rationalskepticism.org

JB has lost just about any respect he might have had by continuing his completely hopeless denial of AGW.
It taints any other "campaigns" he undertakes that are rational based.

If he argued "policy" to deal with AGW and what risks are near term and what risks are long term.....then maybe he would earn some cred back.

Right now he's as blinkered as any anti-evo, anti-vax, wooster. Too bad.

Educational resources

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path20 ... _13_07.htm

The Arctic Yearly report - multi-disciplinary - multi-national
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Getting started from the top climate scientists - many links
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/

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

How bad could it be... these are the long term consequences and in my view by the turn of the century we will see a substantial portion of this come true - I do not see us dodging 4 degrees C and we will have altered the climate for even the long term future with no recourse.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 1-billion/

Monaco declaration > this one could be the real killer in the long term tho there is some evidence the biome in the ocean is coping to a degree.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

MITs updated assessment - risk assessment done properly.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases... ... 134843.htm


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 since this is the Deniers thread - the smoking gun that they knew the score and still persisted in funding disinformation.

The Deniers
http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.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