The Global Warming Challenge

[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/New...-Warming-.html





http://indico.nucleares.unam.mx/cont...0&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/manuscri...L_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...pa20071880.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.