The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?
ne thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
"The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs
Perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American
A brief description on how one senator beleives that the idea of greenhouses gases endangering our environment is a hoax, and our envirnment is really in no danger.
John Rennie (Chefredakteur), Scientific American: Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to | John Rennie, der seit 15 Jahren Chefredakteur bei SciAm ist, geht darin kompakt aber umfassend auf sieben Argumente ein, die man immer wieder findet: 1. CO2 ist nur ein Spurengas, kann gar nichts am Klima ändern; bzw. der Menschenanteil ist zu klein | 2. Der "hockey stick", der den Temperaturanstieg zeigt, ist widerlegt, außerdem war es im Mittelalter wärmer | 3. Seit 10 Jahren ist die Erde nicht wärmer geworden | 4. Sonne oder kosmische Strahlung sind die Ursache der Erwärmung | 5. Klimatologen haben sich verschworen um die Wahrheit zu verstecken | 6. Klimatologen sind nur geldgeil/wollen Achtung | 7. Technologische Anwendungen wie Geoengineering wären viel effektiver als CO2-Reduzierung
a partial list of the contrarians' bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them
"a partial list of the contrarians' bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them."Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful
Found on Giulio's Copenhagen climate conference blog
an excellent, important infographic
A very nice looking graphical summary of the claims and counter-claims of global warming skeptics and the scientific consensus response to all the denier's claims. Very nice bit of work.Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why
greenhouse gas beca
Quickly Find... Home | Front Page MyEXPRESS - My Homepage
100 reasons why global warming is not man-made (or even exists at all)How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian
China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have toClimate Change and Argumentative Fallacies
So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.” If we don’t sometimes defer to the expert consensus, we’ll systematically tend to go wrong in the face of one-way-hash arguments, at least outside our own necessarily limited domains of knowledge. Indeed, in such cases, trying to evaluate the arguments on their merits will tend to lead to an erroneous conclusion more often than simply trying to gauge the credibility of the various disputants. The problem, of course, is gauging your own competence level well enough to know when to assess arguments and when to assess arguers. Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don’t know enough to know that they don’t know, as it were.
Via Brad Plumer, I see Cato’s Jerry Taylor is riled at responses to an open letter ad the Institute published in which a group of scientists signed off on a statement questioning the strength of the case for catastrophic climate change. I’m broadly sympathetic with his irritation at the proportion of ad hominem attacks in debates like these, but I’m not sure I agree with his bottom line in context: An argument’s merit has nothing to do with the motives of the arguer, the credentials of the arguer, or the popularity of the argument. Full stop. No exceptions.
The one-way hash argument is an excellent illustration of why argument from authority is not always wrong.Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says : NPR
first wildfires, then sea level rise; "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says. This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.
Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study. As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists. "We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."
get ready for 1000 years of suckUN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer
People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer
even skipping meat one day a week makes an impact
UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The ObserverPresident Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer
there is an expert here
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
lets hope he gets on with it
Not only is he America's hope for relevance but now he has to save the world too. It would be funny if it were not true. If America doesn't take a leadership role in this too (along with the others who have already stepped forward I might add) then as the great Australian poems reads: "We'll All Be Rooned" said Hanrahan!Honey, I Shrunk the Maldives