Climate Blogs That Don’t Necessarily Accept “The Consensus”

Via Tom Nelson and Climate Debate Daily

William M. Briggs
Climate Audit
Climate Change Facts
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Police
Climate Resistance
Climate Scam
Climate Science
CO2 Science
Friends of Science
Global Climate Scam
Global Warming Heretic
Global Warming Hoax
Global Warming Skeptic
GlobalWarming.org
Greenie Watch
Bruce Hall
Warwick Hughes
Lucia Liljegren
Jennifer Marohasy
Warren Meyer
Maurizio Morabito
Luboš Motl
Tom Nelson
Newsbusters climate
Planet Gore
Roger Pielke Sr.
Fred Singer
David Stockwell
Philip Stott
Anthony Watts
World Climate Report

  • Mark Breen

    A wonderful website that also does not buy the “consensus”, and features a number of different aspects of the discussion, is ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, led by Joseph D’Aleo, an extra-ordinary meteorologist. The URL is: http://icecap.us/

    (Sorry I don’t know how to make it a hyper-link)

  • Ross Nixon

    I second that. IceCap is a *must* read site. New articles are not always at the top. Check half way down the page as well.

  • http://gorelied.blogspot.com Klockarman

    Agreed, Icecap is a must. And if you don’t mind me tooting my own horn, check out – GORE LIED. http://gorelied.blogspot.com

  • An Inquirer

    Yes, I find Joseph D’Aleo to be an excellent source for insights both about weather and climate. However, I wonder if anyone can help me understand a July 10 post of his on aerosols. He discusses recent studies that reveal decreases in aerosols to have a warming effect. For example:
    “The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years,” says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland’s national weather service.

    That makes sense to me. However, Joseph D’Aleo goes on to say, “Ironically the climate models assumed aerosols cooled the earth and created the cooling from the 1940s to 1970s. Now it appears that was wrong.” This does not make sense to me. If the disappearance of aerosols caused warmer temperatures, then their appearance should lead to cooler temperatures. (I recognize that there is great difficulty & controversy in getting aerosol measures 60 years ago, but this paragraph is about direction, not preciseness.) In fact, we have noticed warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemispere, and that is where aerosols would have shown the greatest decline from the seventies to the the 21st century.

  • Leon Brozyna

    A study done over the Indian Ocean to assess the impact of the aerosols drifting down from the Indian subcontinent came up with what appears to be a counterintuitive result. They found that the pollution was resulting in warming rather than the expected cooling. This appears to be a regional effect. This suggests that even with something as simple as aerosols a great deal more study is needed to determine how and why they impact climate. The Indian study suggested that the aerosols impacted cloud formation and water droplet formation in the clouds. This just demonstrates that understanding the mechanisms affecting climate are far more complex than AGW proponents would have us believe. Perhaps the aerosols that were in the atmosphere in the Northern Hemisphere from 1940 to 1970 actually lessened the cooling that occurred and their removal happened just at the time that the climate again started to warm due to increased solar activity. The problem with AGW theory is that it treats the climate system as existing almost in a steady state and any warming the happens is a result of increases in a minor trace gas {CO2}. We’ve still got a very long way to go.

  • http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming Alan Cheetham

    Also see this global warming science site: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

  • http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/ jblethen

    Here’s another one: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/