Other Answers (16)

• Yes, the Earth%26#039;s surface has warmed a bit over the past century, but is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles? And can changes in human activity -- specifically reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions -- have anything more than a tiny effect on temperature? The answers to those questions, which are at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol and other attempts to force cuts in energy use, are simply unknown.
  
  
  It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It%26#039;s a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.
  
  
  The quote on the poster comes from Inhofe%26#039;s speech during debate over the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have curtailed greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, a measure similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush rejected in 2001 as %26quot;fatally flawed%26quot; and which still lacks enough ratifying nations for implementation six years after it was signed. McCain-Lieberman was rejected, too -- in part because of Inhofe%26#039;s strenuous efforts as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 0% 0 Votes 0% 0 Votes ) they will be.
  
  on this gwh site, the references i found on a typical item (on antarctica) were;
  internal links to other articles on the same site ;
  links to newspapers, and not reputable ones; the daily mail! the most right wing english paper and one that has been strongly %26#039;denyer%26#039;;
  links to news sites i have never heard of (newsmax? hardly cnn....);
  links to other %26#039;denyer%26#039; sites
  broken links.
  and so on.
  
  most of the article is a red herring; showing the winter sea ice as %26#039;an increase%26#039; well dur, its called winter folks, you have to look at the long term comparisons at matching times of year. also it deals just on area, when a major concern by real scientists is the thinning of sea ice.
  
  the language used is very emotive, and always a giveaway, lots of exclamation marks....
  
  and i%26#039;m not sure the american eagle at the top of the page inspires me with confidence, another blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.
  
  edit; nice one frfl, i knew someone sensible would be along with all the good links :-)
  so i just concentrated on the website analysis, a useful skill that really should be taught in school. 0% 0 Votes
  Shows that Al Gore only made a few minor errors in his movie. As do these three sites.
  
  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/...
  
  http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environ...
  
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
  
  This is a great website showing the attempts to muddy the waters of scientific debate about global warming
  
  http://www.logicalscience.com/climate_ch...
  
  Skeptics claim there is no consensus on AGW
  
  %26quot;People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: %26quot;I don%26#039;t know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I%26#039;ll go with the 0.1%%26quot;. If still they don%26#039;t think that sounds silly and they don%26#039;t start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says %26quot;if you ain%26#039;t a member of the AGU you ain%26#039;t no damn climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA%26quot;. Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by %26quot;many%26quot; and %26quot;leading%26quot;. For instance, in April 2006, 60 %26quot;leading scientists%26quot; signed a letter urging Canada%26#039;s new prime minister to review his country%26#039;s commitment to the Kyoto protocol.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
  Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration%26#039;s stance on climate science.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
  Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict.%26quot;
  
  %26quot;Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term %26quot;global climate change%26quot; published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim.%26quot;
  
  http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
  
  http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
  Great site enumerating and quoting all the support for the IPCC
  
  Skeptic argument: the IPCC exagerates:
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...
  
  And you might want to pay attention to the fact that these are actual climate science web sites, not mass media or propaganda outlets.
  
  %26quot;The BBC wants the skeptics to show some evidence of a funding conspiracy.
  If there is any evidence of biased funding, the BBC wants to know about it. It is as the BBC says, time to put the %26quot;cards on the table%26quot;.
  
  http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...
  
  %26quot;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%26#039;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%26quot;
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/
  
  The following sources are real climate scientists Source(s):
  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm
  
  http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...