Is there any anti-global warming material that doesn't sound like paranoid ravings?

It's a genuine question as I'm finding it hard to separate the argument from the people making it, which obviously isn't the best way to get the truth. (I mean there's plenty of stuff written by people I fundamentally agree with on subjects like Free Software that comes across as a bit woolly and sensationalist.)

Is there some beginners guide for those that are interested and intelligent, but not already invested in one "side", that just lays out the basic issues and links to relevant sources?

Well, the debate is very shrill, so it's probably hard to find someone who's not invested in some sort in one side.

But "The Skeptics Handbook" is very sober and seems separated from the author: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

I don't know about sober (there's quite a lot of emphasis used, underlines and italics that makes it seem a bit shouty), but it certainly lays out some kind of coherent argument.

On first reading though I'm struck by an extreme level of nit-picking that almost strikes me as anti-science, but accompanied by cheerful acceptance of any scientific theory that supports her position.

For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and other basic tools of science?

If you need that kind of certainty to believe anything then I'm guessing your looking for truthiness rather than the truth.

Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

Well, sober or not, I felt it pretty thoroughly laid out the argument for the sceptic position.

> For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and other basic tools of science?

I didn't understand that? I don't recall theories being demolished for doing those thing?

> Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

There is some satellite data going back around 30 years that doesn't register any statistically significant warming. Obviously, there are some other that does, and "Climategate" and "hide the decline" seems to be about this. I'm not qualified to evaluate the arguments about which datasets can be processed how or left out or given different weights, but there's a lot of language in those e-mail that you wouldn't expect to hear from someone confident in the completeness and soundness of their own argument.

Actually, I'm mostly interested in the politics, more than the science. IPCC is a political body disguised as objective science, and quite frankly, that should piss of all scientists, whether or not they agree with the conclusion. The politics-disguised-as-science is then being used to push a very expensive and very ineffective agenda, and that should piss off the rest of us.

This is an excellent talk, that might provide some insight: http://web.mit.edu/esi/symposia/symposium-2009/wunsch.html

I see two possible interpretations of this article:

1. It's 100% accurate, balanced and fair portrait of what happened. In which case the scientists have pretty much failed. I mean, I knew about the medieval warm period already and if you didn't, you do now.

2. It's in some way exaggerated or alarmist and is an example of traditional media running a "the dangers of Wikipedia's model" story that they seem to enjoy doing whenever they can.

Either way, I'm not worried.

I still fail to see how any political victory for or against climate change research is going to change actual reality. Should climate change naysayers win their political fight even as the Earth continues to warm, the victory seems hollow at best.

I think your missing the big picture.

1. No one denies that the climate changes.

2. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming.

The argument is over what should be done.

1. Most people agree that if the earth is warming on it's own, not as a result of human activity, then we should let it warm until we actually understand what's going on. Geo-engineering should not be attempted.

2. If the warming is due to man then should we embark on geo-engineering? Is the warming so catastrophic that something will need to be done, before we truly understand what is going on.

All of the current AGW proponents are arguing for taking extreme action now. To convince people that this is necessary it appears that they are overstating their case and actively trying to silence those who disagree.

The extreme actions that they want people to take will have significant negative effects, as limited resources will be put to their actions instead of other uses (for instance treating malaria, studying new diseases, etc). So the political fight will result in lives saved/lost -- which means we need to be able to make the correct choices.

There is a big difference between attempting geoengineering and trying to reduce carbon emissions. Don't conflate the two.

I'm pretty suspicious of geoengineering with its promises of "we don't have to change our habits, we can just funnel a lot of money into government contractors to dump stuff into the atmosphere".

Now assuming climate change is indeed man-made:

The great thing about reducing our emissions is that we know we won't screw up the planet worse by doing so.

The problem with reducing or "greening" our economic activities is that there are people who stand to lose a great deal from it, even if the majority would profit. Geoengineering is being sold as an alternative that would mean more economic activity (and hence more profit).

As for our limited resources, we currently spend far more of them on cheap trinkets from China, bailouts, bonuses and pork than we do on anything like malaria.

I'm pretty suspicious of the sudden flare of "global warming is a lie / is not man-made" stuff that's come up conveniently at the same time as the Copenhagen conference. Lots of people with lots of money stand a lot to lose, and those kind of people tend to employ PR firms that aren't above a bit of astroturfing.

Even so, it is of course possible that climate change is misunderstood and that reducing carbon emissions won't help. But I don't think I want to do a wager on the whole planet.

What are these extreme actions though? Are you saying that it's a bad idea to do things like focus our attentions on more renewable forms of energy? Even if there is no Global Warming whatsoever the idea that 'Texas Tea' will gush forth from the Earth until the Sun engulfs the Earth is a bit 'out there' to say the least. I don't even care if you believe that 'peak oil' is still 200 years off. The idea that we should greedily waste as much oil as we can, procrastinating on looking for alternative energy sources is juvenile at best.

If you think this debate is about oil you are very wrong.

Oil is a transportation fuel, we can find away around that, maybe expensive, but its solvable.

This is about coal and natural gas. Much of the industrialized world runs on those. Start to strangle those off and you raise the cost of absolutely everything.

Raising the cost of everything == making everybody poorer. Millions of people live on the edge now and would start to drop off.

> Oil is a transportation fuel, we can find away around that, maybe expensive, but its solvable.

Wouldn't raising transportation costs "raise the cost of everything" too?

"1. No one denies that the climate changes.

2. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming."

This article seems to do just that, by implication if not by outright statement. If they're saying that the Medieval Warm Period has to be treated as a global phenomenon rather than a localised effect, then they're basically insisting that no change has happened.

I don't think they are arguing the first point, or really the second part. It is my interpretation, which could be wrong, that they are saying that world was warmer in the past and so warming isn't necessarily cataclysmic.

On your second point, I think some people would characterise the current situation as aggressive geo-engineering rather than doing nothing.

I don't think there's any such thing as "avoiding any action until we know what's going on".

Are you saying while burried under a mountain of snow?

Depends on their location I would presume.