Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bascule

Why do you doubt global warming?

Why do you doubt global warming?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Why do you doubt global warming?

    • I don't! I'm a scientific thinker well aware of present evidence
    • The IPCC is making it up to get more grant money
      0
    • The IPCC is serving the political motivations of the liberal-biased UN
    • The IPCC is serving the political motiviations of the environmentalist/green movements
    • I just hate science
    • I read a peer reviewed paper from a major journal which contradicts the majority opinion
    • Other reason for doubting (please state)


Recommended Posts

 

Link to SkepticLances report: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf

 

Just so everyone is clear, this paper is not what he's trying to make it out to be. All it does is say that the warming of the 20th century produced few negative side-effects, which is actually true, and is not contradictory of the consensus. It then goes on to say speculatively that future warming may not be a bad thing either. Global warming does increase global farming output. What this paper does not do, however, is prove that global warming is nessisarily a good thing in the long run. Contemporary research (Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis) points out possible negative side-effects of global warming that contradict this paper. Furthermore, ecosystem analysis have found many negative environmental side-effects after 1970 caused by global warming which directly contradict a central premise of SkepticLance's paper (working group 2)

 

Totally agree with you here. Another thing that I found wrong with the article is that it doesn't really delve deeply into the issues of ecological changes that may result from GW. For example, while GW does increase crop yields, it also increases the number of pests that will come and damage those fields.

 

Bascule' date='

Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Global warming proponents are advocating a new proposition. Aren’t they the ones with something to prove? If I agree with the commonly held scientific understanding of gravity, and someone comes along and says “no that’s wrong” you are suggesting that I need to write a paper to prove that I’m correct...

[/quote']

 

Well, the thing is, the GW advocates have experimental and empirical data to back up their claims. Its not about writing a paper. So far in these type of threads, people who were nay-sayers have not really put up any peer reviewed report which provides evidence against this.

 

If I wrote such a paper, no peer reviewed journal would publish it. They would all say “this is well known science, come back if you have something new.”

 

Could you provide us an example of a time when they did this?

 

unrelated to this (biased) poll' date=' i do think it's somewhat telling that the people who argue in favour of anthropogenic GW can tend to back up their stance with science, whereas those who can't tend to never, ever have any science that backs up their claims.

 

the poll is biased, but it seems to be an attempt to get the 'GW deniers' to put up or shut up; no-one's seemed to have 'put up' yet. how curious :rolleyes:

[/quote']

 

this is very true. In my opinion I don't think this poll is necessary because the GW deniers on this site have long since been discredited, as I stated in an earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak,

SkepticLance presents a paper in post 21. 1veedo scoffs the paper in post 22 in part because it’s old and can’t be found on Google. I point out that global warming is a new proposition and that peer reviewed journals only publish new propositions. If they didn’t, no one would read them because they would be filled articles about agreed science. Agreed science can be found in text books. Google has existed for how long? How many peer reviewed 50 year old journal papers do you think you can find on Google? Then there is your post, post 25, claiming the papers written in the last few years about climate are the new settled accepted science. When did natural science starting working that way? The mere fact that there are so many new papers on this subject work against your claim that it is settled science. People are still gathering evidence. Also, the near hysteria from global warming proponents that 1) global warming science is settled, and 2) that global warming will lead to catastrophic consequences if not acted about immediately also work against your claim. Both are classic elements of any confidence game.

The burden is still on anthropologic global warming proponents to prove they are correct. It’s not on those that hold previously long held opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

Dak,

SkepticLance presents a paper in post 21. 1veedo scoffs the paper in post 22 in part because it’s old and can’t be found on Google.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

(search = Soon Baliunas co2)

 

he can't find it in google scholar, google (which incorporates many journals that are on the web, and have thus been indexed), nor in ebsco or jstor. I can't find it in pubmed.

 

for me, this raises doubts that the journal is actually peer-reviewed; either way, as 1veedo said, it makes hunting down any peer-reviews (eg, if it's been rebuked) hard.

 

at the least, the paper seems never to have been mentioned in any other paper, or it'd probably show up on google scholar.

 

also, as 1veedo said, the paper doesn't actually support the claim being made by skepticlance.

 

I point out that global warming is a new proposition and that peer reviewed journals only publish new propositions. If they didn’t, no one would read them because they would be filled articles about agreed science. Agreed science can be found in text books. Google has existed for how long? How many peer reviewed 50 year old journal papers do you think you can find on Google? Then there is your post, post 25, claiming the papers written in the last few years about climate are the new settled accepted science. When did natural science starting working that way? The mere fact that there are so many new papers on this subject work against your claim that it is settled science. People are still gathering evidence.

 

so? theres still papers published on evolution, which certainly doesn't mean that we're unsure of evolution. it's telling that the papers published are exploring mitigation techniches, discussing the exact effects of GW, etc, and not arguing against the premise that GW is probably occouring due to man.

 

Also, the near hysteria from global warming proponents that 1) global warming science is settled, and 2) that global warming will lead to catastrophic consequences if not acted about immediately also work against your claim. Both are classic elements of any confidence game.

 

depends who you mean by 'proponents'. certainly, science doesn't say 'GW will lead to catastrophic consequenses'. it says something more similar to 'it'll probably lead to bad concequences, and potentially to catastrophic ones'.

 

the science isn't exactly settled, but there is a consensus (being that GW is almost certainly mans fault).

 

this means that in the future the consensus will almost certainly change to 'GW is mans fault'.

 

The burden is still on anthropologic global warming proponents to prove they are correct. It’s not on those that hold previously long held opinions.

 

no it's not. it was on them; they have since established that their view is the one backed up by evidence and logic (i.e., science). it's now up to the dissenters to back up their counter-claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance had the title wrong.

 

Climate Research : Vol. 13 pages 149 to 164

Soon and Baliunas

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

Here it is in Google Scholar . Top two references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak; if everything said needed to be corrected was corrected and the temperatures continued to fluctuate, which they will, what would the next step be. by this time we would all be walking around, in our birthday suits, eating berries, and sleeping in straw piles. at some point the needs to correct have to end.

 

if on the other hand, we continue with the biggest boom to mankind's style and standards of living, nothing happens from the norm, we have the chance to become rulers of our environment to some degree through technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is out of hand.

 

Bascule made a challenge about sceptical GW peer reviewed papers. I responded to the challenge by a quick google search - found a peer reviewed paper and posted the reference.

 

This was intended only to show that GW sceptics do produce work that appears in peer reviewed published papers. It was just a response to Bascule's snide insinuation that sceptical GW climate studies never passed peer review. This example proves Bascule was wrong. That is all the reference was designed to show. The contents of the paper and any criticism of those contents are pretty much irrelevent to the point.

 

If need be, I can continue a google search and find other papers by sceptics that pass peer review, but I think the point is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was intended only to show that GW sceptics do produce work that appears in peer reviewed published papers. It was just a response to Bascule's snide insinuation that sceptical GW climate studies never passed peer review. This example proves Bascule was wrong.

 

Can we please leave "snide insinuation" strawmen out of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to consider for the open minded.

Therefore one or two you probably need not bother reading this post !

 

Proxy temperature data relating to the ancient past will inevitably mask any minor short term variations, since it is unlikely that say data from 500,000 YBP or even 100,000 YBP would reveal small variations of 0.5C within a period of 50 years. Therefore, to say that temperatures today have risen faster than at anytime in the past 100,000 years, would seem to be an invalid observation.

 

It would not be a legitimate comparison to directly compare short term temperature variations over the past 50 years to what’s happened even over the past few thousand years, since there seem to be no data that could accurately identify a 0.5C temperature change between say 125,000 and 125,050 YBP, and short term variations will inevitably have been masked.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that our data are sufficiently accurate to detect 0.5C temperature variations between 125,000 and 125,100 YBP, it would then be valid for us to use a 100 year moving average temperature rate change. i.e. The sum of the average temperatures over the previous 100 years divided by 100 would generate each point on our chart.

 

But, I hear you cry, this would mask what has happened over the past 50 years, since it would be averaged together with the preceding 50 years and divided by 100, so this wouldn’t be fair. On the contrary, this would put the last 100 years or so of accurate direct thermometer readings on the same footing as the proxy data to which we are comparing.

 

(The four inventors of thermometer at the beginning of the seventeenth century were Galileo, Sanitorio, Fludd and Drebbel. Although Magia Naturalis ( Natural Magic,1558,1589) describes a simple air-thermoscope, which traps air in a bulb so that, as the air expands or contracts in response to a temperature increase or decrease, it moves a liquid column in a long tube. But the thermoscope is not deemed to be a thermometer, since it didn’t actually have a scale.)

 

Therefore the points we would need to plot on our chart to legitimately assess whether temperatures are rising faster than at any time during the past 125,000 years would be as detailed below from 0 through to 125,000 YBP.

 

Total annual average temperatures 0 to 100 YBP / 100

Total annual average temperatures 1 to 101 YBP / 100

Total annual average temperatures 2 to 102 YBP / 100

Total annual average temperatures - - - - - - - -

Total annual average temperatures - - - - - - - -

Total annual average temperatures 124,998 to 125,098 YBP / 100

Total annual average temperatures 124,999 to 125,099 YBP / 100

Total annual average temperatures 125,000 to 125,100 YBP / 100

 

I haven’t actually plotted this chart, but I very much doubt that it would substantiate any such conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but data on global warming comes from core ice samples, and ice samples have gases that have been trapped for thousands of years, and gases that have been trapped fairly recently. By comparing ice samples and current climate we can figure out whether or not humans have had an impact on recent climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proxy temperature data relating to the ancient past will inevitably mask any minor short term variations, since it is unlikely that say data from 500,000 YBP or even 100,000 YBP would reveal small variations of 0.5C within a period of 50 years.

 

^^^ assumption ^^^

 

But, I hear you cry, [comparing 100 year periods] would mask what has happened over the past 50 years, since it would be averaged together with the preceding 50 years and divided by 100, so this wouldn’t be fair. On the contrary, this would put the last 100 years or so of accurate direct thermometer readings on the same footing as the proxy data to which we are comparing.

 

^^^ conclusion ^^^

 

can you support your assumption? e.g., any peer-reviewed papers that suggest that assessing glacial CO2 records is only accurate over 50-year periods?

 

If you can, then i think you have a bit of a point. if you can't, then your conclusion is pretty worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many peer reviewed 50 year old journal papers do you think you can find on Google?
Many, actually.
Lance had the title wrong.
...

Bascule made a challenge about sceptical GW peer reviewed papers. I responded to the challenge by a quick google search - found a peer reviewed paper and posted the reference.

This paper was never published nor peer-reviewed. Now that I had the title' date=' a quick google search to page 2 reveals that this paper is actually part of the Oregon petition project against global warming that was started a long time ago (and which has shown up on these forums many times so I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about).

 

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm

Widespread efforts are being made to discount the scientific evidence, as illustrated by the following example. In early 1998, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Research Center received a letter sent by an organization identified only as GWPP. Enclosed were several documents: a short note signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; a photocopied article that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997 entitled "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" a scientific paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide;" and a petition to be signed and returned. The note, which was conspicuously lacking any sort of header or organizational letterhead, urged the reader to sign the enclosed petition and proclaimed that: "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."
It was supposedly published by the NAS but they issued a statement latter,
The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
It's just dressed up to look like a science paper, that's all.

 

Btw I do not doubt that there is actual peer-review available from the "skeptics" but the point is that it doesn't get anywhere. Technically speaking now that this particular article is in circulation it has actually received a small amount of peer-review, it was just never formally sent through the process (and thus doesn't actually constitute peer-review). Most journals have "inside" peer-review that articles go through before they're actually published so the vast majority of these "skeptic papers" would not make it through the first step (this particular article went around the system in this regard). It's this same process that people were yelling "conspiracy" toward the IPCC for because it was peer-reviewed first by several thousand scientists before actually being published. This is actually what's supposed to happen though because it saves people time from having to read bad articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1veedo

 

You are correct in suggesting that sceptics have fewer peer reviewed papers published. When you read the writing of sceptics like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, one of the recurring themes is the difficulty faced by sceptics in getting papers published. They will tell you that there is a serious barrier to publication based on the preconceptions of those who adhere to the catastrophist paradigm. This is the main reason that we see sceptical material from good climate scientists published in non standard publications. They just cannot get their work published against the bias present.

 

In spite of this, though, there are a number of peer reviewed sceptical climate papers published. Even though people like Richard Lindzen bring out the venom in the catastrophists writing in this thread, they are still widely respected in their profession. Thus, by searching around, they find less prejudiced editors and peer reviewers willing to give them a fair go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1veedo

 

You are correct in suggesting that sceptics have fewer peer reviewed papers published. When you read the writing of sceptics like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, one of the recurring themes is the difficulty faced by sceptics in getting papers published. They will tell you that there is a serious barrier to publication based on the preconceptions of those who adhere to the catastrophist paradigm. This is the main reason that we see sceptical material from good climate scientists published in non standard publications. They just cannot get their work published against the bias present.

Science journals are not discriminatory in this regard. If skeptics cant get their work published then it reflects more poorly on themselves then it does the publishers.

 

Just because you think you're being discriminated against does not make your position correct. Sure, Darwin was ridiculed. The Wright brothers, even, were told they were crazy. But these are good stories cause people like them. What you don't hear about are all the people who's ideas were discriminated against and history has subsequently found them wrong! (see for instance Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer) "For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists"

 

Holding a minority position does not in any way make you correct. Besides, there are many minority positions that are published for serious consideration. Articles about modified Newtonian dynamics (whatever it's called) for instance can be found in all the major physics and science journals. MOND is arguing against relativity. Your skeptics are arguing against climate change, a science much less established then relativity, and they cant even get published. So having a minority position doesn't even guarantee that you'll find it hard to get published in the first place -- which means that the climate skeptic arguments must necessarily be that much more worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct in suggesting that sceptics have fewer peer reviewed papers published. When you read the writing of sceptics like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, one of the recurring themes is the difficulty faced by sceptics in getting papers published.

 

this pretty much says it all :D

 

other than the peer-reviewed journal's disinclination to print obvious crap, do the skeptics offer any explanation for their difficulty in getting published?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 1veedo and Dak.

 

I suspect there is a degree of misunderstanding here in terms of what we mean by sceptic. Sure, if someone tries to tell you the world is not warming, that's not a sceptic. That's a crackpot.

 

A sceptic does not argue with good data. A sceptic challenges interpretation. I am a global warming sceptic because I challenge some of the interpretations made by the catastrophists. And I see some strong evidence of bias in their views.

 

For example : there was an article in New Scientist which talked about feedback mechanisms for global warming. Four mechanisms were mentioned, and all four were positive feed-back mechanisms. Now, if no negative feed-back mechanisms existed, then every time the world warmed (about a million times so far), there would be runaway temperature increase (with no contrary mechanism to slow or stop the warming) and all life on the planet would die.

 

Obviously that is nonsense. Sooner or later, a negative feed-back mechanism becomes stronger than whatever is causing the warming, and the world cools. A balanced article on feed-back mechanisms would discuss the possible negative feed-backs as well as positive.

 

Clearly, the New Scientist article was horribly biased. Sceptical climate scientists are needed to try to get some balance back. Yet these guys have difficulty getting papers published. That is NOT due to the papers being inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a global warming sceptic because I challenge some of the interpretations made by the catastrophists. And I see some strong evidence of bias in their views.

 

what do you mean by catastrophist?

 

Now, if no negative feed-back mechanisms existed, then every time the world warmed (about a million times so far), there would be runaway temperature increase (with no contrary mechanism to slow or stop the warming) and all life on the planet would die.

 

not really. atmospheric CO2 concentrations amplify temperature changes, and a change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations causes a temperature change (irreguardless of wether the change is +ve or -ve); it don't cause the temperature to go up and stay up, nor to keep going up forever.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean tbh. do you mean that, without negative feedback loops, an increase in [CO2] will cause the temperature to go up and stay up, or do you mean that temperatuer and [CO2] will keep feeding-back to one another, causing an infinite temperature increase (i.e., inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> etc for infinity)?

 

Obviously that is nonsense. Sooner or later, a negative feed-back mechanism becomes stronger than whatever is causing the warming, and the world cools. A balanced article on feed-back mechanisms would discuss the possible negative feed-backs as well as positive.

 

assuming you're using "negative-feedback loop" to mean, say, "something that an increase in temperature will cause that will then lower temperature", then iirc there are several 'negitive feedback loops' included in the projection models, which still project an overall increase in temperature due to increased [CO2] (actually, iirc the more catastrophic unlikely-worst-case predictions usually revolve around assuming that limiting factors are acting to buffer GW, but can be 'overloaded', which will effectively dramatically increase the temperature after we reach a certain point; an example would be the idea that the ocean, which is currently adsorbing atmospheric CO2 and thus limiting GW, will, after a certain temperature, start pumping CO2 out into the atmosphere, thus accellerating GW after a certain temperature is reached).

 

the reason that 'negative feedback loops' aren't mentioned more is probably due to the fact that there are none known to play a significant role in GW (unlike the temperature/[CO2] loop).

 

Yet these guys have difficulty getting papers published. That is NOT due to the papers being inferior.

 

again, why? science has traditionally welcomed informed and supported views that differ from what's accepted. if what they're saying is supported by the evidence, and the interpretation is not flawed, then they shouldn't have any trouble getting published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is a mild warming trend.A trend that is slowing down in recent years.

 

I do not agree that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of the warming.

 

I think the sun is the main driver of the mild warming trend.

 

I do not think using GCM's for long into the future climatic projections makes for valid science.It can not be testable.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak asked

 

do you mean that, without negative feedback loops, an increase in [CO2] will cause the temperature to go up and stay up, or do you mean that temperatuer and [CO2] will keep feeding-back to one another, causing an infinite temperature increase (i.e., inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> inc(T) -> inc[CO2] -> etc for infinity)?

 

Obviously neither situation is correct. Ultimately something happens to stop temperature rise, and that is a negative feed-back. I am sure that you and others like 1veedo would agree with this. I was pointing out that the New Scientist article, in outlining only positive feed-back mechanisms, was biased.

 

A number of negative feed-back mechanisms have been proposed. The most basic is the increase in plant growth with warmer temperatures and higher CO2, thus absorbing CO2 and decreasing the greenhouse effect. But there are many others.

 

For example, we know that dimethyl sulphide is produced by phytoplankton. Warmer seas lead to more phytoplankton and more DMS. The DMS is know to be a very effective cloud seeder, thus producing more low altitude cloud, which is cooling. It is possible that more warmth leads to more water vapour, which produces more low altitude cloud, which is cooling. Some satellite studies have shown more cloud over warmer seas, backing up this hypothesis.

 

Similarly, more water vapour in cold areas leads to more snow, and more reflectance of heat into space.

 

There are many mechanisms proposed. They are not necessarily all correct, or all very potent. However, the proposed negative feed-back mechanisms have been published, and an article which describes only the positive mechanisms is clearly biased.

 

We see bias in publication in many areas. 1veedo talks about warming being dominated by GHG increase since 1900. He says that statement came from an IPCC document. If so, that is an example of catastrophist bias, since the data clearly shows that the warming from 1900 to 1940 is much more closely linked to solar activity.

 

Another biased statement toward catastrophism, often quoted, is to say that GHG has been the major (90%) driver of warming for the past 50 years. Of that 50 year period, the first 20 was a time of either cooling or no significant change up or down. So we had only 30 years of actual warming. To say 50 years, instead of the more accurate 30 years, is clearly an attempt to cause alarm, since 50 sounds more alarming than 30.

 

I think, Dak, your first question is answered. ie. What is catastrophism? As the examples above show, catastrophism is an attempt to portray change as being unrealistically disastrous, when the evidence does not bear that out. This approach is totally counter to the spirit of good science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few doubts, mostly due to this being a politically charged topic. And and incredibly complex one. The future is notoriously hard to predict, and weathermen making short term, specific, local predictions make the occasional mistake. Obviously there is a difference between this (chaos) and the somewhat more classical entire planet thing.

 

Overall, I think global warming is more likely than not, and am very much in favor of the more sane responses. Efficiency, renewable energy, less pollution, etc are all very good goals even if there were no warming, so I obviously support these.

 

As to the more drastic measures, I view them as overreacting and premature. Technology is advancing quickly, and we may later be able to solve problems which would have been nearly impossible with current tech.

 

What scares me most are some possible positive feedback loops, such as warm ocean water absorbing less CO2, melting permafrost releasing methane and CO2, possible damage to the green things that are absorbing CO2, etc. Mother Nature can be a bitch if you get on her wrong side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the poll results indicate that we have nothing to fear from all the global warming hysteria. I would like to move closer to the beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we on about the original natural global warming or the human enchanced global warming?

 

I do think global warming occurs because the Co2 levels in the atmoshpere are rising (everyone knows that) by 2.2PPM each year.

Soon the levels will reach danger point and we need to act now.

 

Are we on about the original natural global warming or the human enchanced global warming?

 

I do think global warming occurs because the Co2 levels in the atmoshpere are rising (everyone knows that) by 2.2PPM each year.

Soon the levels will reach danger point and we need to act now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we on about the original natural global warming or the human enchanced global warming?

 

I do think global warming occurs because the Co2 levels in the atmoshpere are rising (everyone knows that) by 2.2PPM each year.

Soon the levels will reach danger point and we need to act now.

 

Are we on about the original natural global warming or the human enchanced global warming?

 

I do think global warming occurs because the Co2 levels in the atmoshpere are rising (everyone knows that) by 2.2PPM each year.

Soon the levels will reach danger point and we need to act now.

O.K. :)

 

I see where you're going with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one that apparently has been submitted for peer review.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

 

I asked in another GW thread about Lindzen and Choi's paper submitted for peer review earlier this year and have seen no responses on it.

 

I also searched the site here for discussions on Lindzen's ERBE data conclusions as well as this Petition Project and found nothing. I don't know if I'm not searching correctly, or if no one is refuting their claims or simply ignoring them altogether.

 

My logic has always been that consensus is right more than it is wrong and that it is irrational to pick and choose when to reject scientific consensus unless you're an expert in that field. All us laymen can do is read articles by smart people and attempt to educate ourselves, but at the end of the day, we are not experts and any ole smart person can refute the claims of another and we wouldn't know which is correct. So, nodding to consensus is the only logical choice.

 

But this is only taking me so far. Several folks keep throwing up the issue about consensus itself. A weak consensus is not the same as a major one. There does appear to be a smaller consensus than on other empirically based theories, such as evolution and gravity.

 

So I come here to ask. What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?

 

The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

 

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

 

 

More importantly, what is the peer review conclusion on these papers? I'm talking about both Lindzen and Choi's radiation conclusions as well as this one posted on Petition Project by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? It reminds me of the petitions from "scientists" who do not believe in evolution. There for years has been a relatively large movement of creationist attempts to collect lists of scientists who doubt evolution and accept the biblical account, including (but not limited to) the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

 

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

 

 

 

...which (besides laughter) received a response in the form of Project Steve.

 

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

 

 

 

In short, though... The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're going to argue evolution in a GW thread and completely ignore the questions I asked?

 

I don't care what creationists are doing, I'm asking specifically about these two peer reviewed papers and what the feedback is on them thus far. I'm also asking about the detraction volume of signers of this petition. Your "speculations" are not interesting nor useful.

 

If you can't stay remotely on topic then please do not post. Go hijack some other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.