my geology degree comes in...

The Gulf of Mexico has always been filling in with topsoil, well, some of the time at any rate, though I have to imagine most of the material eroded and flushed down the Mississippi was topsoil at some point in its' journey. The Gulf of Mexico Basin was and is constantly being formed by that influx of eroded rock and soil. 1500 kilometers across and 15 kilometers deep at the deepest point. We know a lot about it because it has been a great place to drill for oit.

It is also part of the reason New Orleans is sinking. NO sits right on the edge of the basin and used to get regular deposits of soil across it, before and even during the first century of the cities existence, due to the Mississipi's flooding (Mark Twain has a good description of the river flooding). Then the Army Corp of Engineers came in, built levees, redirected incoming streams, many things, to stop the city flooding... and of course, all the material that used to deposit there, now goes straight out to the ocean.

NO would have been sinking, anyway, due to the entire coast in that region being the edge of the basin and the whole thing keeps going down. But it sinks faster now, as no new material is deposited on the land there.

Erf. Well. I will try to answer questions faster, keep asking them!
Reply
:iconzogtheangrychipmunk:
ZogtheAngryChipmunk Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2012
That's true, but I have personally observed soil being washed into rivers leading to the Mississippi. Since I currently live in an area with lots of farming, I have seen the soil get torn up and turned to dust, which lands in a nearby river when it rains or is swept up as dust.

As for New Orleans, the same is true for most areas near a great body of water. Take Hawaii for instance. It is eroded by the ocean, but the Big Island continues to grow. However, most of the material is deposited naturally. With the Gulf, most comes from human-farmed land that would otherwise be far less eroded.

Thanks. It's interesting to have an informed discussion with someone about a topic I disagree with them on, instead o the Internet standard of insults and blocking.
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Ok, doing your third paragraph this morning...

We have a pretty good idea of how much humans have added to GHGs since the IR began. It pretty much matches james hansen of NASAs' Scenario A, which is what temperatur of the Earth would be if CO2 emmissions remained at business-as-usual levels. It is going up fast and possibly faster than we know for sure, as I recently read an article that China's CO2 output may be underestimated by a third. China, btw, is THE top emitter now; India is soon to take second place... while the US has actually dropped by a bit over 7% since 2006.

As I said, CO2 emmissions are matching hansen's Scenario A. Leaving Scenario B aside, as I am not awake and can't recall exactly what that means, there is also Scenario C- which is, if we had come to a dead Stop in CO2 emmissions, in 2000.

It has been 12 years since 2000. We are AT Scenario A for emmissions.
We are BELOW Scenario C for temperatures. In fact, temperature increase has prett much flatlined [link]

You mention the Ozone hole. I recall articles saying first discovery was in the 50s. I have since seen articles suggesting that the OH has Always existed, as CFCs could not have had an effect in a region so high that it is far too cold for chemical reactions of that nature, to occur.
Beyond that- The Ozone hole appears to open over whichever pole is the Coldest- and winters have been correspondingly cold of late. While I haven't seen anything on it yet, several scientists on the sites I link to, agree with my speculation that the Hole is a negative feedback mechanism, which acts to keep the planet cool.

Running out of time...

Ah yes. I know, cold winters. Yes, we had a mild one. The Contiguous US is less than 1% of the Earth's surface. While we had a Mild winter (Thank God! I had to shovel the driveway over 30 times last winter), the rest of the planet was experiencing record cold and snow- something that many, Many groups had been saying for over a decade, we would NOT be seeing any more. New Zealand, for example, saw snow in Summer, and that at levels almost as low as they get in winter.
One of the sites I link to keeps track of those things- Ice Age Now, I believe.

That's all I have time for at the moment, more later!
Reply
:iconzogtheangrychipmunk:
ZogtheAngryChipmunk Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2012
This is true, but NASA's predicted scenarios could have had flaws, exceptions or been affected by outside forces. But even if that is true, temperatures around the globe are still rising and the environment is changing. Glaciers are melting, previously fertile land is unusable and vice versa, weather is behaving oddly (especially around here. In the past few years we've had freak ice storms, a series of record dry summers, and two cases of thundersnow where lightning was visible. Our neighbor, who is 97, stated that he has never seen weather like this in the past. So have younger people. We have already broken several weather records since 2000.
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Last little bit for now: I mentioned the old folk tale of the cursed town, and that there are villages Under several glaciers, and have been for hundreds if not thousands of years.... I have to think the NON-thinkers who have often attacked me, would read that comment and say 'you believe in curses?'
You'd had to have been there at the time, to see the stupidity thrown my way. But trust me, people who scream 'creationist!' at a person, for daring to disbelieve in 'man-made' global warming, are not very rational...
Reply
Add a Comment: