How do I know what鈥檚 true and what鈥檚 false about climate change?

I am sure that there are an awful lot of false and grandiose claims made about climate change by those who insists we are doomed and, on the other side, by those who shrug their shoulders and say that there is nothing to worry about.





I work full time and I don鈥檛 have the energy to undertake formal studies to educate myself to a degree that would allow me to understand the scientific issues in question.





Where would I start reading about the subject in a reasonably impartial way?How do I know what鈥檚 true and what鈥檚 false about climate change?
Yes, it can be a minefield trying to pick out the facts from the nonsense. A good starting point would be these two sites that offer a starting guide for the layman and also discuss some of the counter arguments that you often see thrown around:





http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11鈥?/a>





http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechang鈥?/a>





Another good site to read regularly is this:





http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/





After reading the Climate Debate Daily site for a while, you'll start to pick out what are the reliable and informative sources, based on real quality scientific research that has been peer-reviewed.How do I know what鈥檚 true and what鈥檚 false about climate change?
Where would I start reading about the subject in a reasonably impartial way?





Here is a reasonably impartial background on the subject @ http://www.freeuknetwork.co.uk/Thoughts_鈥?/a>
I have a very helpful website for you...
Like you I found most arguments on the subject fuelled either by dogma or self interest, so I decided to ignore them and think for myself.





As I do not pretend to understand the science of it all, I had to confine my thinking to very simple facts.





The Earth evolved over millions of years to a level that could sustain life as we know it.





Energy from the sun comes into the atmosphere as radiation which is stored in trees and vegetation and also escapes back into space. The equilibrium thus reached was suitable for the climate that encouraged the life we are familiar with.





There were extreme changes to the climate in the past due to unforeseen influences, like volcanoes and asteroids. Whole species were wiped out during these catastrophes. Nevertheless the climate would again stabilise and life would continue to evolve.





And then came humans, and they are clever and became civilised, and found that they did not have to confine themselves to the incident radiation from the sun, but they could utilise the energy stored over many years, in forests and fossil fuels.





One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the equilibrium that existed before humans, has now been upset by human activity. The atmosphere is now heated not only by the sun but also by the humans that live in it. So a new equilibrium will have to be reached, and that means a warmer climate.





As all energy will eventually turn to heat, I am not certain that global warming can be averted by switching to nuclear just because it is cleaner. The question is how much energy can we humans release into the atmosphere, in addition to solar radiation, without appreciably raising its temperature.





So in my opinion, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels altogether and used only renewable energy, the climate will take a long time to recover. But I am not an expert on these things, and you will have to form your own opinion. Good Luck.
I don't think you will find any truly impartial comments about global warming.





Most views against global warming are supported by companies with a vested interest in selling their products, which happen to produce the gases believed to be causing climate change.





There was a documentary in 2007 that aimed to show the 'myth' of climate change. However, this programme was debunked by nearly all scientists involved in monitoring climate change.





The facts however do seem to speak for themselves. Mean temperatures rising, ice caps melting and an increase in gases causing climate change (CO2, methane etc) outside of what would be expected if we were not producing these gases.





One of the arguments used against pro-climate change is that it is a conspiracy to stop poorer nations from catching up with richer countries. True if places like India and China reach the same stage as the USA or Europe there will be tremendous pressure on the climate. But it is the poorer countries that will suffer from increased drought and flooding.





The other myth is that the temperature will get warmer. If left unchecked the temperature will drop as energy will be re-distributed around the globe. A common theory is that if the Greenland IceCap melts (and it is melting), the freshwater entering the sea will disrupt the North Atlantic Drift which transports warmer currents up north.





We know that man has an impact on the climate. For example the Smog that killed people in London in the 1800's. This was solved by transporting the pollution causing the smog away from the city, by building taller chimney's. CFC gases causing a hole in the ozone layer. When this gas was reduced the hole shrunk.





Here is what we do know;


Large storms have increased.


Flooding is on the rise (pardon the pun)


Droughts are increasing, desserts are growing.


Species of animals from warmer climates migrating north, while species found in colder climates are reducing in numbers.


Species sensitive to climate change are dying out.


Man made gases are increasing in the atmosphere


Methane increase due to large numbers of farm animals being kept.


Reducing the amount of greenhouse gases will reduce the effect these gases have on the environment.


A rise in respiratory diseases.





The best way of thinking about it is like having a cigarette. You have heard that you might get lung cancer smoking. This is what the evidence points to. However you might not.





There is also a chance that you will visit your doctor and he will clear his throat and ask you to sit down as he has some very bad news.


(If anyone knows who said this first please tell me, its in a book somewhere).





Where do you want to be? In a position to change and reduce the risk? Or, sitting in front of a doctor wondering what the future will be now?





I have put on some links that have some facts. Books by the Earth Policy Reader and Earthscan are also quite formative.