Research papers on global warming debate?

If your topic is global warming per se, you'll be disappointed to find that climate research has overwhelmingly supported the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis since it gained broad acceptance in the 1970s to 1980s. The science since then would make for a rather dull paper, mostly refining models and quantifying impacts. You'd have to dig into very old or very dodgy sources to find claims challenging the hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Have you considered going meta? A paper about the climate debate itself, rather than the science underlying the debate, may pose more interesting questions. What do climate scientists actually agree and disagree about? Have climate scientists erred more often on the alarmist side or on the conservative side? Is the science accurately portrayed in the media? Does the public overestimate or underestimate the amount of uncertainty in climate science?

Sociologists, science historians, and climate researchers are already considering questions just like these. See below for some scholarly books as well as peer-reviewed research trying to answer them.

Jo Nova's skeptics handbook would make a good primer on the skepticism of man made global warming. Unfortunately her site is down for maintenance and I'm not sure when it is scheduled back up.

Global warming is just a story made up by politicians to scare people and earn themselves a lot of money. There's no such thing as man-made global warming, just normal temperature variations which have happened before at more larger scale and are mainly due to the Sun's activity.

There were formal hearings in Congress about this somewhere from 2001-2008. Both sides have argued publicly. In a case study in Greenland, huge spires of ice were taken from deep in the earth to measure changes. Both viewpoints were offered in a poli-sci textbook called 'You Decide!' Climate change is a marketing mechanism.

See link below. It has everything and more than you will care to know, neatly laid out EXACTLY for the kind of research paper you are writing. It couldn't be more convenient or more appropriate to the need.

there is little debate in the science side. you may want to broaden your readings into peer reviewed political or economic papers- that's where the debate is going on..

These should get you started

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_ch...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/10031...

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/bibliography/ (this may work best if at a university library)

http://www.pnas.org/

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-dynamics-and-pred...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextreme...

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/#search:basic/query=global... (university library may give access)

The whole purpose of AGW/ACC is to “redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.” (their words not mine)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11...

Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

(EDENHOFER): …………….”But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”

Promoting the whole AGW/ACC is a political ideological issue, and nothing to do with science. It is part of a concerted effort for gaining total political control over society and the economy, and to take over all resources and eventually private properties.

These are a few statements that are legally binding for the countries that surrender their rights to the United Nations Conference Of Parties (COP). Segments of the expose are shown below, and an expanded expose is at link provided in sources:

Page 18, #38 (a)

" The government will be ruled by the COP"

For a One World Government totalitarian dictator rule. (their words not mine – see communist objectives #11 below)

Page 87, #77

"A separate pool of funding to finance national coordinating bodies through a direct line item in the secretariat’s budget shall be established. Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification."

The UN COP will have total authority and not be accountable to anyone for the money.

Page 39, #32

"Funds will be under the control of the COP as the supreme authority of the Convention."

It is all about a One World Government (their words not mine – see communist objectives #11 below)

Page 45, {#46}

(k) Clarifying and securing land tenure and planning – i.e. allocation, ownership and control over lands and resources;

Yes, they will have legal rights over your properties and public properties as well as all resources - oil, natural gas, coal, woodlands, water, and everything else.

Page 7, #3

"a major obstacle to efforts to promote [sustainable] economic and social development [and to [reduce] poverty] [eradication] [promote poverty aliviation,] [which are the first and overriding priorities of all developing countries]."

If it about AGW, why is poverty eradication the primary and overriding priority????

How we know what their intent is, is through a congressional hearing in 1963 and recent publications on Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Fascist web sites.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record

Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

The United Nations is the means by which the whole AGW/ACC issue is promoted, for giving the UN totalitarian dictator rule over all countries that sign the Copenhagen Treaty using AGW/ACC as the excuse (in their own words, not mine). 26 countries have already signed and surrendered all rights to the UN through the Copenhagen Treaty. These are the EU countries that are now bankrupt and failing because of the imposed laws by the UN.

Whether anyone understands or accepts this or not, this is why AGW/ACC actually exists as an issue. It is a purely politically invented issue.

Also try more than 31,000 scientists at http://www.petitionproject.org/

It should take you quite a while to go through this: http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php