These highly accurate scientific studies will keep the green weenies squirming in their hot seats for years to come.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
http://www.rsc.org/images/CA1_tcm18-1379... <== Word doc. Page 6 shows where H2O and CO2 intercept different wavelengths
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co... <== Note that CO2 intercepts a different wavelength than water. In addition, as CO2 warms the oceans, more water evaporates, increasing it's effectiveness.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/scie... <== melting of the Siberian tundra is a very serious problem.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Incon... <== This is an hour long, but is very good.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu... <== Very long, but excellent.
The National Academy of Science is the voice of America's greatest scientists. The Royal Society is the voice of U.K.s greatest scientists. These national science academies exists specifically to advise their nations in matters of complex science. You can find information from them.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
If you deviate from the science itself, ie from the national science academies or the science journal themselves, if go blogs you will always encounter biases.
This site is supposed to look at both sides of the debate http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/
The sites that C recommends are government supported and funded and as such cannot be considered as impartial.
Check out the Climategate Email Scandal that exposes the corruption among those who are CAGW Alarmists.
Check out the Hockeystick Scandal, as well.
As you can see deniers like Kano & Cyclops can only quote lobby groups both their links are blogs run for the express purpose of spreading BS on climate change the NIPCC even try to ape the title of a real agency the IPCC, that is the childish nature of denial.
Groups like NASA, NOAA,
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
and other similar agencies overseas like Australia's CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Und...
are real science research groups, denier groups have not one real science group they can quote for any of their points, and it's not because of bizarre global conspiracies but because deniers a spinning total BS.
Skepticalscience is not to bad, but it is a blog also and An Inconvenient Truth is a TV documentary, deniers like to hate it and try to poke wholes in it but at the end of the day it was based on science, with some personal anecdotes from Gore that are not science, but it was meant for a general audience and most would not sit through a documentary that was just pure science.
Deniers have a string of lies they try to attach to ICT, like the digital fly over at the start of an ice field, they never quite explain how a digital fly over (compared to an actual fly over proves or disproves anything)
They also claim Gore said sea level rise would be 20ft by the end of the century, I invite any denier to point out where Gore states this, he gives a demonstration of what 20ft of sea level would look like in a number of cities but no date is ever mentioned, deniers just pretended he did.
Further scientific views can be found by looking at the public position statements of scientific member driven groups like AGU or NAS, deniers claim the leaderships of such groups are ignoring their members views, but this is also BS, such groups regularly change leadership and new leaders are voted in by members every couple of years. That alone dispels the denier myth they have large numbers of scientists in these fields, if they did why are they not voting in leaderships that support denier views, easy answer is these large numbers of denier scientists simply don't exist.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Is a good place to start. You know it's credible because denialists hate it so much
Start at nasa, unless you think they faked the moon landings too. Anyone thinking scientists are on the take, they are right but only the ones on the denier side where fossil fuel interests are. Nasa sciemtisys could easily make more money on the denier side
nasa.gov
noaa.gov
nature.com
nationalgeographic.com
What do you know about impartial kano Your links are all one sided and you'd have to be brain dead to think national geographic and nature were government sites The other 2 yes but the sites are science, not propaganda get a life
http://nipccreport.org/
Ignore the creepy alarmists. They like to personally attack people.
Does anybody know any good sites that research the Global Warming issue from an objective point of view? I'm looking for some sites that aren't biased and research the credibility of things like An Inconvenient Truth. No political debates, no emotional pleas by individuals, just straight up science. I appreciate it.
