Global Warming: Wisdom should dawn on the developed world!

[luvacuppajoe]

I WANT to find a legitimate climate scientist or group of climate scientists with scientifically peer reviewed information that counter the human global warming claims. I just haven't yet.

Rather than give you a series of links I'll just give you Marc Morano's roundup. There should be more than enough links here for you perusal.

It's good that you want peer reviewed information from the GW skeptics. I assume that you also hold the opposing views to the same standard, but I wonder what it says about the peer review process that Michael Mann's so-called Hockey Stick theory passed peer review and was included in the IPCC's 2001 report as a key finding. From there it was used as a basis of argument for countless papers on the anthropogenic view of GW.

The Hockey Stick theory has since been widely discredited, in part because some have found it impossible to reproduce Mann's findings -- one of the difficulties being that he refused to disclose his data when challenged.

Scientific American ranked him as one of the top 50 influential voices in science, even though he has been forced to retract some of his original data, and yet he still defends his theory.

There have also been other questions raised about the IPCC peer review process in general, specifically in John McLean's article.

[stevoh]

Marc Marano? The swift boat journalist? I thought he was more of a propaganda spreader, wasn't he associated with Rush Limbaugh? Well, lets give him a chance and see what he has.

take a look at his list, first item:

1. “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts”

here is a direct link to the entire paper:

http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

He states:

"Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century."

Then we look at the actual paper, and in the conclusion:

"The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse

gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be

superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

Strange how he left out that conclusion. A conclusion that says their hypothesis can be SUPERIMPOSED on anthropogenic warming trends. In other words, it is acting TOGETHER with anthropogenic climate change. The paper in no way disputes that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, it suggests that the climate shifts that it studies are ALSO influencing factors.

In fact, many of the articles he points to are of similar themes. They discuss other influences besides CO2 concentration that influence weather. They do not DENY human influenced global warming at all, they introduce or define other mechanisms that have an influence AS WELL.

He also makes it darn hard to find the original papers, despite his inclusion of "helpful" links. If he really believed what he said, then each link should link to the original paper, or a translated one if it is in english. Not another site of links, or a belgian website, in belgian, that requires a username and password to view.

I don't have time to go into each and every link, although I did try a few, and, as noted above, found no direct links to the actual peer reviewed paper. Is he making it hard for a reason?

I find it really interesting that any science that comes out and supports global warming, or, as is the case recently, are saying that the effects are being UNDERSTATED, are immediately attacked or dismissed as biased. Yet, any science that points out there are other factors in global temperature besides CO2 are immediately trusted and held in high regard?

Why is the science that supports human caused global warming immediately distrusted regardless of its source, but science that suggests other factors or argues degree of influence is immediately trusted and used as "proof" that AGW is incorrect?

Because the agenda isn't science.

[luvacuppajoe]

Here's 2 for you, here and here that I had no trouble locating from Marano's links. If you want the rest, I'll leave it to you to spring for the subcriptions, sign up for online access or c/p the links, depending on how interested you are.

Edited November 26, 2007 by luvacuppajoe

[stevoh]

Here's 2 for you, here and here that I had no trouble locating from Marano's links. If you want the rest, I'll leave it to you to spring for the subcriptions, sign up for online access or c/p the links, depending on how interested you are.

No comments on the misinterpretation of the first article?

[stevoh]

Here's 2 for you, here and here that I had no trouble locating from Marano's links. If you want the rest, I'll leave it to you to spring for the subcriptions, sign up for online access or c/p the links, depending on how interested you are.

First link, very interesting, looking at "whole earth" climate change, including heat capacity of the earths oceans, and its ability to store and release heat. The papers conclusion:

"The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to

2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004]."

I have to wonder why Marino linked to this paper. Its probably because this scientist (and yes, he actually is a scientist doing climate research) has suggested that the temperature change from current greenhouse gas emissions proposed by other scientists is too high, and he has provided his hypothesis based on his whole earth approach. However, he has also stated that this range approaches the level of "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". In other words, its STILL something to investigate and a cause for concern.

Was Marino's assessment of this paper accurate? Did he state that while the human induced climate change temperature measures suggested by this paper are lower than those from the IPCC, that they are still a cause for concern, and are in fact dangerous? Here is a quote:

"“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research."

Er, the paper actually supports man made global warming... Did this astronomer even READ this paper?

Again, I also have to question why so much emphasis is placed on the "shakey science" of any paper that supports global warming, but somehow, this paper, escapes such scrutiny and is instantly elevated to "Fact" because it supports a less dramatic position.

[Moxie]

Yep, the man made GW fanatics think that the time for debate is over and anyone who dares debate it now are to be ostracized.

This is not science, it's a cult.

No white it's the Religion of the feeble minded, they are slathering at the mouth for the billions of dollars they need to tell we the unwashed masses how to stop this traversty. It's just more hyped up propaganda to suck our taxdollars into their latest Tin Foil IDEA. I will go as far as stating it's another make work job project for the unemployed leftest, they want the billions of dollars funded to their "Scientist". They in turn can lobby the government for more money to do more studies to "Solve" a nonexistant problem. So much money so little time, and the public is begining to wake up to their propaganda. Remember in the eighties it was the "ICE AGE" is coming blah blah. Y2K for supper anyone? How many billions did that little tinfoil propaganda net the nerds living in Momsey's basement?

[ScottSA]

Again, I also have to question why so much emphasis is placed on the "shakey science" of any paper that supports global warming, but somehow, this paper, escapes such scrutiny and is instantly elevated to "Fact" because it supports a less dramatic position.

I suspect because the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. If I claim the sky is falling, the onus is on me to prove that it is. I cannot expect everyone to rush out and start fires to ensure a steady stream of bouyant hot air to prop up the sky.

The single most stressed argument I have heard for manmade global warming is the claim that everyone says it's true, albiet in polysyllabic format: "overwhelming consensus". That's no argument at all. The actual science rests entirely...entirely....upon theoretical models, themselves dependent on input. Global warming may or may not be occuring...even that is in question. If it is, whether humans are causing it is another entirely different question. If it is occuring, and if humans are causing it, the next question is whether it is actually bad or good. Sure, Peter Mansbridge went out and found a micro island that might get wet if and when the caps melt, but by and large, the northern hemisphere will actually benefit for a host of reasons...even CBC admits that. And it's not at all clear that there will be significant repercussions in the equatorial regions either...sure, we hear about Bangladesh getting wet, but Christ, Bangladesh is underwater on an annual basis anyway, so that's not a startling change by any means. Quite frankly, given the apparent outcome, I'll vote for the next government that plans to increase CO2 output, just on the off chance that GW is actually occuring, and occuring because of manmade actions. Grapes in Greenland? Hell yeah!

This entire thing is generated by some kind of psychological need for a doomsday. It would normally be harmless, had it not been hijacked by the global socialists and turned into a good excuse for redistribution.

[capricorn]

This entire thing is generated by some kind of psychological need for a doomsday. It would normally be harmless, had it not been hijacked by the global socialists and turned into a good excuse for redistribution.

Now now Scott, don't confuse the masses. There are carbon credits to be collected.

[luvacuppajoe]

No comments on the misinterpretation of the first article?

No. The fact that you found the conclusion from the links I provided suffices for me. Same goes for your post critiquing the conclusion and a review of the heat capacity study.

If you don't like the way a webpage lays out its links, take it up with them. If you don't agree with a page owner's politics, that's up to you. If you don't agree with a peer-reviewed conclusion, submit your own review, that's what the process is for.

I offered links in response to your stated inability to find any peer-reviewed studies critical of man made global warming. I never asked you like the way they were presented or even to agree with them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you do or not.

[Oleg Bach]

No. The fact that you found the conclusion from the links I provided suffices for me. Same goes for your post critiquing the conclusion and a review of the heat capacity study.

If you don't like the way a webpage lays out its links, take it up with them. If you don't agree with a page owner's politics, that's up to you. If you don't agree with a peer-reviewed conclusion, submit your own review, that's what the process is for.

I offered links in response to your stated inability to find any peer-reviewed studies critical of man made global warming. I never asked you like the way they were presented or even to agree with them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you do or not.

Any one that provides links is not credable - they should have something to say without links dependance.

[stevoh]

I offered links in response to your stated inability to find any peer-reviewed studies critical of man made global warming. I never asked you like the way they were presented or even to agree with them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you do or not.

So your point was not to show any interest in the information provided, or the way the information from the links was changed to match an agenda, your providing of links was merely a public service? Helping a fellow poster out from your sense of altruism?

[ScottSA]

So your point was not to show any interest in the information provided, or the way the information from the links was changed to match an agenda, your providing of links was merely a public service? Helping a fellow poster out from your sense of altruism?

Coffee provided the evidence you claimed not to be able to find. What's your problem? There's all sorts of disagreement with virtually every aspect of the GW thesis, from it's causes and solutions to its very existence. If you're not interested in finding that out, fine. Retreat to the "overwhelming consensus" myth you folks are so enamoured of, but it'll be harder and harder to hide there as time goes on and more and more real science starts burying the Gorean hyperbole.

[stevoh]

Coffee provided the evidence you claimed not to be able to find. What's your problem? There's all sorts of disagreement with virtually every aspect of the GW thesis, from it's causes and solutions to its very existence. If you're not interested in finding that out, fine. Retreat to the "overwhelming consensus" myth you folks are so enamoured of, but it'll be harder and harder to hide there as time goes on and more and more real science starts burying the Gorean hyperbole.

I am interesting in finding that out, or I wouldn't have wasted my time on the various posts in this thread.

However, what I do also find interesting is that the links provided that I looked actually support human influenced global warming. Those that are scientifically produced peer reviewed papers that is. It seems like the people who provide all the "evidence" that global warming is a myth count on the readers not checking up on the original papers to find out the truth. Or they don't understand the science they are linking to.

The fact that people who deny global warming can't even link to a scientific paper that irrefutably says "human created global warming is not occuring" means to me that such papers are few and far between. I have yet to find one that exists. But I have read quite a few (two more from this thread) that continue to support it. I could never read enough to actually prove "overwhelming concensus", but the fact that a thread full of global warming skeptics, and the links they provide, cannot provide that evidence, says a lot.

[ScottSA]

The fact that people who deny global warming can't even link to a scientific paper that irrefutably says "human created global warming is not occuring" means to me that such papers are few and far between. I have yet to find one that exists. But I have read quite a few (two more from this thread) that continue to support it. I could never read enough to actually prove "overwhelming concensus", but the fact that a thread full of global warming skeptics, and the links they provide, cannot provide that evidence, says a lot.

You're now moving the goalposts and asking for the gallopingly impossible. To get someone to say "human created global warming is not occuring" with any credibility is as impossible as getting someone to say "human created global warming is occuring" with any credibility. Sure, the Suzukis and Gores say it all the time, but that carries about as much academic weight as Cher or Bono saying it. The whole point of the so-called "deniers" is that we don't know. All we know is that this has happened countless times before, even within historical memory, and certainly many times before humans ever walked the earth. It is quite natural to ask why, if human created CO2 is a causal agent, this could ever have happened before.

Come to that, no one is even sure what is happening, since there are as many indications that the globe is not actually warming at all in some places.

[Michael Hardner]

Scott,

If this does turn out to be a global problem, with global consequences, that involves a global solution, how would you propose that the world address it, given that many nations might opt to live in denial, or refuse to participate in a solution ?

[sunsettommy]

luvacuppajoe:

Rather than give you a series of links I'll just give you Marc Morano's roundup. There should be more than enough links here for you perusal.

Then we have this:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

It's good that you want peer reviewed information from the GW skeptics. I assume that you also hold the opposing views to the same standard, but I wonder what it says about the peer review process that Michael Mann's so-called Hockey Stick theory passed peer review and was included in the IPCC's 2001 report as a key finding. From there it was used as a basis of argument for countless papers on the anthropogenic view of GW.

Peer reviewed of anything can just as bad as a paper written by little children.

Case in point:

The Hockey Stick paper was indeed a peer reviewed winner.However it was included into the 2001 IPCC's report by none other than Dr. Mann.

A paper that was NOT validated at the time.Yet was called a key evidence of global warming propaganda.

A paper that was later shown to have childish statistical errors all over it and that the regulan blood worm never releases all the data for the paper.

This means that the IPCC showed their true colors as a special interest organization with a STATED task to PROVE that man's CO2 emissions is cause of the warming.They chose a paper that at the time was unproven and therefore not worthy of its lofty status it was given.It was pure politics.

The Hockey Stick theory has since been widely discredited, in part because some have found it impossible to reproduce Mann's findings -- one of the difficulties being that he refused to disclose his data when challenged.

Correct.

It was a very bad paper and it is comical that some many AGW's still defend it today.

Imagine that the writer of this joke paper used a tree that grows in very small specialized high altitude regions.Therefore not a credible proxy for the entire Northern Hemisphere.It was stupid.

Scientific American ranked him as one of the top 50 influential voices in science, even though he has been forced to retract some of his original data, and yet he still defends his theory.

Scientific American has slipped in quality in recent years.They tried to smear Bjorn Lomborg a few years ago and was shown to be profoundly dishonest in the debate surrounding Lomborgs book.

Dr. Mann has destroyed his reputation over his stubborn intractibility in providing his source codes for that bird cage paper.He made a fool of himself in his conduct before the WEGMAN panel.

His paper should be taught in colleges to show how a scientist should NOT to write such a bad paper and then stupidly defend it afterwards.

[sunsettommy]

The fact that people who deny global warming can't even link to a scientific paper that irrefutably says "human created global warming is not occuring" means to me that such papers are few and far between. I have yet to find one that exists. But I have read quite a few (two more from this thread) that continue to support it. I could never read enough to actually prove "overwhelming concensus", but the fact that a thread full of global warming skeptics, and the links they provide, cannot provide that evidence, says a lot.

It is obvious that you have no idea how science research works.

Skeptics are ESSENTIAL or science research DIES!

[sunsettommy]

Coffee provided the evidence you claimed not to be able to find. What's your problem? There's all sorts of disagreement with virtually every aspect of the GW thesis, from it's causes and solutions to its very existence. If you're not interested in finding that out, fine. Retreat to the "overwhelming consensus" myth you folks are so enamoured of, but it'll be harder and harder to hide there as time goes on and more and more real science starts burying the Gorean hyperbole.

LOL,

I help run a climate skeptic forum (the website is in my profile) that posts many articles showing problems with the mythical consensus claims.It is really easy to find holes in their claims.

It is also easy to find the article that are written by accredited scientists who are skeptical with the CO2 is the problem game.I post at least one EVERY WEEK.

I used to post some good ones at forums where a lot of AGW's are members.Their typical reactions are to attack the author with names and make slurs on the genesis of the paper.I posted a thread all about one paper and the author they savaged at my forum.Just to expose their irration behavior.

Some of the respondents cliams to be scientists!

It is obvious Stevoh has a narrow view of what is considered a valid paper.Of course he is not being honest because there THOUSANDS of Scientists who have stated they do not think CO2 is a major cause of the warming.Some of them publish climate research papers too.

There has been NO warming trend since 1998.

[ScottSA]

Scott,

If this does turn out to be a global problem, with global consequences, that involves a global solution, how would you propose that the world address it, given that many nations might opt to live in denial, or refuse to participate in a solution ?

Mikey, you've really got to learn not to be so obvious.

[Riverwind]

If this does turn out to be a global problem, with global consequences, that involves a global solution, how would you propose that the world address it, given that many nations might opt to live in denial, or refuse to participate in a solution ?

Here is an excellent artical that answers your question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7100501676.html

An extremely pragmatic approach.

[stevoh]

It is obvious that you have no idea how science research works.

Skeptics are ESSENTIAL or science research DIES!

I myself am a skeptic, but I have yet to find a peer reviewed scientific paper that states that human caused global warming is not occuring. I don't need anything fancy, just link me to a published scientific paper that refutes human caused global warming. That's it.

In fact, I am beginning to believe there IS something to this global warming thing, because the links I have investigated in this thread, the peer reviewed scientific ones, all back that up. I want a balanced view, but no-one is providing that information.

It is obvious Stevoh has a narrow view of what is considered a valid paper.Of course he is not being honest because there THOUSANDS of Scientists who have stated they do not think CO2 is a major cause of the warming.Some of them publish climate research papers too.

Peer reviewed paper from accredited climate scientist is essential. Otherwise, its just opinion. I am interested in the science, not the politics. Please provide me a link to one, just one, published climate research paper that is peer reviewed that refutes human caused global warming. If you post one every week, should be a 10 second copy and paste.

[sunsettommy]

Stevoh:

I myself am a skeptic, but I have yet to find a peer reviewed scientific paper that states that human caused global warming is not occuring. I don't need anything fancy, just link me to a published scientific paper that refutes human caused global warming. That's it.

I have gone over this before with you.I will color it red for you so maybe you remember it later on so that way you don't post the same "I have to make this standard loaded AGW statement" moment.

SKEPTICS aknowledge that some human caused warming has occured.

Your silly way of asking me to prove a negative exposes your shallow approach to this discussion.Scientists do not do that.Once again you expose your lack of understanding of how science research works.

Now here is the moment YOU have been waiting for!

THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT REFUTES HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

This again exposes your shallow understanding of the subject.They never existed!

Drop this crap and go on.

What is going on is that skeptics believe that MOST of the warming is NOT human induced.That has been the standard position for a long time now.Skeptics do not believe that CO2 does that much warm forcing and there have been good papers showing that other warm forcing agents have a significant impact.

The IPCC themselves admit they know very little about warming/cooling factors outside of CO2.

In fact, I am beginning to believe there IS something to this global warming thing, because the links I have investigated in this thread, the peer reviewed scientific ones, all back that up. I want a balanced view, but no-one is providing that information.

You are just beginning to believe it?

LOLOLOLOL!!!

I believed it many years ago.That is because it has been warming since the 1850's.I hope you realize that the LIA ended by that time.

I told you all this a few months ago when we went over this similar stuff.Were my answers inconvenient to you then? are they inconvenient now?

You have no idea what this whole global warming climate change is about.You also show your ignorance on what skeptics think.I am a site administrator of a forum where everyday I read what skeptics think about the AGW claims and what new research that come out showing that CO2 can only be a minor player.I am a skeptic and more and more so as time goes by.

I bet that right now you have no idea what is going on about the sun that is so UNUSUAL and what it can mean for us in the next 20 or so years from now.I have posted a number of articles on it at the forum the last few weeks.

Maybe you dare come to the forum and see what skeptics read and think.Presently there are ZERO AGW members in the forum.Do you know why?

Peer reviewed paper from accredited climate scientist is essential. Otherwise, its just opinion. I am interested in the science, not the politics. Please provide me a link to one, just one, published climate research paper that is peer reviewed that refutes human caused global warming. If you post one every week, should be a 10 second copy and paste.

You are being an ass when you do this.It is a stupid debate trick to ask the impossible.There are no such papers.

Again:

NO SKEPTICS ARE TRYING TO REFUTE HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

Skeptics has long been saying that CO2 is a minor player in the warming.There are other causes such as land use changes,Urbanization of the cities creating heat islands,farming methods,Solar changes,Cosmic Rays and so on.I brought all this up to you a while back and you write as if you have a hole in your head and the words fall out.

You are NO skeptic.Just a closet AGW is what you really are.Why not admit it and then I will not think you a liar.

Edited December 8, 2007 by sunsettommy

[jbg]

Peer reviewed paper from accredited climate scientist is essential. Otherwise, its just opinion. I am interested in the science, not the politics. Please provide me a link to one, just one, published climate research paper that is peer reviewed that refutes human caused global warming. If you post one every week, should be a 10 second copy and paste.

Peer-pressured you mean? Global warming is more of a religion or industry and they don't take kindly to dissenters.

[stevoh]

I don't need to resort to belittling or bullying tactics, or giant fonts or red text to get my point across.

Your silly way of asking me to prove a negative exposes your shallow approach to this discussion.Scientists do not do that.Once again you expose your lack of understanding of how science research works.

Your highly overstated and emotion laden response shows me that you obviously have no knowledge of such research. And yet, it is everywhere. Each and every scientific study that looks into the influence of humans on climate change has the potential to REFUTE that global warming as being influenced to a large degree by humans. That is the nature of science. If the data shows we are having an effect, that is the conclusion of the paper and it is published. If the data shows we are not having an effect, then that is the conclusion of the paper and it is published. I have seen examples of both of these papers.

I told you all this a few months ago when we went over this similar stuff.Were my answers inconvenient to you then? are they inconvenient now?

If you had read my final post in that forum you would have seen that I accepted the idea that was originally presented in the linked paper as factual. Hardly seems like someone who has a problem with listening to both sides.

I am a site administrator of a forum where everyday I read what skeptics think about the AGW claims and what new research that come out showing that CO2 can only be a minor player .I am a skeptic and more and more so as time goes by.

You are not a skeptic, you are a denier. Otherwise, you would not attack me with your bag of font tricks, you would tackle the science in a solid manner. And if this post is an indicator of your style, you are a lousy forum moderator as well. Of COURSE AGW people wouldn't post to your forum when you are such a jerk to those who dispute your point of view.

Create a forum that intelligently handles debate, and you will see both sides of the argument. Act like you are here, and only those who agree with you will post. Why would anyone waste their time (besides me) with someone who is so abrasive?

You are NO skeptic.Just a closet AGW is what you really are.Why not admit it and then I will not think you a liar.

I think you are confused between what an actual skeptic is, someone who is skeptical of ALL information provided (which I am), or someone who is just skeptical of information they don't want to believe (which is what you are).

THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT REFUTES HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

Thankyou. Give the man a cookie.