“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts” – Senator Daniel Moynihan
“Science is a systematic, evidence-based, testable and self-correcting way of investigating the world. This is done through empirical observation, by experimentation and mathematics.”
This article shows how politics and vested interests are subverting the scientific process, public opinion and the legislative process especially in the USA. Read more here
Scientist under fire for speaking the truth about what the science shows…
One of the main authors of a report suggesting climate change will cause mass drowning of polar bears has been suspended while investigations are underway – although reason for suspension have not been made public.
Read the article at http://www.adn.com/2011/07/28/1989382/arctic-scientist-under-investigation.html
You can see all the presentations from the 2011 Heartlands conference on this link: Bob Carter, Scott Denning, James Deningpole, Timothy Ball, Willie Soon, Robert Mendelson, Nicola Scarfetta, Pat Michaels, Anthony Watts, David Schnare, Larry Bell, Fred Singer, David Teurck, Steve Goreham, Harrison Schmitt, Craig Idso, Alan Carlin & Christopher Horner on VIDEO
http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/
Articles published in ‘Nature’ magazine are available via this link: The Heartland Institute’s climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
The analysis at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/1/2011/esd-2-1-2011.html from the University of Jena in Germany suggests that the amount of energy available in the Earth system to be extracted by wind-turbines is limited, and if sufficient energy is removed the world climate will be affected.
Funded by the OIL INDUSTRY this report comes to some startling conclusions based on simulations. One telling phrase = “as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, as it must with the continued burning of fossil fuels, the kinetic energy generation from the atmosphere will decrease thus further diminishing the amount of energy that may be sensibly extracted by wind-turbines on the very large scale.”
(New peer reviewed study discovers that when CO2 was higher in the past, not as hot as previously thought)
The question seems simple enough: What happens to the Earth’s temperature when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase? The answer is elusive. However, clues are hidden in the fossil record. A new study by researchers from Syracuse and Yale universities provides a much clearer picture of the Earth’s temperature approximately 50 million years ago when CO2 concentrations were higher than today. The results may shed light on what to expect in the future if CO2 levels keep rising.
Link to an article about a peer-reviewd study to be published in Geology magazine August 2011. How hot did Earth get in the past?
This title is part of the America’s Climate Choices project, the National Research Council’s most comprehensive study of climate change to date.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
Observations of anthropogenic global warming
Anti-AGW papers debunked: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/
Switching off denial: a guide
Sceptics are people who don’t take things at face value; they demand facts, and are ready to change opinions based on the weight of evidence, even if that goes against personal preferences or beliefs. I like to think that I’m a bit of sceptic myself (although I’ll need a bit more evidence before I’m sure).
Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with their personal beliefs, desires or ideology. People in denial gather reasons and excuses, however flimsy, that allow them to not believe in whatever unwelcome truth they’re trying to avoid.
No serious sceptic could doubt that human-caused climate change is real, and serious – the evidence is just too overwhelming. However, many people are still in a state of denial over climate change, for a wide range of reasons.
Fortunately, opinion polls show that the majority of the public accept the reality of the climate problem1; however, the number of people who take climate change seriously seems to be slipping back in some countries.2 If we want to keep building a global movement for climate
justice, then we need to face up to the problem of denial.
Here are some handy weapons for tackling climate change denial head-on.”
http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank
“ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.”
What will Cornwall look like in 2050?
Link to a forum created to enlist your help in defining how Cornwall will respond to the challenges of climate change and energy security. If you have an opinion about how Cornwall should dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the increasing energy security problems and climate impacts, or who should lead the way in doing it then we want to hear it.
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
Planet 3.0: Sights Sites & Cites
General interest earth science and environmental science links
http://planet30.posterous.com/
“I am the third planet from the Sun, and the only planet in the Solar System to have life (it gets kind of itchy sometimes!) My favorite colors are blue, white and green. In the past hundred years I’ve been feeling a little sick– have a bit of a cough. There must be something in my air. Plus, my temperature is rising. Maybe I’m getting a fever…?
(Stolen shamelessly from http://www.blogger.com/profile/17937892629794392837 )”
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/
This really is the mother lode. The author has signposted to many papers and blogs on the latest published papers.
“This blog is about climate science with an emphasis on the observations of the climate change that is currently ongoing. Specifically the emphasis will be on those observations that show that it is mankind that is and has been causing this current climate change by greenhouse gas emissions. The AGW in the title stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is a commonly used term for the current human-caused climate change.
I am not a professional climate scientist, but just an interested layman who has been getting familiar particularly to the observational side of the issue by reading the research papers on the subject. I hope I can offer some relevant information on the subject especially as the public discussion on the subject tends to focus more on what climate models can do instead of emphasizing the observational body of evidence which is very large and in my opinion convincing by itself even without far-reaching climate theories or models.”
About author:
- Name: Ari Jokimäki
- Location: Espoo, Finland
- Year of birth: 1967
- Education: Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering
- Other hobbies: Astronomy, observing and documenting nature, guitar & bass playing
E-mail:
This guy has a great youtube channel which debunks a myth each week.
a good description of the statistical link between “ordinary” extremes and climate related weather extremes
http://www.newint.com.au – Useful short introduction to the types of denialists and what drives them
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/ blog by Michael Tobis
“The scientific community has long agreed that our dependence on fossil fuels inflicts massive damage on the environment and our health, while warming the globe in the process. But beyond the damage these fuels cause to us now, what will happen when the world’s supply of oil runs out? In a new video series from The Nation magazine and On The Earth Productions, Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and other scientists, researchers and writers explain. Visit TheNation.com for more videos in this series.”
A Series of 13 videos at the link below…(the embedded player will not lead to the whole series)
http://www.youtube.com/user/videonation#p/c/77C037BAC7EC8216/0/UUmwy0VTnqM
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_controversy
Notice how most of these aren’t scientists, climate scientists or scientists in relevant associated fields?
The very few that are scientists tend to be heavily funded by vested interests. Surprised?
“Overview
http://issuepedia.org/Global_warming_denial
Global warming denial is denial that global warming (GW) is a problem (or, in some cases, denial that anything should be done about it) using arguments which have already been refuted.
It seems to be a problem mostly in non-scientific establishment circles within the United States.
There are a few legitimate-appearing arguments against global warming which have not yet been addressed; some of these are already-refuted arguments in modified form dredged up for public consumption by very well-funded anti-GW interests, but some may be genuine.
GW deniers often reiterate otherwise-legitimate arguments which have already been refuted, dishonestly repeating them as if those arguments had not yet been addressed.
One of the techniques used by GW deniers is to reduce the problem to an all-or-nothing false dilema – either:
Any flaws found in the pro-GW fork become, to them, arguments against the whole thing – making this effectively a staw man misrepresentation of global warming advocacy.”
Just put ‘anthropogenic global warming denial addiction’ into any search engine.
http://motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot
“WHEN NOVELIST MICHAEL CRICHTON took the stage before a lunchtime crowd in Washington, D.C., one Friday in late January, the event might have seemed, at first, like one more unremarkable appearance by a popular author with a book to sell. Indeed, Crichton had just such a book, his new thriller, State of Fear. But the content of the novel, the setting of the talk, and the audience who came to listen transformed the Crichton event into something closer to a hybrid of campaign rally and undergraduate seminar. State of Fear is an anti-environmentalist page-turner in which shady ecoterrorists plot catastrophic weather disruptions to stoke unfounded fears about global climate change. However fantastical the book’s story line, its author was received as an expert by the sharply dressed policy wonks crowding into the plush Wohlstetter Conference Center of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI). In his introduction, AEI president and former Reagan budget official Christopher DeMuth praised the author for conveying “serious science with a sense of drama to a popular audience.” The title of the lecture was “Science Policy in the 21st Century.”…
…But it was the emcee, Senator Inhofe, who best represented the spirit of the event. Stating that Crichton’s novel should be “required reading,” the ruddy-faced senator asked for a show of hands to see who had finished it. He attacked the “hockey stick” graph and damned the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment for having “no footnotes or citations,” as indeed the ACIA “overview” report—designed to be a “plain language synthesis” of the fully referenced scientific report—does not. But never mind, Inhofe had done his own research. He whipped out a 1974 issue of Time magazine and, in mocking tones, read from a 30-year-old article that expressed concerns over cooler global temperatures. In a folksy summation, Inhofe again called the notion that humans are causing global warming “a hoax,” and said that those who believe otherwise are “hysterical people, they love hysteria. We’re dealing with religion.” Having thus dismissed some 2,000 scientists, their data sets and temperature records, and evidence of melting glaciers, shrinking islands, and vanishing habitats as so many hysterics, totems, and myths, Inhofe vowed to stick up for the truth, as he sees it, and “fight the battle out on the Senate floor.”
Seated in the front row of the audience, former ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol looked on approvingly.”
This website is sponsored by: |
