Global Warming Knowledge

02/05/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

When it comes to the discussion of climate science, Huffington Post began the New Year with a bang meriting diatribes and dissection as a case study in global warming denier truthiness. While Harold Ambler's Mr Gore: Apology Accepted merits a solid 100 on The Inhofe Scale for its deception, perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion. Here are some thoughts about places to go for Global Warming / Climate Change information and discussion:

Real Climate: A source to studied and footnoted discussions of significant climate issues, with substantive examination (and, most frequently, substantive rebuttal) of "denier" and "skeptic" work. Heavily scientific but accessible to a broader audience.

Climate.ORG provides a very useful set of annotated links to top soruces on key aspects of climate science.

Grist: How to talk to a Skeptic: This useful compendium provides facts and responses to many "standard" global warming skeptic truthiness statements. These have many links to the science reporting and data that demonstrate the 'truthiness' behind the skeptics' statements. (See Climate Denial for discussions of "the psychology of climate change denial" And, DeSmogBlog, which could be "de place for Global Warming De-nial de-construction and de-molition". And, here is a pdf version of the UK Royal Society's "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change".)

Good 'learn more' sites include:

  • NRDC: Global Warming 101
  • US House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
  • Please feel free to make suggestions in the comments and worthwhile sites for knowledge (and not deception) about global warming and climate change science and discussion will be added to this list.

    NOTE: For a discussion of Ambler's misleading post, see: HuffPost scores a 10 on the Inhofe Scale. See, as well, Ambler huffs and puffs, but mostly he just blows for a fact-filled refutation of many of Ambler's points.