The Global Warming Challenge

[SpidermanTUba]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"

[darin]

Why does it matter? You're creating this false dilemma of "Unless it's peer-reviewed it does not hold water". When the reality is, the 'peers' doing the reviewing matter a lot.

[SpidermanTUba]

Why does it matter? You're creating this false dilemma of "Unless it's peer-reviewed it does not hold water". When the reality is, the 'peers' doing the reviewing matter a lot.

Its not a "false dilemma", its the way science is done. The peers doing the reviewing are other scientists in the field. I suppose you would prefer that economists and petroleum engineers be the ones to review papers on the climate, but that's not the way its done.

[LiberalNation]

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas so it stands to reason more CO2 would meen a warmer earth. As for global warming, it's a sound theory I think. Some people hype it up and takes things to the extreme. Some people trumping the "cause" of global warming are hypocrits, "cough" "cough", Al Gore.

Don't have much of an opinion on it myself. The climates gona change whether we help it along or not and nothing I or anyone can do about it.

[SpidermanTUba]

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas so it stands to reason more CO2 would meen a warmer earth. As for global warming, it's a sound theory I think. Some people hype it up and takes things to the extreme. Some people trumping the "cause" of global warming are hypocrits, "cough" "cough", Al Gore.

Don't have much of an opinion on it myself. The climates gona change whether we help it along or not and nothing I or anyone can do about it.



I sort of expected that Al Gore's personal habits would come up long before anyone could produce a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming that anthropogenic global warming is wrong. I have no idea why I expected this, as people's personal habits clearly do not have any bearing on scientific truth. I guess I just had an intuitive feeling it would happen.

[LiberalNation]

I'm not finding any papers for ya and no reason not to comment on the Global warming guy who is leading the "cause" in the US.

[SpidermanTUba]

I'm not finding any papers for ya and no reason not to comment on the Global warming guy who is leading the "cause" in the US.

Yeah right, no reason, except of course that its completely irrelevant.

[LiberalNation]

It's not irrelevent to a debate on global warming. Or did you just want papers. That's not going to make a very interesting thread.

[SpidermanTUba]

It's not irrelevent to a debate on global warming. Or did you just want papers. That's not going to make a very interesting thread.

It is irrelevant to a debate on the scientific validity of global warming, which is what this thread is about.

[LiberalNation]

The top part of my paragraph was my view on the validity of it. As for this dream debate your wanting where people only bring up a small part of the debate like the validity of the claims. Good luck with that, not gona happen tho.

[PostmodernProphet]

This category includes people and organizations that have expressed skepticism regarding the mainstream scientific view that human activity is responsible for recent global warming, and have actively promoted this view.

Subcategories
There are 2 subcategories in this category, which are shown below. More may be shown on subsequent pages.

F
[+] Former global warming skeptics
[+] Former global warming supporters
Pages in category "Global warming skeptics"
There are 145 pages in this section of this category.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics

[Dilloduck]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"

so if someone comes up with one, what then ?

[PostmodernProphet]

Dr. Raj Baldev: To blame the human being in totality is not fair, since the scientists take Cosmic Rays as one of the main grounds for Global Warming, which in my opinion is not correct. To support my view I would like to draw the attention of the readers on one paper.

“ This was published in 2000 to Physics Review Letters, shedding light on the Hunacayo neutron monitor, which detected a heightened number of Cosmic Rays from regions that had low clouds, less than 3.2 km in altitude.

“The quantity of these Cosmic Rays depends on the intensity of the Solar Wind, just because the Earth's magnetosphere grows and shrinks on the varied strength of particles streaming from the Sun. Periods of warming appear to correlate with decreases in Cosmic Rays over the 20th century.

“In fact, when the cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere, especially with the low level clouds, they create ions of changeable strength and charge. These ions contribute to the configuration of dense clouds, block the Sun's rays and reduce the effect of hot temperatures,” Dr. Raj Baldev said.



http://internationalreporter.com/News-2365/Is-there-any-Link-Between-Cosmic-Rays-and-Global-Warming-.html


"I would like to mention about T. Sloan from the University of Lancaster and A.W. Wolfendale from Durham University, who are also not convinced with this reason that Cosmic Rays enhances the Global Warming.

"They, in fact, published their results in a new paper called Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. Their research will be presented at the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, held in Merida Mexico from July 3 - July 11, 2007,”



It has been claimed (Szensmark, 2007, and others) that observed correlations
of terrestrial cloud cover with 'the cosmic ray intensity' are casual. The
possibility arises, therefore of a connection between cosmic ray intensity and
Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great.
An examination of the situation is made.


http://indico.nucleares.unam.mx/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=1303&sessionId=80 &confId=4

[SpidermanTUba]

The top part of my paragraph was my view on the validity of it. As for this dream debate your wanting where people only bring up a small part of the debate like the validity of the claims. Good luck with that, not gona happen tho.

Uhh, the validity of the claims isn't a "small part" of the debate on the validity of global warming - it is the ENTIRE debate. You have stated your view without any evidence to back it up, if you wish to stand pat at that, then fine, but don't pretend that the brand of toilet paper that Al Gore wipes his ass with has anything to do with whether or not any scientific theory is correct.

[SpidermanTUba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics

Wikipedia = NOT a peer reviewed scientific paper.

[SpidermanTUba]

so if someone comes up with one, what then ?

Then I read it.


Still waiting...

[LiberalNation]

No but it does have to do with whether people accept it or not. When you make an issue political your gona get people who disagree with it for totally political reasons. When your big well known spokes man isn't credible it takes away from your power to convince people your side/claim is right.

Oh and I said global warming debate, not validity of global warming. You thread title starts with global warming and people are gona bring the whole debate.

[LiberalNation]

Then I read it.
So why would anyone want to luck up stuff for you to read again.

[SpidermanTUba]

So why would anyone want to luck up stuff for you to read again.

I had heard that there were a large contingent of scientists who have published papers which discredit anthropogenic global warming. I am on a quest to find at least one of those papers, as no one seems to want to reference one. All people want to do is bitch about Al Gore's SUV and reference magazine articles and occasionally journal articles which do not make any claim that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.


As a scientist in training I seek the truth, and if it is true that their is no scientific consensus for global warming, there would be abundant evidence of this in the scientific literature. I just need a little help finding it.

[SpidermanTUba]

http://internationalreporter.com/News-2365/Is-there-any-Link-Between-Cosmic-Rays-and-Global-Warming-.html





http://indico.nucleares.unam.mx/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=1303&sessionId=80 &confId=4



The paper in question, Marsh & Svensmark, Phys Rev Lett 85 (2000), 5004-7, does not make the claim that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. In order to satisfy the challenge to find a paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect, you must find a paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.


You have also posted a link to a news website, and a conference proceeding, neither of which constitute peer reviewed scientific papers.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wikipedia = NOT a peer reviewed scientific paper.


lol, tuba....I was not proposing that wiki was a scientific paper.....but, you see, it was a link to 145 pages of people who contest the claim that global warming is anthropological.....including a whole pile of scientific peers who have both published and reviewed scientific papers dealing with global warming and it's causes.....my followup post came from just one of those chosen at random from the alphabetical listing......you can find many more very easily.......

[PostmodernProphet]

You have also posted a link to a news website, and a conference proceeding, neither of which constitute peer reviewed scientific papers

well, tuba...we have a bit of a problem there.....I don't subscribe to any scientific journals and I don't intend to pay a subscription fee just to show that your claim is wrong.....the news website included an interview with a scientist who mentioned a scientific paper which would have been peer reviewed......in that interview he takes the position that the article, like himself, puts forward a cause for global warming which is not anthropological....you state that the paper does not make that claim....apparently you have the advantage of me, since you subscribe to the relevant journal and I do not.....perhaps then you could do me the favor of pasting a link to a readable version of the paper so I can verify whether you or the scientist are correct in the interpretation of the paper......

as far as a conference proceeding.....if the area of study of cosmic ray emissions parallels every other area of study, a paper submitted to a conference is in fact a paper subject to peer review, and a paper which will be published (as this converence just happened three weeks ago it obviously has not been published yet). Clearly from the synopsis, the paper puts forward the claim that the cause of global warming was NOT anthropological.....

[Abbey Marie]

In a climate (pardon the pun) where, IIRC, the head of the weather channel proposes firing anyone who doesn't adhere to current global warming theory, there may be a paucity of "peers" willing to publish an opposing theory.

Just a thought.

[Nukeman]

well, tuba...we have a bit of a problem there.....I don't subscribe to any scientific journals and I don't intend to pay a subscription fee just to show that your claim is wrong.....the news website included an interview with a scientist who mentioned a scientific paper which would have been peer reviewed......in that interview he takes the position that the article, like himself, puts forward a cause for global warming which is not anthropological....you state that the paper does not make that claim....apparently you have the advantage of me, since you subscribe to the relevant journal and I do not.....perhaps then you could do me the favor of pasting a link to a readable version of the paper so I can verify whether you or the scientist are correct in the interpretation of the paper......

as far as a conference proceeding.....if the area of study of cosmic ray emissions parallels every other area of study, a paper submitted to a conference is in fact a paper subject to peer review, and a paper which will be published (as this converence just happened three weeks ago it obviously has not been published yet). Clearly from the synopsis, the paper puts forward the claim that the cause of global warming was NOT anthropological.....Okay here's the problem... Your expecting a valid and coherent argument with spiderman tuba. He just likes to here his own ideas and thats it. What he is wanting you to do IS PAY SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO that way when you post the paper he can say what a hack sight it is even though the thoughts on "global warming" are starting to swing the other way he will never understand that....

[SpidermanTUba]

In a climate (pardon the pun) where, IIRC, the head of the weather channel proposes firing anyone who doesn't adhere to current global warming theory, there may be a paucity of "peers" willing to publish an opposing theory.

Just a thought.

Yeah, except you're ignoring the fact that 99.999% of all scientists actively involved in climate research do not work for the weather channel. To my knowledge, the Weather Channel doesn't even have an active research department. So you don't really have a point.

If I did the hiring and firing for the Weather Channel, and there was an employee who was claiming anthropogenic global warming wasn't correct, I would ask them to produce a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming that it isn't correct.

[SpidermanTUba]

Hey PostmodernProphet-

Here is a link to the paper in the Physical Review Letters

http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_2000_PDF.pdf


I found it on Svensmark's webpage. It claims a correlation between solar activity and cloud cover, but it doesn't make the leap to claiming that the sun is responsible for most of the recent warming.


Furthermore, there is much evidence that solar activity is NOT responsible for the recent warming. Particularly, the fact that solar acitivity was at its highest in recorded history in 1985, yet the Earth has continued to warm.






Here is a link to a recent paper

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

refuting the claim that recent warming is caused by the sun.

[diuretic]

Okay here's the problem... Your expecting a valid and coherent argument with spiderman tuba. He just likes to here his own ideas and thats it. What he is wanting you to do IS PAY SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO that way when you post the paper he can say what a hack sight it is even though the thoughts on "global warming" are starting to swing the other way he will never understand that....

Ad hom?

[bluestatesrule]

Never got a satisfactory repsonse from our friends in the conservative community to the allegations made by former Bush administration Surgeon General Richard Carmona to supress certain evidence which may contradict polices supported by the President and his supporters...and this supression included many other scientists that have stepped forward and reported the same thing....specifically about global warning. I have never heard of any prior administration doing this....not Republican or Democrat.....huh?

[Hagbard Celine]

I feel the need to stand up for Al Gore. I think the guy truly believes that the Earth is in the balance. The thing everybody fails to mention when they're railing against Gore for his large house, SUV, etc., is that he offsets it all. He lives a completely carbon-neutral lifestyle and he does it by planting trees, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, electronics, etc and by purchasing carbon offsets. The guy walks the walk so I'm tired of hearing all these dim-witted assaults on his character. Gore's a good guy.

[Hagbard Celine]

Why does it matter? You're creating this false dilemma of "Unless it's peer-reviewed it does not hold water". When the reality is, the 'peers' doing the reviewing matter a lot.

You're right, they do. That's why an article from a business like Exxon-Mobil isn't convincing when it comes to the subject of global warming. Exxon-Mobil has a lot to lose if fossil-fuels are the reason for global warming.

The real "false-dilemma" is the one right-wingers have with the scientists who claim global warming is real and that it's man-made. These guys don't have anything to gain from coming out against fossil fuels. Who do you think is going to pay them off, the tree-hugging hippies? Birkenstock? The ones I am suspicious of are the ones who come out on the side of Big Oil claiming there's nothing going on when the arctic glaciers are melting into the ocean around them.

[diuretic]

I feel the need to stand up for Al Gore. I think the guy truly believes that the Earth is in the balance. The thing everybody fails to mention when they're railing against Gore for his large house, SUV, etc., is that he offsets it all. He lives a completely carbon-neutral lifestyle and he does it by planting trees, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, electronics, etc and by purchasing carbon offsets. The guy walks the walk so I'm tired of hearing all these dim-witted assaults on his character. Gore's a good guy.

I agree, but get used to it, when they run out of talking points they resort to attacking the person.

[Gaffer]

I feel the need to stand up for Al Gore. I think the guy truly believes that the Earth is in the balance. The thing everybody fails to mention when they're railing against Gore for his large house, SUV, etc., is that he offsets it all. He lives a completely carbon-neutral lifestyle and he does it by planting trees, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, electronics, etc and by purchasing carbon offsets. The guy walks the walk so I'm tired of hearing all these dim-witted assaults on his character. Gore's a good guy.

I see. I can liter the street by throwing trash out the window of my car and offset it by giving money to a clean up the street group and posting no littering signs. Yeah nothing hypocritical about that.

There is no such thing as carbon-neutral. You either are producing carbon or your not. Planting a tree does not reduce your carbon emissions. gore is just setting up a way for him to make money from investors in his little scheme to play on the global warming issue.

[SpidermanTUba]

OK, we're at three pages now.


And still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.

[SpidermanTUba]

I see. I can liter the street by throwing trash out the window of my car and offset it by giving money to a clean up the street group and posting no littering signs. Yeah nothing hypocritical about that.

There is no such thing as carbon-neutral. You either are producing carbon or your not. Planting a tree does not reduce your carbon emissions. gore is just setting up a way for him to make money from investors in his little scheme to play on the global warming issue.

I find it interesting that this thread has decayed into an argument about peoples' personal lifestyles - yet no one has answered the challenge of citing a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. In fact, only one poster in three pages has even attempted to answer this challenge.

Why is that? Is science determined by people's personal habits, and not by the scientific method? What does Al Gore even have to do with the scientific question of global warming? He isn't a scientist, in the end his opinion is irrelevant.



Please now. A single scientific peer reviewed paper which claims anthropogenic warming to be incorrect.

[darin]

OK, we're at three pages now.


And still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.

Your threshold for proof is stupid. Maybe i should start a thread asking for a Peer-Reviewed paper claiming Santa is fake. Or, perhaps, a Peer-reviewed paper claiming BIGFOOT is a hoax. Yeah! There ya go! :)

:-/

[SpidermanTUba]

Your threshold for proof is stupid. Maybe i should start a thread asking for a Peer-Reviewed paper claiming Santa is fake. Or, perhaps, a Peer-reviewed paper claiming BIGFOOT is a hoax. Yeah! There ya go! :)

:-/


I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. And I don't see what Santa has to do with this. You seem to be babbling incoherent nonsense.

All I want is a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.

If you think none exists, then you can say so.

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah, except you're ignoring the fact that 99.999% of all scientists actively involved in climate research do not work for the weather channel. To my knowledge, the Weather Channel doesn't even have an active research department. So you don't really have a point.

If I did the hiring and firing for the Weather Channel, and there was an employee who was claiming anthropogenic global warming wasn't correct, I would ask them to produce a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming that it isn't correct.

Oh, I see, you are a literalist. Let's try it this way: the Weather Channel was a high-profile example of the pressure on scientists to conform to the current thinking on global warming. I am willing to bet that in the uber-liberal atmosphere of academia, the pressure to jump on the g.w. band-wagon is many times greater.

So, it looks like I do have a point.

[Abbey Marie]

I see. I can liter the street by throwing trash out the window of my car and offset it by giving money to a clean up the street group and posting no littering signs. Yeah nothing hypocritical about that.

There is no such thing as carbon-neutral. You either are producing carbon or your not. Planting a tree does not reduce your carbon emissions. gore is just setting up a way for him to make money from investors in his little scheme to play on the global warming issue.

It also would appear that being carbon-neutral is quite expensive. Why not forego the wealthy lifestyle in the first place and give that money to the poor, plant trees, etc.? Seems like a much more efficient and compassionate way of being less of an energy guzzler, than buying away your guilt over a very spoiled lifestyle. Call it offsets all they want, it's still "I GOT MINE". Very hypocritical.

[Hagbard Celine]

I see. I can liter the street by throwing trash out the window of my car and offset it by giving money to a clean up the street group and posting no littering signs. Yeah nothing hypocritical about that.

There is no such thing as carbon-neutral. You either are producing carbon or your not. Planting a tree does not reduce your carbon emissions. gore is just setting up a way for him to make money from investors in his little scheme to play on the global warming issue.

I disagree. Gore isn't "littering the streets." And there is such a thing as carbon neutral, you've just apparently decided to ignore it. Trees "breathe" carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen if you didn't know, so planting trees can in fact reduce or reverse the amount of carbon you expel by driving your car, leaving your a/c running, etc.

I've got to just laugh at the conspiracy theory you've revealed here. So let me get this straight: Gore concocted this whole debate so that he could get rich off people buying and planting trees? C'mon Gunny, you're starting to make me worry about your mental health.

[darin]

I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. And I don't see what Santa has to do with this. You seem to be babbling incoherent nonsense.

All I want is a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.

If you think none exists, then you can say so.

And I'd like a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming Santa is Fake. If none exists then you can just say so.

See? Your 'challenge' means nothing.

[diuretic]

And I'd like a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming Santa is Fake. If none exists then you can just say so.

See? Your 'challenge' means nothing.

:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

:laugh2:

Keep on lightening up the mood of the board. We need it! :clap:

[Gaffer]

I disagree. Gore isn't "littering the streets." And there is such a thing as carbon neutral, you've just apparently decided to ignore it. Trees "breathe" carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen if you didn't know, so planting trees can in fact reduce or reverse the amount of carbon you expel by driving your car, leaving your a/c running, etc.

I've got to just laugh at the conspiracy theory you've revealed here. So let me get this straight: Gore concocted this whole debate so that he could get rich off people buying and planting trees? C'mon Gunny, you're starting to make me worry about your mental health.

Yes trees give off oxygen, through their leaves, except at night and in the winter. Like I said throwing out trash on the road is acceptable as long as you adopt a highway. How many trees will it take to offset algores monthly use of just electricity?

There is no conspiracy. gore has a company that sells energy credits to people who waste a lot of energy and want to ease their conscience. All they have to do is invest in his little scam. If he truly believed in what he was preaching he would drastically change his life style. But its like expecting bin laden to strap on a suicide vest and blow up a market place. It ain't gonna happen.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes trees give off oxygen, through their leaves, except at night and in the winter. Like I said throwing out trash on the road is acceptable as long as you adopt a highway. How many trees will it take to offset algores monthly use of just electricity?

There is no conspiracy. gore has a company that sells energy credits to people who waste a lot of energy and want to ease their conscience. All they have to do is invest in his little scam. If he truly believed in what he was preaching he would drastically change his life style. But its like expecting bin laden to strap on a suicide vest and blow up a market place. It ain't gonna happen.

You're right, planting trees and spreading awareness about the environment is just like extreme Islam.

[theHawk]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.


I don't think there is really any serious way to either prove or disprove "anthropogenic" global warming. Leaving out the "anthropogenic", we already know that the Earth's temperature used to be much warmer than it is today, then went into an Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. Ever since then the Earth has been warming up. Since there is no dispute that the Earth has been naturally warming up for the last 10,000 years, there is virtually no way to tell the degree at which our pollution today is effecting the Earth. Even if it was, it might just be speeding up an already natural process. But so many factors determine the Earth's weather and temperature that in order to prove "anthropogenic global warming" you'd have to prove that all of those other factors are not increasing the global temperature, and that the small percentage increase of CO2 is increasing it.

[darin]

SANTA IS REAL!!!!

[diuretic]

SANTA IS REAL!!!!

I knew it! After all these years! I KNEW it! :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

Ad hom?
Yes and no!!! If you had spent any time at the other board you would maybe understand my reasoning for not taking the bait on his little antics.

Anthropogenic global warming has not been conclusively proven nor has it been disproven.

Personaly do I think we have an impact on the environment?? Hell yes!! Do I think we are the harbingers of our own climatic demise?? NO. Can we do things to help? Of course, any conservation is good.


Tuba is a tool that doesn't listen to any opposing view points, he is only interested in spewing his thoughts than he runs away for a few weeks than comes back and rants a little more...

Go to the other board and see how he post and you may understand some of our frustration wtih this individual....

[diuretic]

Can we do things to help? Of course, any conservation is good.

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues :coffee:

[Nukeman]

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues :coffee:I enjoy discussing with you!!! Your always willing to concede a point when it has been made. That sometimes takes a very big man to do. :cheers2:

Tuba is just such a tool I cant even begin to discribe him....

[diuretic]

Nah I was just born with a really big..........."reasonable" gene :laugh2:

I'd have preferred a really big...........ego, but t'weren't to be :coffee:

[SpidermanTUba]

Oh, I see, you are a literalist. Let's try it this way: the Weather Channel was a high-profile example of the pressure on scientists to conform to the current thinking on global warming. I am willing to bet that in the uber-liberal atmosphere of academia, the pressure to jump on the g.w. band-wagon is many times greater.

So, it looks like I do have a point.

If you're willing to bet that, then go ahead and do it, and then provide a single example of it happening in an actual research environment, not the environment of a for-profit media corporation. You haven't yet.

[SpidermanTUba]

And I'd like a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming Santa is Fake. If none exists then you can just say so.

See? Your 'challenge' means nothing.

It only means nothing if you assume there are no scientific papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. If that is your assumption, I find it strange that you feel you can make the claim that science says anthropogenic global warming is incorrect - when you can provide no actual examples of it saying that.

[SpidermanTUba]

I don't think there is really any serious way to either prove or disprove "anthropogenic" global warming. Leaving out the "anthropogenic", we already know that the Earth's temperature used to be much warmer than it is today, then went into an Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. Ever since then the Earth has been warming up. Since there is no dispute that the Earth has been naturally warming up for the last 10,000 years, there is virtually no way to tell the degree at which our pollution today is effecting the Earth. Even if it was, it might just be speeding up an already natural process. But so many factors determine the Earth's weather and temperature that in order to prove "anthropogenic global warming" you'd have to prove that all of those other factors are not increasing the global temperature, and that the small percentage increase of CO2 is increasing it.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.


And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it. Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


Is that really too much to ask?

[SpidermanTUba]

FOUR PAGES now....


and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


STILL WAITING.....


Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.

[PostmodernProphet]

yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.



Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1


In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[10]

A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[11] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[12]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[13][14] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[15]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#_note-7
all hail the politics of science journals......

[SpidermanTUba]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."



:lol: If Dr. Baliunas truly feels that way about the way science is done, then the fact that she has worked for numerous Exxon front organizations in the past should be enough to convince you she is biased.

[red states rule]

Never got a satisfactory repsonse from our friends in the conservative community to the allegations made by former Bush administration Surgeon General Richard Carmona to supress certain evidence which may contradict polices supported by the President and his supporters...and this supression included many other scientists that have stepped forward and reported the same thing....specifically about global warning. I have never heard of any prior administration doing this....not Republican or Democrat.....huh?

BRS - do not go on that diet you were talking about. You will add to the crisis of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!


Exercise Causes Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | August 8, 2007 - 14:07 ET
In the '80s, rock musician Joe Jackson published a song called "Everything Gives You Cancer."

Recent assertions by England's Green Party parliamentary candidate Chris Goodall suggest that sometime soon, someone - maybe Al Gore sycophant Sheryl Crow - is going to write a hit song called "Everything Causes Global Warming."

As reported by the Times Online Saturday in a piece hysterically titled "Walking to the Shops ‘Damages Planet More Than Going By Car'" (grateful h/ts to all NBers and readers who forwarded this article for consideration, emphasis added throughout):

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

Absolutely amazing. But there was more:

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. "Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere," he said, a calculation based on the Government's official fuel emission figures. "If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You'd need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

"The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better."

Now, just imagine where this insanity could go:

Gymnasiums and athletic clubs closed to slow global warming
Jogging made illegal to slow global warming
Golf banned to slow global warming
All organized sporting events including amateur, collegiate and professional banned to slow global warming.
Is it becoming obvious the amount of control environmentalists seek over personal behavior all in the name of global warming?

If you doubted for a second just how far socialists around the world are looking to take this issue, doubt no further.

Talk to you all later. I'm heading to the gym to add some CO2 to the atmosphere, and consume a huge amount of calories after my workout to compensate for those burned during it.

Here's hoping you all do the same.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/08/exercise-causes-global-warming

[red states rule]

FOUR PAGES now....


and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


STILL WAITING.....


Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.



Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?

[red states rule]

I feel the need to stand up for Al Gore. I think the guy truly believes that the Earth is in the balance. The thing everybody fails to mention when they're railing against Gore for his large house, SUV, etc., is that he offsets it all. He lives a completely carbon-neutral lifestyle and he does it by planting trees, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, electronics, etc and by purchasing carbon offsets. The guy walks the walk so I'm tired of hearing all these dim-witted assaults on his character. Gore's a good guy.

Offsets are worthless - they are nothing more then a scam

and Al buys his offsets from his own company

[darin]

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues :coffee:



Ya know - the United Nations Global Warming guys don't believe there's anything we can do to change what's happening to the planet. :)

[darin]

It only means nothing if you assume there are no scientific papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. If that is your assumption, I find it strange that you feel you can make the claim that science says anthropogenic global warming is incorrect - when you can provide no actual examples of it saying that.

No - it means nothing because your challenge is stupid. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

If Dr. Baliunas truly feels that way about the way science is done, then the fact that she has worked for numerous Exxon front organizations in the past should be enough to convince you she is biased.

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........

I think it is obvious that you do recognize the fact, otherwise you would have simply asked for publications from people who are skeptical about anthropological causes, instead of restricting it to scientific journals.....it's a handy way for liberals to avoid looking at facts, if they can employ liberal scientists to screen out the competition......

[red states rule]

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........

So far all the dire forcasts for the global warming nuts have not happened

According to Al we have less then ten years to live

[SpidermanTUba]

Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?

Of course global warming is a hoax, its obvious. The world is so gosh darn big, and all these scientists are conspiring together because they are greedy people. The only exception is people like Dr. Baliunas, who works for Exxon front companies in published in financial magazines.

So since its such a hoax, there has to be dozens of scientific papers which claim it is wrong. I just want one.

[SpidermanTUba]

Ya know - the United Nations Global Warming guys don't believe there's anything we can do to change what's happening to the planet. :)

And this was published by whom when and where?

Oh wait, i forgot, you don't argue with facts.

[Nukeman]

And this was published by whom when and where?

Oh wait, i forgot, you don't argue with facts.

POT MEET KETTLE...................:poke:

[SpidermanTUba]

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........




Everyone's biased! This obviously means the researchers who were paid by ciagarette companies to do research on cigarettes were just as unbiased as scientists who get paid by oil companies to promote the idea that global warming is wrong.




I think it is obvious that you do recognize the fact, otherwise you would have simply asked for publications from people who are skeptical about anthropological causes, instead of restricting it to scientific journals.....it's a handy way for liberals to avoid looking at facts, if they can employ liberal scientists to screen out the competition......

I think its obvious you are attempting to rationalize the obvious conflict of interest in a climate scientists working for an oil company with the fallacy that not only is everyone biased, but they are all pretty much biased the same amount.



"restricting it to scientific journals" OH GOD NO, LET'S NOT RESTRICT SCIENCE TO THE REALM OF SCIENCE! Obviously the people most qualified to comment on the climate are economists, petroleum engineers, and astrophysicists on Exxon's payroll, not CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.





Hey, let's just assume there's a mass conspiracy of research climate scientists to promote a hoax of global warming - EVEN THOUGH THERE ISN'T A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

We'll draw our "facts" on global warming from financial magazines, right wing newspapers, the backs of cereal boxes, and political blogs, because its obvious they are all just as qualified to comment on it as climate scientists (and the climate scientists seem to be concluding something we don't want to hear!)


Meanwhile we'll pretend that a scientist working at a publicly funded University makes more money than a scientist who gets paid by Exxon to promote their agenda. That's where all the real money is! Its in the Universities, with public funding, yeah! In the graduate program I'm in, I've always heard if I want to make the real money I need to sell my soul and work for a University, instead of following my dream of being a corporation front man.

[darin]

So - this thread has served TWO purposes:

1) To show SANTA CLAUS is REAL
2) To show SpidermanTUba needs betta debate skillz.

[PostmodernProphet]

Here is a link to the paper in the Physical Review Letters

thank you for that source.....I have finished reading it.....I think I understood less than 1% of it (I am reminded WHY I don't subscribe to scientific journals).......

I will have to take your word for it that it does not support a claim that there is not an anthropological cause to global warming, though certainly the scientist I originally quoted seemed to think it did....

in the meantime, refer to one of the several other sources I cited.....

[SpidermanTUba]

So far all the dire forcasts for the global warming nuts have not happened

According to Al we have less then ten years to live



Can you cite specific references to these "forcasts"? Or did you make them up in your head?

Al who? What papers has he published?







Another day, and still, only one poster even feels the needs to prove anything they are saying. PostmodernProphet, though he produce a paper written by as astrophysicist on Exxon's payroll that have been thoroughly debunked, they are peer reviewed articles hence he has satisfied the challenge. Postmoden - I invite you to now participate with me in the thread which I will entitle "Global Warming - the Scientific Debate"


The rest of you who claim global warming is a hoax still have yet to produce one paper. You'd think if there were so many scientists who don't believe in it there would be evidence of that.

[PostmodernProphet]

"restricting it to scientific journals" OH GOD NO, LET'S NOT RESTRICT SCIENCE TO THE REALM OF SCIENCE! Obviously the people most qualified to comment on the climate are economists, petroleum engineers, and astrophysicists on Exxon's payroll, not CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

several points.....there is no reason at all to assume that scientists only write in scientific journals.....they also write books, articles, letters....they give interviews to the press, television, etc.....some of them have even been known to post on the internet......

second, there is no basis to claim that everyone who does not believe there is an anthropological cause to global warming is on the payroll of Exxon, any more than there is a reason to believe that everyone who supports the idea is the recipient of a federal grant to save us from the phenomena.....

third, there are many areas of science that study data relevant to the history of the earth's climate than simply "climate" scientists.....

now, perhaps you could explain this to me.....the history of our planet shows periodic warming and cooling cycles that follow a fairly stable and repeating pattern.....

according to that repeating pattern a current cycle of peak warming is not only expected, but probably overdue.....

now, if global warming is anthropological, can you explain to me all the preceding periods of global warming which could not possibly have been anthropologically caused?

[SpidermanTUba]

several points.....there is no reason at all to assume that scientists only write in scientific journals.....they also write books, articles, letters....they give interviews to the press, television, etc.....some of them have even been known to post on the internet......


Their books (except text books) and popular magazine articles do not go through a rigorous peer review process.



second, there is no basis to claim that everyone who does not believe there is an anthropological cause to global warming is on the payroll of Exxon,


Of course not. An economist wouldn't need a financial incentive from Exxon to do that, he's already got one.
Now name one scientist in a relevant field (physics, climate science, geology, etc.) who believes anthropogenic global warming is incorrect that has no ties to the petroleum industry.




now, perhaps you could explain this to me.....the history of our planet shows periodic warming and cooling cycles that follow a fairly stable and repeating pattern.....

according to that repeating pattern a current cycle of peak warming is not only expected, but probably overdue.....


You're asserting that a global warming trend is expected to happen naturally at this time based on the historical record.

You have provided no evidence of this assertion.

Please do.



now, if global warming is anthropological, can you explain to me all the preceding periods of global warming which could not possibly have been anthropologically caused?

Your implicit assumption in this question is that knowledge of why the current warming trend is mostly man made would give one knowledge of the cause of every single warming trend in Earth's history. This assumption is incorrect.

But I will tell you this. The presence of large amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming. The source of these gases - whether they are man made or naturally produced - is irrelevant to their effect. The simple fact that greenhouse gases produced naturally can trigger warming in no way implies that man made greenhouse gases would not trigger warming - in fact, it implies the exact opposite. You should also know that the effects of the various greenhouse gases are non-linear in nature. For instance, in an atmosphere where there is much more methane than CO2, methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas per unit mass than CO2. But as the CO2 levels rise, the amount of heat trapped by the CO2 per unit gram of CO2 also rises. Double the Co2 content in the air, and you more than double the amount of heat trapped by the CO2.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now name one scientist who believes anthropogenic global warming is incorrect that has no ties to the petroleum industry.

I would have no idea....can you provide me with a list of scientists who HAVE published papers claiming an anthropological cause for global warming that haven't received federal funding for their research?

[PostmodernProphet]

odd, it seems that in your previous post you agree with much that I had stated....so much so that you even used the same punctuation......

[SpidermanTUba]

I would have no idea....can you provide me with a list of scientists who HAVE published papers claiming an anthropological cause for global warming that haven't received federal funding for their research?
Why? Because the federal government is conspiring with the scientists to produce politically unpopular scientific theories? Wow. What a scheme. The politicians pay scientists to come up with reasons why they should raise gas taxes and put oil companies out of business. What genius. I'm sure they're raking in the bribes on that one! :lol:

Seriously, what funding source would you prefer for your science? Do you honestly believe that for-profit corporations which would lose billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn are somehow less likely to influence the scientists they fund than scientists which are funded by the public?

[theHawk]

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.
Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.





Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.
If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread? You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.

And secondly, where did I ever say that anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible"? Don't quote me on things I did not say.
It may very well be possible, I said it would be extremely difficult to prove. I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.
Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.



And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it.
Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.

[PostmodernProphet]

Why?

because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you honestly believe that for-profit corporations which would lose billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn are somehow less likely to influence the scientists they fund than scientists which are funded by the public?

nope, I honestly believe that both will be influenced equally by the goals of those providing funding......

[PostmodernProphet]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbonDioxideLevels.jpg

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/index.htm

**Note: on this particular chart, the labels for 100k years and 150k years appears to be switched.

[PostmodernProphet]

looking at this chart, one might well come to the conclusion that the world's problem is not the 1k-10k periods of global warming......it's the 100k periods of global cooling that are going to kill us.....

[theHawk]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbonDioxideLevels.jpg

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/index.htm

**Note: on this particular chart, the labels for 100k years and 150k years appears to be switched.


Don't hold your breath. I've never heard any of the global warming fearmongering liberals acknowledge this scientific fact.

[SpidermanTUba]

Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.


Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?




If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread?


I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.



You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"


You don't know much about ... words, do you?

I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.

And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?



Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.

Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?


Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

[SpidermanTUba]

because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......

You're right. And since one is funded by a for profit corporations which stands to lose billions and billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn, and the other is a government handing out public dollars through granting agencies such as the NSF, where the peers of the scientists requesting the grants determine who gets the grants - and not CEO's with no scientific experience whatsoever - anyone with any common sense at all would see that Exxon is clearly not as unbiased a source of funding as the NSF.

Do you understand profit motive? Do you understand that the NSF is a not for profit government agency - and Exxon is a for profit private corporation whose goal is not to produce good science but to make money?


You have reduced yourself to the "everything is the same as everything argument" There are blatantly obvious reasons to suspect the scientific research that is paid for by a for profit corporation. You simply choose to ignore them, just like a few years ago when there was a segment of the population that held on to the belief that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful since Phillip Morris' scientists said they were OK.

[SpidermanTUba]

now, speaking of facts.....back to my earlier question.....if global warming is anthropologically caused, how do you explain previous periods of global warming that could not possibly have been anthropologically caused.....



A molecule of CO2 produced by man is identical to one produced by nature, that's how. You seem to be suggesting that naturally produced greenhouse gases can warm the Earth but man made greenhouse gases cannot. That's absurd.

[MtnBiker]

It is laughable when people do not believe that government bureaucracies do not have self serving funding concerns as well. Government bureaucracies would dry up and die if they could not influence the purse keepers to dole out money to them.

[SpidermanTUba]

looking at this chart, one might well come to the conclusion that the world's problem is not the 1k-10k periods of global warming......it's the 100k periods of global cooling that are going to kill us.....

You're essentially asserting that since its possible to freeze to death it isn't possible to die from being too hot. What bullet proof logic you have.

[MtnBiker]

You're essentially asserting that since its possible to freeze to death it isn't possible to die from being too hot. What bullet proof logic you have.

Not just a person freezing to death you should be more concerned with crop yeilds.

[SpidermanTUba]

It is laughable when people do not believe that government bureaucracies do not have self serving funding concerns as well. Government bureaucracies would dry up and die if they could not influence the purse keepers to dole out money to them.

So you would trust a scientist working for Phillip Morris just the same as an NSF funded university scientist, with regards to the question of whether or not smoking kills?

Not surprising, a lot of people did. The Phillip Morris scientists told them what they wanted to hear - after all, all scientists are equally biased no matter what their funding source? Certainly, we can't expect a publicly funded research scientist WITH TENURE to be any less biased than a scientist hired by a cigarette company to determine if cigarettes kill you. Similarly, university scientists with tenure - who themselves stand nothing to gain or lose financially, since they have tenure and their salaries are being paid by the state or through endowments - should be trusted just the same to talk about global climate as scientists that Exxon hired - which would lose billions upon billions of dollars if the people believed the scientific consensus.

Keep telling yourself that.

[theHawk]

Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?

If my taxes were 0.028% and went up to 0.036% I don't think I'd be complaining at all.




I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"

No, you started this thread on a political debate forum to stir up shit, as usual. If you want to search for a particular type of scientific papers then you came to the wrong forum. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started the thread so don't try to downplay it now.




You don't know much about ... words, do you?

I know enough about words to know when someone is tiptoeing around the subject because he doesn't actually want to be held accountable for what he is implying.




And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?

Here's just one. Try searching and finding your own.



http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=13


Arctic temperature records – According to the computer forecasts, climate over polar latitudes is very sensitive to global warming. The forecasts say that the polar regions should have warmed by roughly 2 C in the last 50 years, enough to begin melting polar ice. Melting the polar ice produces a positive feedback that amplifies any warming. The reason is that ice reflects much of the sunlight and helps keep the polar regions cold. But as the temperature rises and the ice melts, the bare ground or sea underneath absorbs more of the Sun’s energy and magnifies the warming. One long-term view of the lower Arctic (Figure 4) comes from proxy records like tree-ring growth.[9] There is a rapid warming in the record, but it began in the mid-19th century, and must be natural because it predates most of the rise in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration. This record suggests that the Arctic has cooled since 1950. Instrumental measurements (Figure 5) also contradict the intense warming trend projected by the computer scenarios. On the average over the last 40 years, the temperature does not show the large, increasing warming trends projected by the computer simulations.[10] That observed lack of warming may seem contradictory to recent newspaper reports of a thinning or diminishing extent of Arctic sea-ice.[11] However, sea ice will change in response to several factors, including not also temperature, but also ocean currents and salinity, wind, terrain, etc. The recent observed sea-ice changes cannot have been caused by human-made global warming because Arctic temperatures are not showing the expected increasing warming trend. No increasing warming trend of the kind expected from human-made global warming has occurred in recent decades, when most of the increase in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration took place. In the test of the Arctic temperature record, the computer scenarios exaggerate the observed warming by more than ten-fold.





Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?

Yes, politicians. Or other yahoos like yourself that pretend to be interested in real science in order to promote your own agenda.
You're a well known political hack from the other board. You're here to make a political point, not to debate factual scientific evidence about global warming. You're not fooling anyone.




I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you not only can't use the quote function properly, but you also avoided my request.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you understand profit motive?

yes, I do....it goes "if I want to get a public grant from the federal government, I had better 'cry wolf' about global warming or I won't get a cent".......

[PostmodernProphet]

A molecule of CO2 produced by man is identical to one produced by nature, that's how. You seem to be suggesting that naturally produced greenhouse gases can warm the Earth but man made greenhouse gases cannot.

do you realize you have just acknowledged that manmade greenhouse gases have had no effect on global warming?.....as the chart shows, warming/cooling cycles are periodic and uniform.....if the previous periods were brought about by naturally produced gases, then the current warming has occured and will continue, regardless of what man has done......

[PostmodernProphet]

You're essentially asserting that since its possible to freeze to death it isn't possible to die from being too hot. What bullet proof logic you have.


first of all, unless all life on this planet arrived within the last 150k years, then life survived both the high and low of the cycle.....second, I am merely acknowledging that the duration and deviation from the norm we currently know at the cold end of the cycle is much more extreme than the duration and deviation from that norm at the hot end of the cycle.....will life have an easier time adapting to a short period which is two degrees warmer or a long period when it is six degrees colder.....

[red states rule]

So - this thread has served TWO purposes:

1) To show SANTA CLAUS is REAL
2) To show SpidermanTUba needs betta debate skillz.

and that if hot air is causing global warming it is time for the enviro wackos to shut up

[red states rule]

Who were driving the SUV's 10,000 years ago?

Yahoo News Documents Global Warming / Massive Flooding ... From 10,000 Years Ago
By Jason Aslinger | August 10, 2007 - 21:44 ET
We've all heard the familiar global warming hysteria. As the earth's temperature increases, glaciers will melt thereby causing the world's seas to rise. Some global warming alarmists have gone so far as to describe how Florida, Manhattan, and England (among other places) will all eventually be under water. Under these scenarios, the cause of global warming is consistently attributed to man's use of fossil fuels.

But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.

Well - this evidence actually exists and was reported in a Yahoo News article (via LiveScience.com) titled "Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel." And how did the article handle the obvious global warming implications ? The answer is that the global warming angle was ignored altogether (see also Lynn Davidson's prior post).

The article itself is very interesting in that it details how archaeologists have found an estimated 8,000 year old human settlement under the English Channel.

Erosion on the floor of the English Channel is revealing the remains of a busy Stone Age settlement, from a time when Europe and Britain were still linked by land, a team of archaeologists says ...

Lobsters mucking around the seabed at the site about 10 years ago revealed a cache of Mesolithic flints, prompting further excavations that uncovered two hearths (ancient ovens) dangling precariously from the edge of an underwater cliff.

Burnt wood fragments gouged with cut marks and a layer of wood chippings were found lying under 35 feet of water during the latest dig. Divers brought the material to the surface still embedded in slabs of the sea floor that were carried up in specially-designed boxes, which were then pieced back together and examined and dated in the lab.

"We now have unequivocal evidence of human activity at the site," [archaeologist Garry] Momber told LiveScience. "There were people here actively making stuff and being quite industrious."


So how exactly did this ancient civilization end up being 35 feet under water ? Here's the explanation:

As the climate began to warm up near the end of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, people were moving into Northern Europe and settling down in the many river valleys left behind by melting glaciers, Momber explained. Many of the valleys, such as the ones now beneath the English Channel, were eventually inundated completely when temperatures returned to normal.


Elsewhere the article summarily declares that the: "End of [the] Ice Age caused channel flood." The article conspicuously does not use the term "global warming," nor does not mention the current global warming debate, but it does (as noted above) declare that the temperatures at the end of the Ice Age had "returned to normal."

And how significant is it exactly that this settlement was found 35 feet under water ? A prior Yahoo News article - again via LiveScience.com - cited an IPCC (Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report estimating that "the sea level rise (due to ice melt and the thermal expansion of ocean water) could be 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century."

So man-made global warming might - at most - cause seas to rise 23 inches this century. But 10,000 years ago, a natural (not man-made) warming occurred so significant that a former village is now buried under 35 feet of water in the English Channel. The ancient warming actually formed the English Channel, according to the article.

If history shows that purely natural forces can cause a sea rise of at least 35 feet, then how can the media be so certain that current climate changes are man-made ? They accomplish their certainty by ignoring evidence that doesn't fit the template, which is exactly what occurred in the Yahoo article.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jason-aslinger/2007/08/10/yahoo-news-documents-global-warming-massive-flooding-10-000-years-ag

[Nukeman]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"
Sorry to be beating a dead horse here but he asked for this information so here it is. Not just one scientist but 500.
I find it funny that the more this is studied the more we find we dont fully know or understand....



WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net
Hudson Institute

[SpidermanTUba]

do you realize you have just acknowledged that manmade greenhouse gases have had no effect on global warming?.....





That isn't what I said, liar. I said that man-made CO2 molecules are identical to natural Co2 molecules.

[PostmodernProphet]

I thought you had died.....to be honest, I no longer have any recollection about what you were arguing or why.....I am sure I was right and you were wrong, since that's usually how it goes.....but I don't remember.....

[SpidermanTUba]

I thought you had died.....to be honest, I no longer have any recollection about what you were arguing or why.....I am sure I was right and you were wrong, since that's usually how it goes.....but I don't remember.....


You might find this hard to believe, but the content of our argument has been preserved electronically for your viewing.

[manu1959]

i found this to be an interesting read....

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429

[SpidermanTUba]

i found this to be an interesting read....

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429

Is that where you normally get your science? From the National Business Review?


I'm a physics graduate student. I also get most of my science from the National Business Review. I don't believe a word anyone in the department says about physics - they are all doing research that costs money, making them biased. They teach me Einstein's relativity, and I'm thinking the whole time to myself "well obviously you think Einstein is right, you wouldn't be able to get your grant money if you didn't. I don't see ANY mention of Einstein in the National Business Review, so it must not be true!"

[Nukeman]

Hey dip shit you asked for a "peer reviewed" paper to go against your narow view of things and it was provided to you in post number 96.

but since you wont actually read it here it is again:




Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba
I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"

Sorry to be beating a dead horse here but he asked for this information so here it is. Not just one scientist but 500.
I find it funny that the more this is studied the more we find we dont fully know or understand....



Quote:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl.../dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net
Hudson Institute

[Nukeman]

Is that where you normally get your science? From the National Business Review?


I'm a physics graduate student. I also get most of my science from the National Business Review. I don't believe a word anyone in the department says about physics - they are all doing research that costs money, making them biased. They teach me Einstein's relativity, and I'm thinking the whole time to myself "well obviously you think Einstein is right, you wouldn't be able to get your grant money if you didn't. I don't see ANY mention of Einstein in the National Business Review, so it must not be true!"


Just like all physics grad students I know your arogant as shit and never wrong are you???

Your prof's are the same as well...

[SpidermanTUba]

Hey dip shit you asked for a "peer reviewed" paper to go against your narow view of things and it was provided to you in post number 96.

but since you wont actually read it here it is again:

Hey dumb shit, I also specified that the papers not be written by oil company shills, that they actually be papers, and that they actually be peer reviewed.


You haven't actually posted a reference to any papers, you've posted a news article which is about a non peer reviewed paperback, (read - 'paperback' is not the same as 'paper') written by an oil company shill and a guy without PhD, claiming that these papers exist. Surely, if such papers exist, you'd be able to provide the names of author(s), and the journal name, volume, and page number, instead of merely an article about a book about the paper.

[SpidermanTUba]

Just like all physics grad students I know your arogant as shit and never wrong are you???

Your prof's are the same as well...


Oh forgive me for having the unreasonable opinion that a business magazine is not a good source of scientific information. How elite and snobbish of me.


It amazes me that all a graduate student or professor has to do is say what they think is the truth, and certain people (i.e. you) automatically get offended, as if they are calling you stupid simply because they expressed their thoughts. What's the problem here? Do you feel stupid? You're at the very least ignorant, as making generalizations of entire groups of individual and unique people (in this case, physics students) is most certainly an indication of ignorance.

[Nukeman]

Oh forgive me for having the unreasonable opinion that a business magazine is not a good source of scientific information. How elite and snobbish of me.


It amazes me that all a graduate student or professor has to do is say what they think is the truth, and certain people (i.e. you) automatically get offended, as if they are calling you stupid simply because they expressed their thoughts. What's the problem here? Do you feel stupid? You're at the very least ignorant, as making generalizations of entire groups of individual and unique people (in this case, physics students) is most certainly an indication of ignorance.


It has nothing to do with "speaking what you feel is the truth", It is how you relay said information. You come across as an arogant prick in almost everything you write on this sight. You demand that we provide proof to you yet your sights are as much speculation as any other that you dismiss as ignorant.

My assesment of physics students and their prof's is based on my personal interaction with these types of individuals.

You know nothing of my education or professional background yet in your elitest attitude and manner you feel the need to call me ignorant. You show yourself to be extremely narrow/closed minded individual. The whole global warming issue cause is still strictly speculation and nothing more.

Is the earth warming??? Yes!!! Are we the sole cause??? NO!! Yet to your closed mind we are the only cause of this issue.

You wont even admit that with fluctuations in the past it is possible that we are in a very normal upswing in temp. You have this mental block to possibly being wrong!!!!!!!

[PostmodernProphet]

You might find this hard to believe, but the content of our argument has been preserved electronically for your viewing.

true, but then I would have to read the whole thing to get back into the swing of the argument.....I would have to try to regain an understanding of what you meant.....and then by the time I responded you would probably just disappear for another couple months.....

in short, you aren't worth it.....

[diuretic]

New report out. Humidity is rising as well. It's being put down to human activity. The evidence is mounting and mounting. Hopefully various politicians will start taking it seriously before it's too late.

[MtnBiker]

New report out. Humidity is rising as well. It's being put down to human activity. The evidence is mounting and mounting. Hopefully various politicians will start taking it seriously before it's too late.

Help us out here, post the report or a link to it.

[SpidermanTUba]

Is the earth warming??? Yes!!! Are we the sole cause??? NO!!


Journal name, volume, and page number, please? Can I ask for that without hurting your precious little feelings?

[SpidermanTUba]

true, but then I would have to read the whole thing to get back into the swing of the argument.....I would have to try to regain an understanding of what you meant.....and then by the time I responded you would probably just disappear for another couple months.....

in short, you aren't worth it.....



Its really very simple. In the first post, I asked for a reference to a peer reviewed scientific article, not funded with oil company dollars, claiming anthropogenic warming to be false. The rest of the pages consists of you, and other posters, failing to provide such a reference.

So.


Journal name, volume, and page number, please.

[SpidermanTUba]

New report out. Humidity is rising as well. It's being put down to human activity. The evidence is mounting and mounting. Hopefully various politicians will start taking it seriously before it's too late.



Journal name, volume, and page number, please.

[Nukeman]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"
Here yaa go dipshit this is exactly what you wanted. A peer reviewed paper disputing anthropogenic global warming. It was just a matter of time and more evidence...


http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html


Press Release from

Science & Environmental Policy Project

10 December 2007
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

[Hagbard Celine]

What if you're like me and you're convinced that global warming is a natural phenomenon that may or may not be accelerated by human activity and either way you think it would be a good idea to decrease fossil fuel dependence and seek alternative, clean and/or renewable fuel sources? Do we have to keep arguing over this? It's pretty obvious that the climate IS changing regardless of the reason.

[AFbombloader]

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle


AF:salute:

[Nukeman]

What if you're like me and you're convinced that global warming is a natural phenomenon that may or may not be accelerated by human activity and either way you think it would be a good idea to decrease fossil fuel dependence and seek alternative, clean and/or renewable fuel sources? Do we have to keep arguing over this? It's pretty obvious that the climate IS changing regardless of the reason.

Hag, I agree with you 100% I think your correct in your assesment but thats not what tuba asked for and he refuses to hear that side of it. I think it is just good stewardship of the earth for us to take as good care of it as we can for our children and their children...

[Immanuel]

What if you're like me and you're convinced that global warming is a natural phenomenon that may or may not be accelerated by human activity and either way you think it would be a good idea to decrease fossil fuel dependence and seek alternative, clean and/or renewable fuel sources? Do we have to keep arguing over this? It's pretty obvious that the climate IS changing regardless of the reason.

Then you would have to turn in your LIB Handbook and leave the room in utter disgrace.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

What if you're like me and you're convinced that global warming is a natural phenomenon that may or may not be accelerated by human activity and either way you think it would be a good idea to decrease fossil fuel dependence and seek alternative, clean and/or renewable fuel sources? Do we have to keep arguing over this? It's pretty obvious that the climate IS changing regardless of the reason.

Sweet.....then you would vote Republican......

[Nukeman]

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle


AF:salute:
Nice video!! A little long but hey when your sitting around not doing much at work it makes the time go by....

[AFbombloader]

Nice video!! A little long but hey when your sitting around not doing much at work it makes the time go by....

Or not sitting around at work! They came and picked up my shipment of necessary things for when I go to Korea in a few weeks.


I know the video is long, but it is worth investing the hour and 15 minutes to see the other side of the story, or as I call it, the truth!

AF:salute:

[glockmail]

Here yaa go dipshit this is exactly what you wanted. A peer reviewed paper disputing anthropogenic global warming. It was just a matter of time and more evidence...


http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html


Spidyman slinked away a while ago. Or he died of embarrassment.

[red states rule]

Is this an example of what global warming will do to the planet?


New Winter Storm Bears Down on Northeast

By DAN NEPHIN

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A winter storm set its sights on the Northeast on Sunday, a day after snarling road and air travel and leaving at least two people dead when up to a foot of snow fell from the Plains across the Midwest.

Winter storm warnings and watches were in effect from the Great Lakes to New England - where the entire region was under a winter storm warning - a day after as much as 15 inches of snow fell in parts of southern Michigan and as much as 10 inches in Detroit.

Snow started falling early in the afternoon Saturday in Pittsburgh, accumulating to about an inch before tapering off. Light rain and freezing rain took over later.

"We'll have little bit of everything," said Bill Drzal, a Weather Service meteorologist in Pittsburgh.

Areas to the north and east of the city were expected to see as much as 12 inches through Sunday night, according to the Weather Service.

More than 200 flights were canceled because of the weather Saturday at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, one of the nation's busiest, and all other flights were delayed an hour, said Chicago Department of Aviation spokesman Gregg Cunningham.

Road travel also became tricky in northeastern Illinois, including Chicago's suburbs, where officials reported spinouts and cars in ditches.

"It's coming down steady," said Mike Claffey, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation.

In Michigan, authorities said the weather was a factor when a woman died in a three-vehicle crash on slippery U.S. 23 in Monroe County. The Ann Arbor News reported that 24-year-old Ralitza Kuncheva of Dundee was riding in a car that crashed in Milan Township, about 35 miles southeast of Detroit. Authorities said the driver lost control of the car and spun into oncoming traffic.

In southern Wisconsin, police in Waukesha said road conditions brought on by up to 5 inches of snow figured in a two-car accident that left a 51-year-old woman dead and three others injured. Police did not immediately release her name.

Concern about the approaching storm led the University of Connecticut to cancel Sunday's winter commencement ceremony. About 850 undergraduates had expected to receive diplomas Sunday, but school spokesman Richard Veilleux said officials were concerned about the safety of the students and their families and other guests on slippery roads.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WINTER_STORM?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[glockmail]

Is this an example of what global warming will do to the planet?.... According to Algore, yes.

[red states rule]

According to Algore, yes.

Ah the Al Gore Road Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw&feature=related

[Nukeman]

Here yaa go dipshit this is exactly what you wanted. A peer reviewed paper disputing anthropogenic global warming. It was just a matter of time and more evidence...


http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

Since your back Tuba read would yaa!!!

[SpidermanTUba]

Here yaa go dipshit this is exactly what you wanted. A peer reviewed paper disputing anthropogenic global warming. It was just a matter of time and more evidence...


http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html



That's a press release, not a peer reviewed scientific journal article. Not to mention Fred Singer is an oil company shill. Thank you, try again.


Journal name, volume, and page number, please.

[Said1]

That's a press release, not a peer reviewed scientific journal article. Thank you, try again.


Journal name, volume, and page number, please.

Is this the thread where you claimed having a phd in biology wasn't good enough for you, even though you don't know their area of research?

[SpidermanTUba]

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle


AF:salute:


Journal name, volume, and page number, please.

[SpidermanTUba]

Spidyman slinked away a while ago. Or he died of embarrassment.

As soon as someone will provide me with the journal name, volume, and page number of a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims anthropogenic global warming to be wrong, I would love to read it and talk about it. Until then....

[SpidermanTUba]

Is this an example of what global warming will do to the planet?


New Winter Storm Bears Down on Northeast

By DAN NEPHIN

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A winter storm set its sights on the Northeast on Sunday, a day after snarling road and air travel and leaving at least two people dead when up to a foot of snow fell from the Plains across the Midwest.

Winter storm warnings and watches were in effect from the Great Lakes to New England - where the entire region was under a winter storm warning - a day after as much as 15 inches of snow fell in parts of southern Michigan and as much as 10 inches in Detroit.

Snow started falling early in the afternoon Saturday in Pittsburgh, accumulating to about an inch before tapering off. Light rain and freezing rain took over later.

"We'll have little bit of everything," said Bill Drzal, a Weather Service meteorologist in Pittsburgh.

Areas to the north and east of the city were expected to see as much as 12 inches through Sunday night, according to the Weather Service.

More than 200 flights were canceled because of the weather Saturday at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, one of the nation's busiest, and all other flights were delayed an hour, said Chicago Department of Aviation spokesman Gregg Cunningham.

Road travel also became tricky in northeastern Illinois, including Chicago's suburbs, where officials reported spinouts and cars in ditches.

"It's coming down steady," said Mike Claffey, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation.

In Michigan, authorities said the weather was a factor when a woman died in a three-vehicle crash on slippery U.S. 23 in Monroe County. The Ann Arbor News reported that 24-year-old Ralitza Kuncheva of Dundee was riding in a car that crashed in Milan Township, about 35 miles southeast of Detroit. Authorities said the driver lost control of the car and spun into oncoming traffic.

In southern Wisconsin, police in Waukesha said road conditions brought on by up to 5 inches of snow figured in a two-car accident that left a 51-year-old woman dead and three others injured. Police did not immediately release her name.

Concern about the approaching storm led the University of Connecticut to cancel Sunday's winter commencement ceremony. About 850 undergraduates had expected to receive diplomas Sunday, but school spokesman Richard Veilleux said officials were concerned about the safety of the students and their families and other guests on slippery roads.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WINTER_STORM?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



Do you know the meaning of the word 'global' ?

[SpidermanTUba]

Is this the thread where you claimed having a phd in biology wasn't good enough for you, even though you don't know their area of research?

The climate itself is a physical process, hence to study it one should have a degree in a physical science. Those with degrees in the life sciences, however, could be very well qualified to comment on the effects of the climate, as that requires knowledge of both the physical and life sciences.

[Said1]

The climate itself is a physical process, hence to study it one should have a degree in a physical science. Those with degrees in the life sciences, however, could be very well qualified to comment on the effects of the climate, as that requires knowledge of both the physical and life sciences.

Is that a yes or a no? Is there an approprate area of specialized research that would satisfy your criteria?

[SpidermanTUba]

Is that a yes or a no? Is there an approprate area of specialized research that would satisfy your criteria?

My criteria for what?

[Said1]

My criteria for what?

Never mind.

[typomaniac]

I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

There's an extremely simple way to prove that anthropogenic global warming is true:

1. The world's population has been rising exponentially for centuries.
2. Any given individual generates a similar amount of CO2, mostly by exhaling and farting.
3. Therefore, as there are more human beings, more CO2 is generated and the planet warms.
Q.E.D.

[Said1]

There's an extremely simple way to prove that anthropogenic global warming is true:

1. The world's population has been rising exponentially for centuries.
2. Any given individual generates a similar amount of CO2, mostly by exhaling and farting.
3. Therefore, as there are more human beings, more CO2 is generated and the planet warms.
Q.E.D.


As your dp peer, I've reviewed your hypothisisiisss and agree. I'll call your post volume 1, Jan 2008. Let's also say you have a phd in extraterrestrial ecology and close this baby.

[typomaniac]

As your dp peer, I've reviewed your hypothisisiisss and agree. I'll call your post volume 1, Jan 2008. Let's also say you have a phd in extraterrestrial ecology and close this baby.

I'll take it. :cool:

[Nukeman]

That's a press release, not a peer reviewed scientific journal article. Not to mention Fred Singer is an oil company shill. Thank you, try again.


Journal name, volume, and page number, please.I love how anyone who "disagrees" with your hypothesis is an "oil company shill"

why dont you contact him yourself and discuss it since you are soo enlightend, youi can also accuse him of being a "oil company shill" in person or on the phone.

Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

[SpidermanTUba]

There's an extremely simple way to prove that anthropogenic global warming is true:

1. The world's population has been rising exponentially for centuries.
2. Any given individual generates a similar amount of CO2, mostly by exhaling and farting.
3. Therefore, as there are more human beings, more CO2 is generated and the planet warms.
Q.E.D.

2. is incorrect. Most of the CO2 that man produces as a whole is by burning fossil fuels, and there is a huge variation between individuals on the amount of CO2 they produce.

[SpidermanTUba]

I love how anyone who "disagrees" with your hypothesis is an "oil company shill"

why dont you contact him yourself and discuss it since you are soo enlightend, youi can also accuse him of being a "oil company shill" in person or on the phone.

Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

No, that's not true. You're not an oil company shill, and disagree with it. But Fred Singer is an oil company shill.


He was also a tobacco company shill back in the day when the tobacco companies were trying to show us that the question of cigarettes causing cancer wasn't quite settled science. He's very experienced in shilling.

Most oil company shills don't take kindly to being accused of such. The SEPP was founded by Fred Singer himself and is partially funded by Exxon. In fact Singer is apparently the only employee of the SEPP, and all the papers (all non peer reviewed) that the SEPP has published on its website have him as the sole author. So of course he's the President. If I had a "non-profit" and I was the only person working for it, I'd call myself they President, too!

So maybe I will contact him, he must be lonely.


In the meantime, since there is so much dissent from real scientists regarding global warming, you'd think there would be at least one peer reviewed scientific paper claiming it, wouldn't you? What is the journal name, volume number, and page number of such a paper?

10 pages and still no one has supplied such information. Once someone does, then we can start debating global warming science.

[glockmail]

..... Once someone does, then we can start debating global warming science.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=156460&postcount=44

:lol: