It has been refreshing to come here and find so many equally sceptical people and that so many of them are prepared to stand their ground and not be brow beaten by the concensus machine and its acolytes.

I am also very much aware, that as days turn to weeks, many of those here will drift back to their normal lives, whilst the AGW propoganda machine will keep churning out its layers of verbiage and soon cover any trace of opposition as expressed by GGWS and its immediater aftermath.

Can anyone therefore provide links to good (but not overly technical) Sceptical sites where ordinary bods like me can keep up with the things that are unlikely to make it into the mainstream media?

Thanks.

Sampanviking,
Keep spreading the word and someday the truth will be heard.

I have tried to post my sceptical viewpoint on a pro-AGW site several times - it's an experience I can tell you - try it some time.

I don't think it is a good idea to get involved with sites with onesided viewpoints on either side to be honest, but I came across this one which is quite level headed - I'm not a member so don't worry.

UK Weather World

See ours at www.nrsp.com

Tom

How about a good well-established reputable site instead:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

I wish you luck Tom - a tall order.

quote:

Originally posted by Robbie Writer:
How about a good well-established reputable site instead:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

The request was for a sceptic site The Royal Society is leaning towards pro-AGW although there was an interesting bit on fossils which could upset the AGW theories a bit.
Climate change from fossil mammals

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
I wish you luck Tom - a tall order.

I wouldn't worry, if nothing else, they get paid handsomely for it.

"The project is no orphan, though. According to [Tom] Harris, the idea behind the project came from Timothy Egan, President of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based lobby organization. Harris is the former head of its Ottawa office. The federal Lobbyists Registration System indicates that High Park's clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association.

Harris argues that there's nothing wrong with industry funding. For the most part, it doesn't support research," he adds, paying only for communications instead."

And doesn't the website look good because of it!

quote:

Originally posted by Tom H.:
See ours at www.nrsp.com

Tom

Actually had another look Tom not a bad site.

I particularly liked this article.

It picks up some of the points made in the GGWS documentary.

I just want to see a site where the facts and assumptions (the physics) that go into the models are set side by side with non-sceptic vs sceptic scientific argument for each.

I bet when it comes down to such an analysis there'll be major agreement between scientists on most of the basic physics in their field of competency. There'll be some items missing from the models and there'll be some bits of science that have moved on since the models were last modified. There'll be a set of assumptions which will be disagreed but that means we'll see where the main fundamental differences lie between the 2 camps.

Then there'll need to be an assessment of the granularity of the model/method/computing power and the validity of the statistical methods that are used to create the quoted level of confidence in the results.

Not an easy task but IPCC should have all this if they've done the job properly. All properly reviewed by appropriate subject matter experts from physicists, mathematical modellers and probability theorists.

Thanks Tom and APL. I will check out these sites out over the nezxt few days.

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
It picks up some of the points made in the GGWS documentary.

Well that's not surprising it has the usual suspects who appeared on GGWS: Tim Ball (executive), Ian Clark (science advisory committee) and allied experts: Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen,

Funnily enough, Greenpeace has kindly provided us with a list of a lot of organisations that are sceptical about man-made Global Warming.

Greenpeace claims these organisations receive funding from Exxon. You can judge for yourself if that invalidates their viewpoints or not.

This site is actually pretty damn useful if you ignore the Greenpeace spin. It lets you figure out the key scpetics and their relationship with various organisations. I think it is very kind of Greenpeace to do all this work for us, don't you think ?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org

This an excellent site.

[/URL]

The best article I've read though is this one...

[URL=http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=172]


It's by Ann Coulter and you wont find much 'science' in it, quite rightly so.


Coulter will NOT be everyones cup of tea, cetainly not around here, but if you want your words of the completely un-minced variety, check her out. Personally I think she is one of the most intelligent, clear thinkers around, on many a subject, and laugh out load funny to boot. But be warned if you're not prepared to be punched in the face by her views, metaphorically speaking, DON'T look it'll only upset you.

Here's a quote.

"Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill"

LOL! I just LOVE it!

sorry i seem to screw up the links thing a lot... Doh!

so now i'm not gonna try

coulter article

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=172


www.junkscience.com

check em out

quote:

Originally posted by Robbie Writer:
Well that's not surprising it has the usual suspects who appeared on GGWS: Tim Ball (executive), Ian Clark (science advisory committee) and allied experts: Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen,

As opposed to Al Gore, Arnold Swartzeniger, Tony Blair, George Monbiot, Mike Hulme, Richard Branson and the Hockey Stick team.

quote:

Originally posted by antidogma:
Greenpeace claims these organisations receive funding from Exxon. You can judge for yourself if that invalidates their viewpoints or not.

It matters not where the funding comes from, it is the honesty and quality of the science, and whether or not it has been objectively peer rewieved that we should be concerned with.

If you have got the time read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, brillant book and more importantly balanced and factual, but hated by the Greens for obvious reasons.

The following is a history of the science in layman's terms which might help to put the argument into context.

www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

There is also a book by the guy who wrote the site. I've not read it.

Robert1234: Does that woman's lazy "journalism" really have a following in the US. Anyone can stick together insults, generalisations, libel and shocking statements into an incoherent slightly amusing mess. Can I have a go too.

"Big corporations do not give a stuff about you or your family. They would happily ground your grandmother's bones to powder if phosphorus were a valuable commodity. Your pension is safe with them - until they can find a friendly accountant to spirit it away into a their swiss bank account. The bosses have realised one thing. One day they will be dead, so they might as well screw you all for every penny they can get out to make their greedy disgusting existences as comfortable as possible.

Big business will happily support "independent campaign groups" such as the Natural Resources Stewardship Program" whose friendly pictures of trees, babies and fluffy bunnies belie their real purpose, which is to divert (that means bribe) your elected politicians from protecting you from the ravages of a large corporation. Many of these "campaign" groups promote "Libertarianism" and "freedom" of trade as being a part of a wonderful utopia, when it is really a recipe by which the demands of the powerful crush the demands of the weak and the demands of the most powerful crush all in front of them."

(apologies to Tom, whose nrsp site has no pictures of fluffy bunnies, only babies and trees).

I notice with disappointment, that a very good thread with a Poll about this forum members belief in AGW has somehow and for no good reason been deleted (guess we got the results wrong huh?)

Probably this means its tome to move on. If anyone wants to continue a good fight without having it all removed, feel free to come and find me in my own site New Century China Forum

Adios

quote:

Originally posted by Sampanviking:
It has been refreshing to come here and find so many equally sceptical people and that so many of them are prepared to stand their ground and not be brow beaten by the concensus machine and its acolytes...

You'd gain a lot by picking up a copy of the current issue of New Scientist and reading the editorial. See part of it (unless a subscriber, then you can see it all) at http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg193...climate-science.html

As it points out, the denial-of-reality crap that the climate "sceptics" come out with is damaging science.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
As opposed to Al Gore, Arnold Swartzeniger, Tony Blair, George Monbiot, Mike Hulme, Richard Branson and the Hockey Stick team.

Ah yes, that old truthmonger, Tony Blair. Everything he says is right. Dodgy dossier anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:
As it points out, the denial-of-reality crap that the climate "sceptics" come out with is damaging science.

Surely you mean "the denial-of-scepticism crap that the climate "scientists" come out with is damaging reality"?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteL:
Ah yes, that old truthmonger, Tony Blair. Everything he says is right. Dodgy dossier anyone?

Ahh yes Blair's dodgy dossier on WMD... that'll be the IPCC Report on the Weather of Mass Destruction?

In the future, everyone will be dead in 75 minutes. (apologies to Warhol).

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:
As it points out, the denial-of-reality crap that the climate "sceptics" come out with is damaging science.

Surely you mean "the denial-of-scepticism crap that the climate "scientists" come out with is damaging reality"?

No I don't actually.