Why It's Not a Massive Government Conspiracy
How to Not Look Like an Idiot in an Online AGW Debate
The infamous IPCC, the largest peer reviewed study ever done:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the National Academy of Sciences
the Environmental Protection Agency
the American Geophysical Union
the American Institute of Physics
the National Center for Atmospheric Research
the American Meteorological Society
the National Research Council
the US Geological Survey
the US Dept of Agriculture
the vast majority of peer review
as well as independent research
the White House
Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M[
the American Physical Society
But that's not all. A far more comprehensive and exhaustive list can be found here.
Debunking Skeptic Arguments
How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic
Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed
Climate scepticism: The top 10
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 and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
Instant Expert: Climate Change
The Physical Science behind Climate Change
Special Report: Climate Change
Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins
Fiddling While the Planet Burns
The Climate of Man
University of California, Berkeley: LS 70B Physical Science - Global Warming
University of Arizona: Global Climate Change: A Series of 7 Lectures Exploring Our World and Ourselves
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
What is peer review?
The Falsifiability Question
So attacks on climate change as if it were a "theory" make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual. The climate is not going to stay the same. It can't stay the same. Staying the same would violate physics; specifically it would violate the law of energy conservation. Something has to change.
The simplest consequence is that the surface will warm up. That this is indeed most of what happens is validated pretty much in observations, in paleodata, in theory and in simulation. Further, all those lines of evidence converge pretty much about how much warming: about 2.5 C to 3C for each doubling of CO2. (It's logarithmic in total CO2, not in emitted CO2, guys, by the way.) There's no single line of reasoning for this. There are multiple lines of evidence.
Climate Physics and Chemistry
Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy
National Geographic Magazine
What Is Global Warming?
Global Warming: How Hot? How Soon?
Global Warming Fast Facts
Effects of Global Warming
Unravelling the skeptics
Who are the denialists?
ExxonSecrets | Greenpeace USA
Climate science: Sceptical about bias
Dimming the Sun: The Producer’s Story
Convincing the skepticsIn fact, only three factors determine the planet's energy balance: the sun's output, the Earth's reflectivity, or albedo, and the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which are affected by the level of certain trace gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor. Reduced to its essentials, the greenhouse effect is a problem in 19th-century classical physics, and the basic theory was worked out with pencil and paper in the 1890s. To say that increasing CO2 levels leads to more heat trapped in the atmosphere is really no more scientifically controversial than saying you'll feel warmer if you put on a sweater.
Climate-Change Skeptics RevisitedFirst, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun's output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.
As my original reference to “the venerable tradition of skepticism” indicates, I am in fact well aware of its valuable and indeed fundamental role in the practice of science. Skeptical views, clearly stated and soundly based, tend to promote healthy re-examination of premises, additional ways to test hypotheses and theories, and refinement of explanations and arguments. And it does happen from time to time – although less often than most casual observers suppose – that views initially held only by skeptics end up overturning and replacing what had been the “mainstream” view.
Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing what much of has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to “mass hysteria” or deliberate propagation of a “hoax”.
YouTube - Newsnight: CO2,they call it life,we call it a greenhouse gas
YouTube - Royal Society says to CEI: Cease and desist your lies!
The Denial Machine
Great Teachers: Translation, Replication and Credibility of Research Findings