AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums
Global Warming Believer's Section - Printable Version

+- AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums (http://ai-jane.org)
+-- Forum: Resources (http://ai-jane.org/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Science Resources (http://ai-jane.org/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: Global Warming Believer's Section (/thread-3049.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Global Warming Believer's Section - Monsieur Le Tonk - 02-06-2007

À propos to John's suggestion, here is a compilation of resources from a generally anthropogenic global warming accepting point of view. I don't much like the title John has given to this thread, science isn't a belief system, the data and conclusions are persuasive or not, faith has nothing to do with it.

------------------------------------------------

The ultimate distillation of all current scientific research is contained in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the most recent, May 2007, report of Working Group I can be found here:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
The above collection of pdf files is extensive, approximately 120Mb or nearly 1,000 pages of fully referenced data.

------------------------------------------------

The 16 May 2007 issue of New Scientist is devoted largely to the issue of climate change, including a round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.


------------------------------------------------

A handful of other useful links: ------------------------------------------------

Looking for more......

The RealClimate website now has a "one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change", and contains links to many informative sites on global warming. Their page will be regularly updated to include new reference sources.

Start here

------------------------------------------------

Last updated 23rd October 2007 - MLT


- Grizzly - 02-25-2007

Acknowledgement From Shell Oil That Global Warming Is A Real Factor--Especially Carbon Emissions.


- Independents4Bush - 02-25-2007

If this is going to be filled with resources perhaps it should be a sticky.


- stroll - 03-20-2007

Nah, don't make it sticky, it supports the wrong side - can't allow this on jane. Wink1

Here a few more resources:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/index.html?page=13272&pid=0

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's all anti-American collectivist nay-sayers, environment worshippers and amoral liberals, but thought I'd add this anyway. :roll:


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-17-2007

Stroller Wrote:Nah, don't make it sticky, it supports the wrong side - can't allow this on jane. Wink1
Now ain't that the truth S2

Good issue of New Scientist devoted largely to the issue of climate change, including a round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

New Scientist:- Climate change: A guide for the perplexed



- John L - 05-17-2007

Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:
Stroller Wrote:Nah, don't make it sticky, it supports the wrong side - can't allow this on jane. Wink1
Now ain't that the truth S2

Good issue of New Scientist devoted largely to the issue of climate change, including a round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

New Scientist:- Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

I said this before, and I will do so again: if you want it to be a 'sticky' then be serious and create a comprehensive thread, as with the Skeptics thread. If you are serious, then I will make it a 'sticky' thread. Are you just doing this to hear yourself complain, or did you miss my previous post?


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-17-2007

Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:Sorry but the sceptics thread is little more than a hotch-potch of bad or discredited science, interspersed with right-wing opinion pieces.

You left out an important phrase to go along with your observation. YOu left out "In my opinion", because that is exactly what it happens to be: your opinion.

Note: I accidentially pushed the wrong button and wound up 'editing' the post instead of quoting it. I'm sorry Pepe, it was not done on purpose-John


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-17-2007

That round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions from New Scientist May 16th 2007:-


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-17-2007

Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:Sorry but the sceptics thread is little more than a hotch-potch of bad or discredited science, interspersed with right-wing opinion pieces.

You left out an important phrase to go along with your observation. YOu left out "In my opinion", because that is exactly what it happens to be: your opinion.

Note: I accidentially pushed the wrong button and wound up 'editing' the post instead of quoting it. I'm sorry Pepe, it was not done on purpose-John
Apology accepted John. Sure it's my opinion, by default anything I post unattributed is simply my opinion or assertion, it's up to the reader to take it or leave it S1


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-23-2007

The RealClimate website now has a "one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change", this page will be updated to include new reference sources.

Start here


- stroll - 05-24-2007

Quote: if you want it to be a 'sticky' then be serious and create a comprehensive thread...
I haven't seen anything not 'serious' by the Monsieur here. S2

Lots of comprehensive links in this thread as well.

Perhaps the topic title could do with making it a little less dismissive?
Or the two threads could be merged:
"Global Warming: pro and contra resources" - for example, since comparisons are inevitable and articles from one side often relate to the other.

I'd also suggest to throw out some of the unrelated opinion-pieces from the "Sceptics" thread, they makes it tedious to wade through it.


- John L - 05-24-2007

What he can do is go back to the first of his posts here, and edit it so that he makes up a detailed list, divided into sections, as I have, and compiled the information into that one post. If he is willing to do that, and add to it with what he considers important, I will help him set it up and also make it a sticky. But it must be done by the one person starting the thread, and he must bel willing to make the committment to it. That is what I do with the Skeptic's thread. I'm adding to it all the time, as you can see if you look at it in detail.


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-25-2007

John L Wrote:What he can do is go back to the first of his posts here, and edit it so that he makes up a detailed list
Done. Little need to break into sections, I'll stick to the science and leave opinion pieces and tabloid gibberish to your thread Wink1


- John L - 05-25-2007

Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:
John L Wrote:What he can do is go back to the first of his posts here, and edit it so that he makes up a detailed list
Done. Little need to break into sections, I'll stick to the science and leave opinion pieces and tabloid gibberish to your thread Wink1

That's what I like: elitist to the end, eh Pepe?


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 05-25-2007

John Wrote:That's what I like: elitist to the end, eh Pepe?
Oh dear John, "elitist", what exactly do you mean by that?
I prefer to stick with the simple facts rather than embellish them, I accept I'm dismissive of those that eschew the data, embellish fallacies or push half truths.
I'm not sure how that makes me elitist, discerning I'd accept 8)


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 07-09-2007

A new section added: "A handful of other useful links".


- John L - 07-10-2007

Alright, I'll make it 'Sticky', even though you still have a bit to go on it. Satisfied?


- Monsieur Le Tonk - 10-23-2007

John Cook's Skeptical Science

Quote:Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

A handy place to check up on the latest straw grasping antics of the dwindling few who's heads remain firmly in the sand.


- John L - 10-23-2007

If we REALLY wants to get Skeptical, why not get skeptical about his skepticism of the Global Warming Skeptics. Now that would be commical, don't you think?


- scpg02 - 10-23-2007

Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:John Cook's Skeptical Science

Quote:Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

A handy place to check up on the latest straw grasping antics of the dwindling few who's heads remain firmly in the sand.

I can tell you for sure that this is absolutely not true. I'm on a forum with most of the well known skeptics and their heads are firmly based in science. And despite what you read in the media, the tide is turning in favor of the skeptics. It is the AGW crowd that have their heads burried.