Credibility of co2science.org?
I am currently working on a debate and have to be ready to cover both sides of the global warming issue. I was curious about your thoughts of http://www.co2science.org/? It is difficult to find credible information on the non-AGW side that isn't politically driven and conspiracy-laden or from a blog or WorldNetDaily.
Thanks to all who answered this (my) question 9 months ago, some great sites were listed and are really helping me now, so know that I do have other sources http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmIGx...
- DavidLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
That talks about their funding, you can decide for yourself if you want to trust them or not.
Personally if I were you I would stick with arguing in favor of a single alternative scientific theory that can explain the warming we've had. Stay away from urban heat island and solar output as they're easily disproven.
Things which are a bit more difficult for the average--even knowledgeable--person to refute would be like Roy Spencer's PDO/cloud theory:
William Gray's theory that it is caused by changes in the Atlantic ocean currents:
Or Svensmark and others' galactic cosmic ray theory:
...of course, don't mention every argument or else you'll look stupid. Arguing that three different, completely unrelated things are each causing 100% of the global warming we have experienced just doesn't add up, and will make your argument quite weak when viewed against your opponent who is only offering one explanation--an explanation which is supported by many thousands of scientists, compared to the handful (1?) that are proponents of the 3 above.
Learning as much as you can about one of them though should make you able to quote a lot of things that your opponent will, probably, have no idea how to refute.
- Jose BosingwaLv 51 decade ago
Climate Audit is a good start - winner of Science Blog of the Year 2007
- Anonymous1 decade ago
This is one of probably 60 or so great sources of factual information on why the general overall climate has warmed up about .7 degree centigrade since 1850. Through 50 years and more of study I have found probably 40 clear causes of a warming climate and Co2 is not one of them. major items are listed in order of importance and effect on the climate or apparent climate.
Sun spot activity is #1
Shifts in ocean currents from geologic activities
Heat island effect of large urban regions
Swimming pools and urban water features
There are hundreds more actual and potential contributors but their contributions are minimal in effect.
What the real scientists realize is the major items are uncontrollable and so they look for ways to del with the natural climate shifts as we have done since man first dropped down from the trees and began chasing his prey across the open grass lands. Those with religious convictions of original sin however will blame man and his works because their god could not allow such inconveniences to his faithful followers. so there answer is to destroy all the advancements of the last couple of century's and go back to the natural way of living of the middle ages.
The only one of the 5 major contributors that man can have any real possible effect on curing is tropical deforestation and they do not want that because they are profiting so much from it with their sugar and oil palm plantations.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
They list a lot of good information though their requests for funds get old. Dawai is a typical alarmist (well he is actually among the better ones) but he seems to feel he needs an explanation for warming. If he can't find it than by golly he is going to blame it on human emissions of CO2. It doesn't seem to matter that the science has fairly well proven that CO2 didn't drive the climate in the past (beyond a any reasonable doubt) and there is very little reason to suspend all physical laws and geologic history just because it is inconvenient for you.
- antarcticiceLv 71 decade ago
These sort of sites (icecap is anoth sound reasonable) till you start to look a bit deeper at the people who run them in the case of co2science
Chaiman - CRAIG D. IDSO
President - SHERWOOD B. IDSO
Vice President - KEITH E. IDSO
Operations Manager JULENE M. IDSO
These sites seem to follow a formula like the OISM site run by dad with the kids helping out keeping it in the family with a group of long retied experts as scientific consultants in this case Donald G. Baker who by the sites own description qualified in 1949 and retired in 1995 (14 years ago)
Or WILLIAM E. REIFSNYDER
Who seems even older having first qualified in 1944
I would view any site that claims to be scientific but uses the phrase "alarmist global warming propaganda" near the top of the main page as not even trying to hide their bias, and a total waste of time.