AGW, Is your arguement I believe, or I can demonstrate.....?

Question

Note: Wikipedia or Real Climate are no longer a valid source of serious science. No wonder...

Answer 1

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.  Note that the first is not a wikipedia article, and has scientific references at the end.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

I like the guy who thinks wikipedia is not credible, but that the "greenie watch" blog is.

Answer 2

Crazy con as usual a very funny post:

I like the way your nationalpost link goes on about Fred Singer and his wiki page and then quotes all the good things he has done, only problem is all these are in his wiki page.

The link also suggests the wiki page is trying to reduce his credibility with mention of his belief of life on mars which he states is untrue admittedly it is a comment from the 60's and the wiki page says as much, I would be more worried about his attitude to the links between second hand smoke and lung cancer and the link between the ozone hole and skin cancer both of which are scientific fact, his comments on these have been documented from a number of sources, not just wiki.

Answer 3

Do you have a question about anthropogenic global warming, or are you conducting a demonstration of propaganda techniques?  Surely if you had any scientific reason to doubt AGW, instead of talking about the conversation, you'd stay on topic and simply ask the question, "What do you think about Paper A, published in Journal B?"

www.LinkToACredibleSource.edu

If you're truly interested in AGW, it has been well demonstrated, as this history of carbon science summarizes:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

Here's a more detailed discussion, with refernces to hundreds of supporting peer-reviewed papers:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

Here's where we stand today, with easy to understand diagrams:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

There have been countless requests on YA for links to peer-reviewed science contradicting anthropogenic global warming.  I'd truly like to see something credible.  If it exists, why is it not presented?  If such science existed, why would contrarian blogs (and Yahoo Answers members who follow them) talk so much about nits like why people "believe" science?

Black carbon (soot) may be the best viable candidate potentially challenging greenhouse gases including CO2 as forcing agents, but it's still an anthropogenic global warming influence that requires regulation of things like coal-burning power plants.

Answer 4

Wikipedia is extremely biased. They go so far as to have "editors" change posts so as to reflect the AGW scam. Wikipedia should never be used as a serious resource.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/search?q=w...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs...

As far as Realscience.com, who can take that site seriously when Michael Mann, one of the sites contributors, was the originator of the Hockey Stick Scam.

Answer 5

Wikipedia is actually about as accurate as any Encyclopedia (see link below).  But the best part of wikipedia is that it generally has numerous links to original source material.

Real Climate is more accurate than the typical Encylopedia, because it's written by practicing climate scientists and the numerous highly intelligent readership provides another layer of fact-checking.  The great thing about Real Climate is that they too provide reference to primary source material in peer reviewed scientific literature, so anyone willing to invest the time (sometime money, if you don't have free access to the scientific journals) can educate themselves in climate science.

So, other than your assertions (both of which are inaccurate) do you have an actual question?

Answer 6

While I've never really looked at "real climate" I have found the Wiki pages on the various aspect of GW from iceage's to the Sun, to be fairly accurate, correct and they do look at this from both sides and include citation links to support what is said.