rationalskepticism.org

This is an updated list of resources - please let me know if any are not working....

Background/history

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/ ... on-dioxide

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Carbon cycle
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

Current over view

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ ... sponsible/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/ ... -answered/

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/7_ways_ ... r_partner/

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpre...science_kw.pdf

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

and another good basics
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

Net mass loss of glaciers is a significant indicator as the energies involved are shocking in scale.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay, continued « The Way Things Break
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... continued/

Net mass loss in Greenland alone is 100cuKm annually and to put that in some perspective...it is a if the world is carpet bominb Greenland with 2000+ Hiroshima nuclear weapons a DAY!!
1 million a year in thermal equivalent to melt that much ice.

a variety of sources - the Arctic Report is very multidisciplinary - I like analog signals - hard to fool the critters

This one gives you a real overview of the strong signals from biota and cryosphere

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Getting started links and links to other info sources

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... ate-change

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/

Keeping up to date

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/

http://www.physorg.com/space-news/

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network

http://www.globalchange.gov/whats-new/news

Monaco declaration - the other threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm


•••••

The stance of the vast majority of the climate science community made by one of their own
•••••

where do I stand??.....in agreement with this

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

Links to Climate Change articles...115 pages from mainstream sources..

Here are the links to the threads from the dawkins science forum....all 115 pages of articles from main stream climate and science sources
From Nov 2006 to current

Most current 15 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News (Pt. 2)
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/74571-1.html

previous thread 100 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/2184-1.html

and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s..

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... .html?_r=2

and some coal companies acknowledge it

http://www.griffincoal.com.au/climatech ... nplan.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/prudent-path.html