Please list reputable sources supporting, disproving or skeptical about the existence of global warming (man-made climate change)?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) === Their publications that supporting existence of global warming: - IPCC First Assessment Report - IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 - IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_... === American Meteorological Society === In 2003, the AMS issued the position statement Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society === InterAcademy Council === Their publication that supporting existence of global warming: Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === Network of African Science Academies === ---quote--- In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.

---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === European Physical Society === ---quote--- In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy: The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. ---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === European Science Foundation === ---quote--- In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. ---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies === In 2008, the FASTS issued a policy statement on climate change: ---quote--- The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.

---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === Geological Society of Australia === ---quote--- In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. ---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === International Union for Quaternary Research === The statement on climate change issued by INQUA: ---quote--- Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….

Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise… ---/quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === American Academy of Pediatrics === ---quote--- In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy statement Global Climate Change and Children's Health: There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. ---quote--- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change === Scientists Who Think Global Warming is Not Ocurring or Has Ceased === - Timothy F.

Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg - Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia - Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_...1 === Scientiests Who Think Global Warming is Primarily Caused by Natural Processes === - Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences - Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - George V.

Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California - Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa - David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester - Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University - William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University - William Happer, physicist Princeton University - William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology - George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory - David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware - Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa - Tim Patterson33, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada - Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide - Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo - Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia - Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville - Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London - Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center - Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_...1.

These are the sources that supports global warming: 1. This is a research entitled Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario which was conducted by James Hansen et al. ---quote---Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates Atmospheric amounts of the principal human-influenced GHGs have been monitored in recent years and extracted for earlier times from bubbles of air trapped in polar ice sheets.

The growth rate of forcing by carbon dioxide doubled between the 1950s and the 1970s (Figure 2A), but was flat from the late 1970s until the late 1990s despite a 30% increase in fossil fuel use. This implies a recent increase of terrestrial and/or oceanic sinks for CO2, which may be temporary. ---end of quote--- source: giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200111_a... 2.

Another research was done by Larry Vardiman, Ph. D entitled "Evidence of Global Warming" He analyzed 3 data sets: 1. Sea surface temperature in the Gulf of Alaska 2.

Frequency of hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic & Carribean 3. Polar extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Findings/ conclusions: He was able to conclude that global warming appears to have occurred for the last 30-50 years and that this warming can be short-term fluctuation but can also have a long trend.It is not evident if man is causing the warming and no "natural" causes for global warming has been confirmed.

One possible theory is that galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) which is modulated by solar activity affects low level cloud cover and thus cause the warming. Source: http://www.icr.org/article/3233/ 3. This is another research done by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) entitled: Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

This is their findings: ---quote---- Records of increasing temperatures, melting glaciers, reductions in extent and thickness of sea ice, thawing permafrost, and rising sea level all provide strong evidence of recent warming in the Arctic. There are regional variations due to atmospheric winds and ocean currents, with some areas showing more warming than others and a few areas even showing a slight cooling; but for the Arctic as a whole, there is a clear warming trend. There are also patterns within this overall trend; for example, in most places, temperatures in winter are rising more rapidly than in summer.

In Alaska and western Canada, winter temperatures have increased as much as 3-4 deg. Centigrade in the past 50 years. ---end of quote--- source: http://www.amap.no/acia/ 4.

An analysis conducted by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. Their findings: Southern Hemisphere in 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. ---quote--- "There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

"There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated." ---end of quote-- source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/ 5. A research made by Dorothy Koch in November 2009 entitled "How do Global Soot Models Measure Up?

" ---quote--- Dark pollution particles popularly known as soot but also called black carbon probably contribute overall to global warming. Suspended in the atmosphere or deposited on snow, these particles absorb sunlight and warm the air or snow. Sources of black carbon include burning of wood and other biofuels, for domestic heating and cooking and in forest and field burning, and combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal and diesel.

---end of quote--- source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_05/ 6. A study conducted by marine biologist Jim McClintock, Ph.D. , (prof.

In the University of Alabama) found some evidence that the growing acidity of the world's ocean is a definitive proof that the atmospheric carbon dioxide causing climate change also has negative impact on the marine environment. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144811.htm 7. A professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences Andrew Dessler who specializes in reseach on climate says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere and since water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this can lead to additional warming.

The process is called water vapor feedback and is said to be responsible for the significant warming predicted to occur over the next century. ---quote--- The perspective by Dessler and co-author Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is published in the journal Science ---end of quote--- source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm 8. Scientists at Harvard University found that tropical cyclones that readily inject ice far into the stratosphers are possible feeding global warming.

The findings demonstrates that severe weather and global warming is closely intertwined and that mechanism which storms could drive climate change. Many scientists believ3 that global warming can increase severity of tropical cyclones. Source:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420121421.htm.

The best site I can think of is whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globa... which has some interesting videos and information.

I was able to find this paper. It is a compendium of peer reviewed articles and comes from SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/storie... The paper's authors appear to be meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. At least Watts has been criticized by bloggers, but I haven't found any more than 'armchair' sorts of things.

The institute is made up of a former Cato institute guy, PHD's, and a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher among others. Anyway, I have no real opinion on the matter and I'm just putting up what I have found by bumbling about the internet.

Here is a long list of over 700 scientists who have reversed their belief that man-made global warming is real, in the form of a 255 page U.S. Senate Minority report (this may be well along the lines of the "simple list" you have requested, although it is quite lengthy, and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to include all the information in my answer in a way other than simply linking it): epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi... This article, by Dr. David Evans, details why he reversed his position, with the evidence that supports his new position against man-made global warming: theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot... Also, please see this article, from the Portland Examiner, which contains an excellent summary of information and further links regarding the disproving of man-made climate change / CO2 as a greenhouse gas: examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Right... This is a very good, detailed source that was linked from the above listed article (basically, the above listed article is a good summary of the following report): scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/storie... Here's a petition project that scientists have signed to try and stop the limits on "greenhouse" gases because CO2 is NOT harmful, and, in fact, limiting it may be harmful. It's another list, but it may be much less detailed compared to the U.S.Senate Report: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php I found this book "Man-made global warming: unravelling a dogma" by Labohm, H; Rozendaal, S; Thoenes, D, published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.(http://www.multi-science.co.uk) in 2004, listed in a database in my university's online library databases.

The abstract listed is as follows: "We are so-called climate sceptics. That is to say, we doubt that there is such a thing as man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming, which will lead to all kinds of disasters for mankind, such as a rise in the sea level with flooding, greater weather instability, higher land temperatures accompanied by major droughts or extreme precipitation with negative consequences for agriculture, migration of tropical insects to northern latitudes with harmful implications for human health, an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, etc. We believe that there is simply not sufficient scientific evidence to substantiate those claims. Moreover, we believe that, even if the problem is real, the Kyoto Treaty, which provides for mandatory reductions of emissions of CO sub(2) and other greenhouse gases, to counter man-made global warming, is utterly ineffective, while its cost-benefit ratio is such that it implies the squandering of scarce resources which could be used for better purposes.

This book is an enhanced and updated amalgam of numerous articles which we have published on the issues at hand over the past few years, both in the Netherlands and abroad. " Most of the other information I found through my university's online library database was 10-20 years old, and I believe it to be outdated as different information has come to light since those publication times. I'm afraid my sources are very one-sided, but I tried to eliminate most "pop media" information...

Having read material relevant to the change of seasons in the Arctic, I don't doubt that change is occurring, but I'm among those who are skeptical of claims that it's caused by human activity. I'm also skeptical of claims that changing the source of that human activity can reverse it. That is, if spewing pollutants into the atmosphere from American smokestacks is contributing to climate change, how is it that reducing those emissions, transferring vast sums of money to third-world depots and also permitting those despots to set up their own pollution-spewing industries, is going to ameliorate the situation?

Besides the routine mass media reports we get periodically that expose this or that newly-discovered scandal in the AGW community, one of the most persuasive things I read was a novel by Michael Crichton called States of Fear. A work of fiction whose plot revolves around the machinations of AGW proponents, it includes a great deal of actual scientific material that debunks the idea that the evidence for AGW is incontrovertible. Another issue that's gotten some attention is the fact that some of the sensors for recording temperatures have been placed suspiciously near heat sources.My recollection is that EPA used to note sensors' locations on their website until people started pointing out that a sensor located in the path of exhaust from a dry-cleaning plant would report skewed data (for example).

EPA moved those sensors and removed the locations from their website. The INternet stepped in, though, and individual citizens identify these things as they're located, and they're published onsurfacestations.org. A portion of that site is dedicated to "odd" placements (see the link below).

Now, if it's really the case that global temperatures are increasing, doesn't it make sense to put sensors where they'll record temperatures without the distortative impact of parking lots, incinerators, exhaust fans and other heat sources? Of course, we're all aware of the recent scandal of the emails where AGW proponents discussed, reportedly in jest, ways to ostracize those in the community who dissented from the popular opinion. Officials at the same school (East Anglia University, one of the "headquarters" of the AGW movement) have admitted discarding the raw data for the studies that resulted in their global warming predictions, meaning that there's no way for their peers to review the data against their conclusions.

The data they kept was the data that had been adjusted "to account for variables. " It's my belief that some of the proponents of AGW hav ebecome so wedded to their hypothesis that they're willing to manipulate data and fudge facts to prove it. The scientific method, however, calls for disinterested researchers, and it also calls for researchers, when confronted with evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, to explain it or alter their hypothesis - not alter the data or destroy it.

I think that climate change is happening, I think it's cyclical, and I think it might also be that human activity has contributed to it, but I don't think that the climate was static until the industrial revolution came along.

I would recommend following two important sites: The United Nations brought together an International Treaty joined by nearly all (and all important) countries. That is where the recent COP15 in Copenhagen comes from. Their website: unfccc.int/2860.php The other site is the US EPA where they have an abundance of reports, statistics, and models.

Their website: epa.gov/climatechange/ Sorry but I do not know of any reputable sites against global warming. Any that you find still believe in global warming they just don't believe it is human created. They just state that our planet is always cooling/heating.

Most of them then use that to state that any political treaty or cap/trade system is useless. No change that we do can affect global temperatures.

I voted uninteresting because it is kicking dead horse. This happens a lot on Mahalo. We need some way to avoid repeating the same questions and issues over and over.

On the other hand, it should be more easy and rewarded to add additional sources and answers to old questions.

30 years ago they were trying to sell us global cooling. Here are the magazine articles: Time Jun. 24, 1974 "Another Ice Age?" time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,94... "The Cooling World" Newsweek, April 28, 1975: denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm All very scientific and seemingly plausible.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.