7 ms·

Here are the resources realclimate.org suggests. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives

Here are the resources realclimate.org suggests. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-... For the details of the science, they suggest just reading the IPCC reports. Here's a faq from the IPCC that is basic but thorough. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-f...

pdonis 14y ago
I would not recommend reading realclimate.org without also reading climate audit and watts up with that: http://climateaudit.org/ http://climateaudit.org/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/
- scarmig 14y ago
  They're not really comparable. Real Climate is written by academic climatologists. Its last five non-open thread posts were: 1) The Greenland melt 2) What to study? 3) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2 4) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 5) On Sensitivity Part II: Constraining Cloud Feedback without Cloud Observations Climate Audit is written by a retired mathematician/mining prospector. Last 5 posts: 1) More on Acton’s “Investigation” 2) Acton and “Natural Person Powers” 3) Acton and Muir Russell at Tribunal 4) Duke C Punctures More Attempted UEA Obtuseness 5) More Tricks from East Anglia Watts Up With That, written by a former television meteorologist/newscaster: 1) The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity 2) NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming? 3) The yearly lukewarm report 4) Here there be Dragons 5) New paper by Richard Tol – Targets for global climate policy: An Overview I think that speaks for itself.
  - JPKab 14y ago
    Thank you. I think the biggest red flag I have with the people who question the science behind anthropogenic global warming theory isn't that they are questioning it, but they are doing so in a clearly non-scientific, selctively biased way. I've seen bad science debunked before (we all have), like ulcers being caused by stress(actually caused by bacteria), cold fusion, etc. The folks cruasading against antrhopogenic global warming have all to often picked a position based on opposition to the most commonly proposed solution to antrho global warming(reducing consumption of fossil fuels), and then sought out science to support their position. The problems are obvious: 1) Let's say there is a legitimate argument about reduction of fossil fuel use vs. a geo-engineering scheme to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This argument never gets to happen because people who are against fossil fuel usage reduction as a solution never admit the problem even exists. (I have to admit, I think reduction of carbon emissions is unrealistic, because the countries which benefit the most from carbon rich fuel consumption in the short term are the poorest countries with the most people. I don't realistically see India decide to keep its people poor and without electricity/transport when they don't have to. People don't give a shit about saving the planet until they have food in their own and children's bellies, and aren't dying of diseases easily prevented by fossil fuel powered infrastructure) 2) The group of people who are currently arguing that the warming is not caused by human activity heavily, HEAVILY overlap with the group of people who were denying that warming was even happening 8 years ago. This is a huge red flag. Do I discredit scientists if they are proven wrong one time? No. But if a "doctor" says vaccines are bad because they cause autism, and when proven wrong, invents another argument against vaccines, I write him off as a quack who doesn't follow the scientific method. And I'm right. These guys are basically saying "Don't cut carbon! The planet isn't getting warmer." Now they have changed their answer to "Don't cut carbon. It's not the reason the planet is getting warmer. " And frankly, I'm getting sick of people who don't even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists. It all reeks of the same attitude I was innundated with as a kid by my classmates because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      > And frankly, I'm getting sick of people who don't even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists. What about people without a single scientific degree supporting scientists?
      - scarmig 14y ago
        I'm hesitant about building a Chinese Wall between accredited experts and the broader society, and I regret a bit about even mentioning the bloggers' professions in my ancestral comment. Their posts, after all, speak for themselves. But for whatever reason, right now there's a giant gap of approach in how "amateurs" on both sides approach science. I guess what I'd like is amateurs who are actually interested in the science engaging with and contributing to expert discussion. Not merely for the sake of amateurs, but for the sake of the expert scientific discourse itself. Science has no sides except reality; but if you have a situation where one political side vociferously attacks you while another political side defends you, it's psychologically very easy to forget that and your role as a scientist.
        jacquesm 14y ago
        The way to deal with the problem imo is not to appeal to a group of uneducated people for support in the first place, but simply to increase the number of educated people to the point where such politicizing is no longer effective. Manipulative tricks only work when the vast majority of the people have no clue about the inner workings of the pale blue dot that we are stewards of. But I cringe at the way the polarization is worked on both sides of the divide, support by ignoramuses is just as sought after by both sides and just as meaningless. But since we all live in democracies support by the numbers is important even if those supporting you have no clue about the facts or the underlying mechanisms. In the end that support should not matter. What should matter is facts and the way (big) money is distorting the picture is very worrisome. Plenty of scientists (in absolute numbers, not in percentages, the far larger number are as ethical as can be and even some of those critical of the evidence are critical for pure motives, not because of some paycheck) have zero compunction about supporting whatever side pays for their mortgage. A preponderance of evidence (unfortunately) no longer offsets a preponderance of marketing dollars. And that is to me - for the moment, I may revise that statement, living 45' below sea level - far more worrying than climate change in and of itself. Considering the possibilities of a runaway effect and the reality of China/India starting to use far more power and hence emitting far more CO2 this may be a thing that is already too far gone to stop, even if we did act today (Nobody seems to be sure about that one, though the consensus seems to be there will be a mitigating effect, magnitude unknown). But then imagine some real disaster triggered by our carelessness does befall us, what are we going to do to deal with the aftermath if we can't even agree on what to do when it is not yet rearranging our lives with careless abandon? Nature doesn't care, one way or the other whether we're going to agree with each other or not. It'll just let physics run its course, and physics tends to be a pretty good if harsh teacher. Humans are pretty fragile. Maybe we will learn from this, maybe we won't, time will tell. But for now I'm not too hopeful about how this is playing out and both sides are guilty of trying to politicize this instead of letting the facts simply speak for themselves. An inconvenient truth indeed.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    They're not really comparable. That's not the point. If you read only realclimate, you are getting a biased viewpoint. The fact that it is written by academic climatologists does not prevent it from being biased.
  - guscost 14y ago
    Steve McIntyre is a statistician. Don't mince words.
    - scarmig 14y ago
      McIntyre is a bozo who doesn't act in good faith. It's to his great discredit that he looks like a conspiratorial looney uninterested in science compared to Watts. And for the record I clearly pointed it out: he is a mathematician, albeit one in mineral prospecting and never academics. No words minced.
- mratzloff 14y ago
  There are not always two sides to a story.
guscost 14y ago
Here is an interesting book about the IPCC: http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-e...

pdonis 14y ago

I would not recommend reading realclimate.org without also reading climate audit and watts up with that: http://climateaudit.org/ http://climateaudit.org/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/

scarmig 14y ago
They're not really comparable. Real Climate is written by academic climatologists. Its last five non-open thread posts were: 1) The Greenland melt 2) What to study? 3) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2 4) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 5) On Sensitivity Part II: Constraining Cloud Feedback without Cloud Observations Climate Audit is written by a retired mathematician/mining prospector. Last 5 posts: 1) More on Acton’s “Investigation” 2) Acton and “Natural Person Powers” 3) Acton and Muir Russell at Tribunal 4) Duke C Punctures More Attempted UEA Obtuseness 5) More Tricks from East Anglia Watts Up With That, written by a former television meteorologist/newscaster: 1) The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity 2) NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming? 3) The yearly lukewarm report 4) Here there be Dragons 5) New paper by Richard Tol – Targets for global climate policy: An Overview I think that speaks for itself.
- JPKab 14y ago
  Thank you. I think the biggest red flag I have with the people who question the science behind anthropogenic global warming theory isn't that they are questioning it, but they are doing so in a clearly non-scientific, selctively biased way. I've seen bad science debunked before (we all have), like ulcers being caused by stress(actually caused by bacteria), cold fusion, etc. The folks cruasading against antrhopogenic global warming have all to often picked a position based on opposition to the most commonly proposed solution to antrho global warming(reducing consumption of fossil fuels), and then sought out science to support their position. The problems are obvious: 1) Let's say there is a legitimate argument about reduction of fossil fuel use vs. a geo-engineering scheme to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This argument never gets to happen because people who are against fossil fuel usage reduction as a solution never admit the problem even exists. (I have to admit, I think reduction of carbon emissions is unrealistic, because the countries which benefit the most from carbon rich fuel consumption in the short term are the poorest countries with the most people. I don't realistically see India decide to keep its people poor and without electricity/transport when they don't have to. People don't give a shit about saving the planet until they have food in their own and children's bellies, and aren't dying of diseases easily prevented by fossil fuel powered infrastructure) 2) The group of people who are currently arguing that the warming is not caused by human activity heavily, HEAVILY overlap with the group of people who were denying that warming was even happening 8 years ago. This is a huge red flag. Do I discredit scientists if they are proven wrong one time? No. But if a "doctor" says vaccines are bad because they cause autism, and when proven wrong, invents another argument against vaccines, I write him off as a quack who doesn't follow the scientific method. And I'm right. These guys are basically saying "Don't cut carbon! The planet isn't getting warmer." Now they have changed their answer to "Don't cut carbon. It's not the reason the planet is getting warmer. " And frankly, I'm getting sick of people who don't even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists. It all reeks of the same attitude I was innundated with as a kid by my classmates because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > And frankly, I'm getting sick of people who don't even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists. What about people without a single scientific degree supporting scientists?
    - scarmig 14y ago
      I'm hesitant about building a Chinese Wall between accredited experts and the broader society, and I regret a bit about even mentioning the bloggers' professions in my ancestral comment. Their posts, after all, speak for themselves. But for whatever reason, right now there's a giant gap of approach in how "amateurs" on both sides approach science. I guess what I'd like is amateurs who are actually interested in the science engaging with and contributing to expert discussion. Not merely for the sake of amateurs, but for the sake of the expert scientific discourse itself. Science has no sides except reality; but if you have a situation where one political side vociferously attacks you while another political side defends you, it's psychologically very easy to forget that and your role as a scientist.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        The way to deal with the problem imo is not to appeal to a group of uneducated people for support in the first place, but simply to increase the number of educated people to the point where such politicizing is no longer effective. Manipulative tricks only work when the vast majority of the people have no clue about the inner workings of the pale blue dot that we are stewards of. But I cringe at the way the polarization is worked on both sides of the divide, support by ignoramuses is just as sought after by both sides and just as meaningless. But since we all live in democracies support by the numbers is important even if those supporting you have no clue about the facts or the underlying mechanisms. In the end that support should not matter. What should matter is facts and the way (big) money is distorting the picture is very worrisome. Plenty of scientists (in absolute numbers, not in percentages, the far larger number are as ethical as can be and even some of those critical of the evidence are critical for pure motives, not because of some paycheck) have zero compunction about supporting whatever side pays for their mortgage. A preponderance of evidence (unfortunately) no longer offsets a preponderance of marketing dollars. And that is to me - for the moment, I may revise that statement, living 45' below sea level - far more worrying than climate change in and of itself. Considering the possibilities of a runaway effect and the reality of China/India starting to use far more power and hence emitting far more CO2 this may be a thing that is already too far gone to stop, even if we did act today (Nobody seems to be sure about that one, though the consensus seems to be there will be a mitigating effect, magnitude unknown). But then imagine some real disaster triggered by our carelessness does befall us, what are we going to do to deal with the aftermath if we can't even agree on what to do when it is not yet rearranging our lives with careless abandon? Nature doesn't care, one way or the other whether we're going to agree with each other or not. It'll just let physics run its course, and physics tends to be a pretty good if harsh teacher. Humans are pretty fragile. Maybe we will learn from this, maybe we won't, time will tell. But for now I'm not too hopeful about how this is playing out and both sides are guilty of trying to politicize this instead of letting the facts simply speak for themselves. An inconvenient truth indeed.
- pdonis 14y ago
  They're not really comparable. That's not the point. If you read only realclimate, you are getting a biased viewpoint. The fact that it is written by academic climatologists does not prevent it from being biased.
- guscost 14y ago
  Steve McIntyre is a statistician. Don't mince words.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    McIntyre is a bozo who doesn't act in good faith. It's to his great discredit that he looks like a conspiratorial looney uninterested in science compared to Watts. And for the record I clearly pointed it out: he is a mathematician, albeit one in mineral prospecting and never academics. No words minced.
mratzloff 14y ago
There are not always two sides to a story.

guscost 14y ago

Here is an interesting book about the IPCC: http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-e...