are there any websites that throw doubt on the theory of Global warming?

Question

are there any websites that throw doubt on the theory of Global warming?

Answer 1

There are many good websites. You should probably start with an unbiased explanation of ice ages at:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml



Yes, believe it or not, we are CURRENTLY in an ice age, in a small period of time called an "interglacial epoch" where glaciers have receded and things are a bit warmer.



We have been warming out of a major ice age glaciation from 10,000 years ago, and warming up from a "little ice age" going back several hundred years.



The odds we will head back to extensive glaciation, and the end of civilization as we know it, is quite high. That is why it was such a popular climate end-of-the-world scenario years ago, the geologic evidence is overwhelming.



(Unfortunately, you can't blame mankind for glaciations, so worry warts have to come up with something else.)





Other skeptical websites include:



http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html



http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html





The site below explains the problem with accuracy and precision of experimental numbers in general, and an average global temperature in particular:



http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm





The main problem with blaming mankind for global warming, is that current climate is within normal variances seen in the past. So the contribution to current climate, if any, from mankind is not known.



The most abundant and important greenhouse gas is water vapor. This should be a positive feedback, and eventually evaporate the oceans, but it doesn't. Clouds reflect sunlight and provide a negative feedback.



When you discover that climate models don't model water vapor and clouds, you begin to look more closely at all the global warming claims a bit more skeptically, and eventually conclude they are for the most part complete nonsense.

Answer 2

nicely, as noted, this got here from a conservative weblog. Secondly, the scientist who's maximum quoted as pointing out this learn as sounding the dying knell for human prompted worldwide warming is an astronomer. no longer a climatologist or absolutely everyone you will think of could have understanding in the sector. Then they quote a physicist and a meteorologist. The meteorologist may be the wonderful one to your part, yet your community weatherman is likewise a meteorologist, so who is conscious how substantial this one is? Now, I went and consider the actually paper. no longer being a scientist, i could no longer make numerous it. yet relatively if it stated what you're claiming, that should be there. Oddly adequate, it wasn't. right here is what became into in the paper: "the better end of this selection strategies the edge for "risky anthropogenic interference with the climate gadget."" Why could that be lined in a paper that became into making the element that there is no info for human activity contributing to climate exchange? in basic terms placed, it does no longer be. The paper would not say what this weblog claims. I accompanied many of the links in the weblog, and so as that they do no longer help his place, they are extremely links to his different blogs. There are no longer the different citations to look-reviewed papers helping this declare. enable's settle for it, the technology isn't on your part, and your part has yet to come again up with a sturdy clarification for why scientists could be biased. that they had get funded the two way, so why could all of them be on one part? in the event that they cared approximately exposure and attractiveness, they does no longer are transforming into climatologists in the 1st place. Sorry, yet you have extremely have been given no longer something to help your ideals.

Answer 3

Here is a good lecture:

http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.php?StreamID=536



This is a good site with graphs that tries to explain why there is a better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 and temperatures.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf



These sites show evidence that the U.N. report on climate change is political and biased:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/001177chris_landsea_on_new.html

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0



Here are some web portals:

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/



If you are interested in a more technical side:

www.junkscience.com



This is a site on how global warming theorists criminally tried to rewrite history by eliminating the medieval warm period and little ice age.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm



http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

Answer 4

Yes, but there are none run by any credible scientists or institutes. All of the arguments you'll see on them have almost certainly been refuted before by climatologists.



If you want a site with a good, balanced look at climate science, try realclimate.org

Answer 5

Nah. There're a few out there spreading disinformation and propaganda, but since very, very few scientists reject theory there aren't really many credible sites out there.



That said, here are a few to *remove* any doubt you may have about the theory:



http://realclimate.org/



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html



http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/



http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change-Reference/dp/1843537117



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/



http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm



Now, I don't expect you or anyone else in this thread to actually, you know, *read* an of these. But bear in mind that these sites fully refute every single argument the contrarians have or will post in this thread. Check them out and see if you don't believe me.

Answer 6

The trouble with you is you want to stay in lala land.You refuse to realize posibilities and keep your head buried in sand.You just wait and see.It would be a very damaging thing for people to think of websites that doubt theories of global heating.

Answer 7

try anti global warming you could try Peter Talley from Motueka New Zealand

Answer 8

Try Exxon's website

Answer 9

watch,learn



join the heresy



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&hl=en

Answer 10

Yes, there are many. They are generally bought and paid for by the oil companies (see article in source list below).



Sea levels are already rising. In Australia, we've been having a drought for 6 years. Our fruit and vegetable prices have doubled over the last few months. Just because where YOU live you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean the rest of the world is not already suffering.



It may be our fault and it may not be our fault. Either way it IS happening now, and we can sit here with our fingers up our butts like all was normal, or, we can try to save ourselves.



When the Earth is dying, it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong--we just have to start behaving better so we can last as long as we can.



People are like a virus on the Earth. Now that there are so many of us, the Earth's immune system is fighting back.

Answer 11

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/