Fine. Now follow my instructions and stop with the overlong posts. This isn’t trench warfare.
**Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario.
**
Ohh big fonts, like if that changes anything; the point remains, I would leave others to judge if the graphs more closely resemble what Hansen said than what Climate Audit claimed.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/hansen_et_al_global_climate_ch.php
I’m going to pick one, Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming and see what it says. I have no fear whatsoever of gw being wrong, I’d much rather it be wrong.
On edit. Alas, it isn’t even an article, it is a one paragraph abstract.
Then, I clicked on one that offered the interesting title, Global Sea Level Rise, the last in you list. An even shorter abstract that predicted 23 cm rise in 100 years.
Pick one article that meets the conditions, one, not an abstract.
Pick one article that meets the conditions, one, not an abstract. You seem very invested and frightened of the predictions of global warming as some sort of political conspiracy and began a thread on it. Come up with one peer reviewed climate journal article that says it is not happening and why. Just one damnit.
For the record, I live 70 feet above sea level in an environment that already reaches 105 F in the summer on a regular basis. I will live 30 to 40 more years tops. None of this will affect me personally except in electric bills. I have nothing to gain one way or the other. But the lists of nonsense you are listing have nothing to in the way of a scientific peer reviewed climate article saying it isn’t happening. Pick one, let me judge for myself, don’t tell me what to think.
Please list the current emissions levels (cite you source) and the emissions levels for each scenario.
The ones with the (PDF) have the full paper.
Do you even know what an abstract is? It is a summary of a peer-reviewed paper.
Here are some that are easy to read,
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
*(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson*
Recent Global Warming: An Artifact of a Too-Short Temperature Record? (PDF)
*(Ambio, Volume 34, Number 3, pp. 263–264, May 2005)
- Wibjorn Karlen*
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
*(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen*
The second article you link two does not say that global warming is not happening, it says there is insufficient evidence. You made very bold claims in your resolution (the OP) that you haven’t backed up.
The third link is another abstract, and yes I know the difference, that is why I am asking for the whole article.
The first article, from 1999 Climate Research, comes the closest. It is a study of the various literature cited in its bibliography. The authors are skeptical of the models used in the various studies and they say that they cannot conclude that any of these methods of CO2 analysis are reliable to conclude that CO2 is causing global warming. That is not the same as saying that global warming is not occurring, which was the assertion of the OP. They say the jury is still out and the methods used inadequate to come to a conclusion. You have 500 articles to choose from (not counting abstracts, which are not articles) and you will not find in them a single peer reviewed article in a climate journal that concludes that global warming is not occurring. The best you can argue is that some scientists want further studies and more evidence, which seems to me to be prudent.
The same lead author did another meta study paper in 2003 for Climate Research, and 13 of the authors cited complained that there were errors in the interpretation of their works, including substituting moisture in place of temperature data. Willie Soon - Wikipedia That is really sloppy science. Nevertheless, I am still open to seeing a study that does say global warming isn’t happening. Soon, while having credentials as an astrophysicist, is not a credentialed climatologist. His area of expertise in astrophysics is variation in the output of solar energy, definitely a possible source of climate change, but certainly not the only one.
I would also point out that moisture for temperature is a huge, huge error. Water vapor is an even greater greenhouse effect in most models than CO2.
Until such a time as global warming detractors can come up with sufficient science, I’m going to have to lean towards the consensus among climatologists that it is happening.
And please, just one article at a time, no abstracts, no two or three articles. You put up the article, I’ll decide what I think of it.
Energy & Environment isn’t a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it’s a political mouthpiece - even the editor admits it.
A chemist is a “natural scientist,” but with no more expertise than you or I in climatology.
Hey, speak for yourself, there 
I did Climatology 2nd year, you know!
The OP is about scientists skeptical of Global Warming, clearly the second paper is. I’ve backed up everything I stated. Anyway I see what your problem is, that should say skeptical of “man-made” global warming.
I cannot correct links after 5 minutes, here is the full paper,
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen
What the hell are you talking about? Apparently you don’t know the difference. The citations are to the papers, unless someone posted the full paper, the link to abstract allows you to purchase it. I simply included links to the full paper if available but the citation to an abstract of the paper is still for the paper.
Um, Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information.
Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist.
Wrong,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
- Found at 43 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 79 in electronic form.
- EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)
“E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen has simply admitted to allowing skeptic’s papers a chance to undergo E&E’s peer-review process where they may have been arbitrarily rejected from this chance by the editors of other journals.
Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone has expertise in climatology.
BrainGlutton, one should check the comments in that blog that first rebutted that list, one can see there that our intrepid climate pseudo skeptic will not accept any evidence ever to disrupt his [del]kingdom[/del] list or denialist points, so it is not good to waste too much time with him/her.
Poptech, if I link to a list of 5,000 peer-reviewed papers supporting “man-made” global warming, do I win? If no, why not? Why should I believe your 500 articles that demonstrate skepticism, when I can easily find many more than that support global warming? How should I decide which articles are correct and which are wrong? Even if I accept that all of the papers in that list demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming is not happening*, I can also find more papers demonstrating it is? Even if I ignore all the glacier studies, what about the change in growing seasons (earlier and longer), the migration of animals(both upwards and northwards), the melting permafrost, and theearlier melting of lakes and waterways. Is all this wrong? Are there papers in the 500 papers you listed that explain why all of this observational data is incorrect?
I think reasonable people can disagree what on the magnitude of the effect of increased CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions will be or whether we can or should try to limit our effect on the global climate. I personally think that Kyoto and Copenhagen are a waste of time and that we should continue to burn fossil fuels and let the market and scarcity push us toward alternative energy (why I believe that is a whole other thread). But trying to deny the existence of global warming seems ridiculous to me at this point. The amount of data showing that the Earth has warmed is overwhelming and the correlation (I know correlation is not causation) with increased CO[sub]2[/sub] is clear. The science that CO[sub]2[/sub] can cause warming in a simple system is incontrovertible, even though I and most people understand that the Earth is not a simple system and that the temperature feedback mechanisms are complicated and not well understood.
Regardless, I would like you to explain why your sites that show skepticism are better than the majority of sites that show support.
*I did pull a couple of papers off the list, and quickly got tired of reading them. The two I pulled just showed that the models were not very accurate and that caution was needed when trying to use them to make predictions, they did not say that global warming was not happening.
This has all been rebutted,
1. Greenfyre titles his post with a childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics “deniers”. This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This tactic was popularized by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe,
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
2. Greenfyre starts off repeating the same lies that I have already rebutted,
Lie - not peer reviewed, and/or.
Truth - Every paper and journal is peer-reviewed.
Lie - known to be false, and/or.
Truth - None of the papers are known to be false.
Lie - irrelevant, and/or.
Truth - None of the papers are irrelevant.
Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or.
Truth - The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant.
Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial.
Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack [1]. All of the papers support skepticism of man-made global warming or the economic or environmental effects of.
3. Greenfyre repeats the same lie about Dr. Pielke Jr. pulling papers off the list. This is impossible since Dr. Pielke Jr. never submitted any papers to the list. The list is a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Dr. Pielke Jr. wrongly assumed the list claimed all the papers “refuted” global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth as many of the papers are supporting evidence contrary to the alarmist positions of alleged catastrophic effects of man-made global warming. Most of Dr. Pielke Jr’s papers fit into this category and support skepticism of “alarmism”. In the comments to his blog post, the readers of his blog were surprised Dr. Pielke Jr. does not consider himself a “skeptic” as so much of what he writes challenges the alarmist orthodoxy. I share these readers sentiments but was well aware of his outspoken verbal position on where he stands and made no attempt to apply a certain position to him or any of the authors of the papers on the list. This is again stated in the note: “The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors”. I suspect Dr. Pielke Jr. received a hysterical email from an alarmist which clearly backfired. Regardless I clarified this in the comments of his blog post of which Dr. Pielke accepted as an explanation.
4. Greenfyre deceptively takes a comment I made out of context. In a reply to a comment about Dr. Pielke Jr.'s alleged [blogs.nature.com] comment quoted on Wikipedia about the journal Energy & Environment not being in the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation’s commercial ISI database, “…On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”
I said, "I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”
Which was a comment about the quote in Wikipedia about E&E and the ISI. The ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. So his opinion of this is irrelevant. This had nothing to do with what Greenfyre implies my comment was about - that I was talking about Dr. Pielke Jr’s discussion of the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” list. Greenfyre cannot even follow comment discussions in his own blog!
5. Greenfyre lies that I did not address Dr. Pielke Jr’s statements. I directly addressed his statements on his blog and corrected the misinterpretation he had of the list, of which he accepted.
6. Greenfyre lies that I shifted the definition of the list. I did no such thing, the list has always stated - “The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of”.
7. Greenfyre lies that I will not remove papers off the list that do not belong. Actually I had removed papers off the list before reaching 450 during a quality control check. I have no problem making corrections but first it has to be demonstrated that they do not support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Something Greenfyre has failed to do.
8. Greenfyre lies that Energy & Environment is not Peer-Reviewed. Again he links to the multi-billion dollar Thompson Reuters corporation’s commercial Master Journal List, implying that only journals on this list are peer-reviewed. This is absurd as anything listed there is purely subjective. Other competing companies clearly list E&E as a peer-reviewed academic journal,
EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)
EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Government Institutions and Public Libraries.
9. Greenfyre attempts to smear the process by which EBSCO includes a journal as peer-reviewed. EBSCO clearly mentions ALL the methods they use to determine if a journal is peer-reviewed of which Greenfyre attempts to imply that they only use a select few such as just taking the word of the journal itself, which is a lie. Ironically he criticizes the very process that journals appear on the multi-billion dollar Thompson Reuters corporation’s commercial Master Journal List - internal editors.
10. Greenfyre lies that the Scopus listing implies that E&E is not peer-reviewed. Scopus incorrectly lists Energy & Environment as a “trade” journal, which is illogical as it is not associated with any specific “trade” such as “chemical engineering”. EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal. But this is irrelevant as no mention in the Scopus listing is for the peer-reviewed status of any journal.
11. Greenfyre lies that because the peer-review process is not mentioned on E&E’s website it is not peer-reviewed. This is absurd as I have personally spoken to the editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and various authors of papers to confirm that E&E is peer-reviewed and challenged Greenfyre to do the same, something he has never done.
12. Greenfyre attempts to smear Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen by linking to random blogs and taking quotes she said out of context. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen has simply admitted to allowing papers a chance to undergo E&E’s peer-review process where they may have been arbitrarily rejected from this chance by the editors of other journals. This in no way means that they are published without review. Then of course she admits it is not a pure science journal, which it never claimed to be but rather an interdisciplinary academic journals that allows debate on topics that cross the natural and social sciences and have policy implications. Thus papers published will include both pure science, social science and a mix of both. This is effectively stated on their webpage,
“Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate.”
13. Greenfyre further attempts to smear E&E by using HuangFeng’s so called “analysis”. While I agree that the online formatting E&E’s labeling is inconsistent, this does not prove a paper was not subject to the peer-review process. I pointed out to Huang multiple times that popular journals Nature and Science do not designate which articles are peer-reviewed or not. Using Huang’s standards Nature and Science should be removed as peer-reviewed journals for failure to disclose which articles are peer-reviewed or not.
14. Greenfyre cherry picks the most theoretically extreme paper in the list. The solar paper by Dr. Manuel is in no way a common skeptical position and only represents 0.002% of the list. Regardless the paper clearly is supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming, which is why it is included. Greenfyre is under the misconception that the list is supposed to be a singular argument when nothing could be further from the truth. The list is a reference to ALL the arguments supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
Who is denying that there has been a slight warming since the end of the little ice age?
I don’t believe this is clear at all.
Majority? There are more skeptical sites then anything and I have not updated this in some time,
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, PPE Oxford University)
Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
ICECAP (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, CCM, AMS Fellow)
[[SHORTENED LIST]]
Blogs:
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, PPE Oxford University)
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Debate Daily
Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
[[[SHORTENED LIST]]
Energy:
Facts About Ethanol (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Institute For Energy Research
Master Resource
Other:
Environmentalism is Fascism
Global Warming and the Climate
Global Warming Debunking News and Views
Global Warming Science
[SHORTENED LIST]]
Resources:
Global Warming Petition Project
Solar Cycle 24
SurfaceStations.org
UAH Climate Data
Scientists:
Benny Peiser (Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, UK)
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, PPE Oxford University, Canada)
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Old Site) (Roger A. Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, USA)
[[SHORTENED LIST]]
Organizations:
AccuWeather - Global Warming (USA)
American Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
American Land Rights Association (USA)
Business & Media Institute - Environment (USA)
Canada Free Press - Global Warming (Canada)
[[SHORTENED LIST]]
Where have I made this argument? I suppose it is the title of the thread but I have no way to change that.
Meh, several dopers already did check a few of the papers and they arrived to the conclusion that you are in reality misrepresenting what they say.
In essence the blogger that did the rebuttal is more accurate.
When you are not even capable of convincing others in this message board, it is even less likely that you will convince others where it counts. (academia, research groups etc)
The effort so far is indeed like the one of the nowhere man.