You can not honestly take a position regarding climate change (global
warming) without yourself examining thoroughly as much evidence for
and against as is available, and also examining the different interpretations of the evidence. There is considerable difficulty in separating actual evidence from biased or exaggerated data. There is a lot of misleading rhetoric and even outright lies. There
is considerable misrepresented data purported to prove one side or the other when it actually does no such thing. If you have ever had anything to do with lawyers, you will understand that it is possible and even easy to build an apparently plausible hypothesis from little or even unsubstantiated evidence.
The internet, in this case, is both the best and the worst way for gathering information on this or any subject.
A person does not need to be qualified in any way to comment, to present evidence or to provide a seemingly learned opinion. In fact, it is also quite easy to misrepresent or outright lie about one's qualifications, education or experience. You may be accepting the word of a 12-year-old nerd with a bone to pick.
And of course, just because some academic has a "Dr." before their
name, does not make them honest, credible or sensible. Read about this case.
I am going to try to present a few sites authored by people or organizations that I believe are reasonably credible.
I will also present criticisms on most, but make up your own mind.
IPCC has published a multitude of literature purporting that dangerous climate change is happening, will continue
to happen and requires expensive intervention from the world's governments. My opinion is that they use rather too many unsupported assumptions and that they seem to cherry pick data for their graphics. There also seem to be very few
scientists with backgrounds in the actual climate sciences among the authors. Nevertheless, it is a must to read at least some of their work, if you are truly interested since every argument will eventually reference their reports.This link to the 2014 synthesis report summary for policymakers can give you a start.
A good source of climate data. Although in the warmist camp, their
publications are fairly balanced. They are willing to admit that there is much they do not know. They are dependent on government funding
which may, or may not, impart a bias to their work. Overall, a reasonably
balanced source of climate information. Try this site. For interest, read this release from 1971.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- NOAA, is a generally credible organization. I do have some reservations. Some of their data, used to support their climate change stance, seems to show
a bias. Data may have been adjusted inappropriately, as some historical data seems to have changed from what they had published previously. They definitely lean towards a more extreme view of climate change. Possibly an attempt to align with the Obama administration views on global warming.
Greenbiz A publication devoted to the business opportunities presented in a fight against climate change. Obviously, they strive
to promote a belief in the dangers of a changing climate. The monetary motive is the driving focus.
NIPCC has published a book with opposing views. To me it seems, they spend most of their effort in discrediting statements of the IPCC and others, rather than presenting work of their own, but are a necessary read to develop a balanced view. Why Scientists Disagree About Global warming is available here, free of charge. Climate Change Reconsidered is available here.
Skeptical science .com is a site that is strongly
biased towards a belief in human-caused global warming as the inevitable direction of climate change. They seem to spend most of their time on a witch hunt for what they
call climate deniers. Really loose in their definition of science but quick to label others as promoting pseudoscience. Probably should read anyone that they strongly disagree with. Find them here.
WUWT If you read Skeptical Science then you will have to read WUWT, Watts Up With That, just so you can sleep without nightmares. A different viewpoint that can be found here.
An Inconvenient Truth A book by Al Gore and the movie based on it. I have neither read this book or seen the movie and can only express my opinion of the author. I believe Mr. Gore is a demagogue, who uses his skills as a preacher, to make shrill predictions of disaster, hoping to draw crowds
to his soapbox. In spite of the fact that his foresight seems to be lacking, he seems to have been successful in igniting a new religion. Read and watch at your own risk. From my own perspective, I am not going to waste my money nor my time until free copies
are available. That would go a little ways towards convincing me that he is at least sincere, if misguided, in his efforts to save the world. Book or DVD are both available on Amazon. or for
Great Global Warming Swindle
A movie that is available free on You Tube. At least the profit motive is less apparent here.
Before The Flood A movie by
Leonardo Dicaprio which is supposed to be streaming free on you Tube. Apparently an alarmist, activist production that I could not find. I intend to watch it as soon as I am able to find it. Mr. Dicaprio is a committed environmentalist and is generous in contributing
to environmental causes, and as such, should be commended. As a commentator
on climate change, he is likely far out of his league. As far as I can tell he has no formal training or background in science. While filming near Calgary in Alberta he cited rapidly warming weather as evidence of climate change, much to the amusement of native
Calgarians to whom Chinooks are as familiar as a breakfast
cereal. He is very good at doing what he does, which is making fictional situations seem very real, at least for a while. Giving us an escape from reality for a little while is pleasant, but it hardly makes him a credible authority on our planet's climate. His biography, however, is very interesting reading.
NoTricksZone.com -- A blog by Pierre L. Gosselin "I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor
of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson." "I’ve always been a skeptic of the AGW
hypothesis, and view myself solely as a critical spectator in the climate change debate and arena". "I’m not convinced of any one particular position" Mostly he seems to find and quote scientific papers that contradict the alarmist position.
He does not seem to have any monetary motive.
JoNova -- I recently discovered this blog from Australia. It is published by Joanne
Codling. She has a background in science and is married to Dr. David Evans, the Stanford PhD in Fourier analysis, former leading
carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Often humorous, this one is well worth following.
Well, we have listed quite a number of politicians, bloggers, actors, preachers, activists etc. that you can research and study. There are many more out there that are perhaps not
quite so noisy. I think it is time to list some of the actual scientists who work or have worked in the fields
related to climate and actually have some education in that hugely complicated study.
The Discovery of Global Warming -- A book by Spencer Weart, a physicist and science historian, is available from Amazon.com in paperback for 17.34 or in Canada at Amazon.ca
for 26.50. If that is a little rich for you, he does maintain a website where all the main points and more are expressed
along with hyperlinks to relevant topics. Well written and comprehensive, it is well worth following. A history of climate change science, it leans towards the catastrophic warming point of view.
Friends of Science -- A website maintained by concerned scientists and others, that argues against
human activity as the main cause of warming and against disruptive and expensive intervention by governments. They are attacked ferociously
by anthropogenic global warming adherents. That alone, almost makes the site a must read.
Real Climate -- This site has a group of scientists as regular contributors who have credentials in climate science, or closely related fields. Sometimes a little hard to follow for a layperson (which made me
hesitant to include it here), and sometimes quite defensive of their global warming position. Sometimes belittling the views of what they call climate deniers. Worth a look, however.
An article from MIT Technology Review -- A description of some of the work of the late
Dr. Edward Lorenz, relative to some of the difficulties in weather and climate modeling.
Dr. James Hansen I include
three links to Dr. Hansen since he is probably the premier, and one of the first scientists to espouse the dangers of climate change and the contribution of GHGs to warming. The last is a link to some of his writings and the first two are basically biographical.
Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard about him. His blog, which is definitely an antithesis to conventional
warming or climate change theory, often hilarious, he is well worth
following. He will at least force you to think. One of his blog posts.
Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer. These are two active climate scientists that are really hard to ignore. Involved directly in satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures, their data is closely correlated to radiosonde measurements. Roy Spencer's blog. A presentation
by Mr. Christy.
Michael E. Mann Climatologist and geophysicist with wide experience in climate research. He is best known for his “hockey stick” graph which shows a relatively stable climate morphing into a rapidly warming one in recent years. It has been widely used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming but is also widely criticized as being inaccurate or misleading. It seems that
his data is biased towards certain tree-ring proxy records which do not seem
to correlate well with other proxy records such as ice cores. His site seems to be not much more than a forum for marketing his books.
Dr. Judith Curry Dr. Curry has just resigned her post
at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology. One of her reasons would appear to be a disillusionment with academia and with the state of climate science in general. Definitely an outsider from global
warming circles, she is sometimes called a heretic and attacked ferociously by bloggers and climate activists. A good enough reason to read her work. An attempt to create a bias against her seems apparent in the choice of an unflattering, angry appearing, picture used in most references to her. Her blog.
Bjorn Lomborg A scientist concerned with exaggeration of climate change dangers and the cost, in lives and wealth, of remediation efforts.
Willie Soon -- A scientist in the fields of earth sciences and solar physics. He is attacked vigorously by media and bloggists. An abstract of a paper co-authored by him. Better understood if you have a little background in mathematics or physics.
Matt Ridley -- Matt Ridley is a writer, journalist with interesting viewpoints on many things. This link is to a lecture given at the 2016 Annual GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) Lecture. He has a blog.
World Weather Attribution -- I just found this site. It is the website of an organization whose purported purpose is to find AGW fingerprints on extreme weather events. Well, guess
what they are going to find. Enough said. Check it out and make up your own mind about their credibility.
This would not be complete without some mention of the conventional media. Newspapers and magazines, television and radio all have a profit motive. Something the warming group likes to accuse industry and everyone
else of. The media must sell as many copies or attract as many viewers
as possible. That is what is necessary to gain advertising revenue needed to survive. It seems to be sensationalism and bad news that sells, and so that is where the emphasis is. Headlines and previews exaggerate as much as possible to create excitement.
That is where catastrophic global warming theories suit their purpose
perfectly. I find they are only useful as leads to a more balanced commentary.
Then there is “fake news” that has been prevalent on social media, and other places, for some time, but has only recently received widespread attention. It is amazing how some news, no matter how obviously
false can be spread and believed. This especially true if it happens to fit the agenda or ideology of an individual or group, or reinforce beliefs that they already hold.
The ease of finding a diverse opinion from many different personalities, including credible climate scientists, would seem to indicate
that the science is far from settled. It also makes it pretty obvious that the scientific field of climate is itself still in its infancy. It will likely be several generations before it approaches maturity. Although action taken to slow the warming of the
planet could have beneficial consequences in other areas, draconian taxation and wars on the fossil fuel industry are almost certain to have disastrous effects on many segments of society, probably the poorest and most vulnerable.
I am going to try to update this page whenever I come across, or remember, good sources on either side of the debate.