I would like to know where I can read and research articles and scientific data without the data being skewed one way or the other.
There are countless sites on either side of the argument regarding human effects on global climate trends. Unfortunately, most of these sites seem to offer lofty and impressive data as "proof" of their position being the correct one. Where can one go to legitimately look up data without the arrogance of righteousness clouding the findings.
Use unbiased scientific organizations like NASA, NOAA, NAS, etc. Some links provided below.
Use unbiased scientific organizations like NASA, NOAA, NAS, etc. Some links provided below.
References :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
If anybody who answers you is being completely honest. All people have biases. Hopefully some are better at putting their biases aside, but our experiences with others shape who we are. They are also responsible for how biases get formed.
I am sure it is impossible to find any source that has not been effected in one way or another by the "human" nature of the issue on some level.
References :
I agree with beam. Every chart can be made to tell a different story by manipulating the data and the scale, for example, most climate charts show a range of just a few degrees making a tiny change look like a massive one.
Most of the "unbiased" sources that are cited rely on government funding so they’re anything but unbiased.
EDIT: Look at all these thumbs down! The same people who protest against the government at every opportunity cite URLs that end with ".GOV" – or to a lesser extent universities & NASA which in no way rely on government funding…..
References :
Start with the IPCC. If you want to get serious, you could start reading the scores of studies that went into that. If you want an abreviated form, go to the library and see the August 2007 issue of Scientific American. From there you’ll understand the background and can better start updating yourself on the research issued in the last couple of years.
You could also subscribe to a journal such as Nature and read the studies as they are released, if you can digest them.
There are not countless sites on either side. Just avoid the blogs. Once you eliminate political blogs you’ll find there are a very manageable number of educational sites.
References :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
I would suggest researching sources on all sides of the topic. As others have already noted, the almighty buck can definitely affect the outcome of a ‘study’ (government research grants for eg.).
Blogs can be a good source of links to more formal data sources.
References :
Because it is a political pogrom you will have politicians supporting it and citizens defending themselves from being oppressed by it. No one has yet to this date provided anything but low grade media hype in its favor and every single attempt to make a scientific case for it has been easily show to be derived from falsifications of very low grade quasi science or science fantasy on the level of Transformers.
References :
Here are some important data sources for you to start working with. They are all authoritative and updated regularly (most are monthly).
Atmospheric CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Global Temperature
Hadley
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
University of Alabama, Huntsville
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
RSS
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
Global Sea Surface Temperature
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Global Sea Level
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt
Arctic ice area
http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Antarctic ice area
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent.png
Worldwide weather station data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
References :
Global warming is caused by the Sun.
References :
Email Dana
References :
Do you want articles that only support YOUR beliefs because that’s NOT research.
Science does not support the global warming hoax. We have time. Study the problem from both sides – if you don’t believe me, ask the guys who signed this petition:
Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
References :
beaver
To Dana’s list I would add
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
As for the petition of 31000, don’t waste your time it’s a con with medical doctors and dentists it is about as relevant as seeking the opinion of milkmen and pastry chefs.
And then there’s James E answer which seems to be in a universe of it’s own, as usual.
Much of the nonsense deniers like James post on the subject is covered here.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
although they haven’t bothered with his pet theory that it’s a global conspiracy being run by Dow Corning, I suspect that is because James is the only person on this planet that has heard of this theory.
References :