Are there any published scientific articles doubting or refuting...

B

blakerboy777

New member
...Anthropogenic Global Climate Change? I had an argument with one of my teacher's and I'm worried about getting into another one without the facts. Can you help me with links to any articles (NOT editorials) that challenge the current scientific paradigm?
Paul, you confused me. Philip Morris IS a tobacco company.
 
There are only a few peer-reviewed scientific studies that challenge the notion of a significant human warming influence on global climate, and all that have been around for any length of time have been made obsolete by errors discovered in the data they relied on or refuted by other studies.

When seeking contrarian studies, look to read the abstracts and conclusions of the studies before forming an opinion. I often see political websites claim some study argues against the consensus view when a closer look reveals they are misrepresenting the study. For example, some political site might point to a paper that examines solar influence on climate, then making the poor conclusion that the paper shows humans aren't causing global warming, without noting that the paper's conclusion states that solar activity can't explain any warming over the last 50 years.
 
Ottawa Mike: << If there is more than one at the same time, then they are accused of being funded by an oil company.>>

They actually usually are!!!!

You mock something that is TRUE, thinking your mocking will make it go away.

And of course your junk on secondhand smoke was all funded by tobacco companies, why not mock that, too? You can say "Oh yeah, sure the anti-smokers will falsely claim that all research from the Philip Morris is funded by a tobacco company".
 
If you wanted to know the strength of the denier case you only have to look at the list of 'blogs' crazycon has supplied. The only scientist in the list is Roy Spencer and the marked difference in the papers he gets published and what he puts on his website should be obvious to even a denier.
 
Ottawa Mike: << If there is more than one at the same time, then they are accused of being funded by an oil company.>>

They actually usually are!!!!

You mock something that is TRUE, thinking your mocking will make it go away.

And of course your junk on secondhand smoke was all funded by tobacco companies, why not mock that, too? You can say "Oh yeah, sure the anti-smokers will falsely claim that all research from the Philip Morris is funded by a tobacco company".
 
Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
 
You will get huffing and puffing and the very 'believable!' 10-11 thumbs downs that Dana and Bucket have received in just a couple of hours but you will not get a real answer because there aren't any published papers that refute the main theory. And this is not because of any grand conspiracy theory but because it is sound science. Denier groups this is a major weakness in their propaganda so they have now switched to attacking the peer review process, they are nothing if not predictable.
 
You will get huffing and puffing and the very 'believable!' 10-11 thumbs downs that Dana and Bucket have received in just a couple of hours but you will not get a real answer because there aren't any published papers that refute the main theory. And this is not because of any grand conspiracy theory but because it is sound science. Denier groups this is a major weakness in their propaganda so they have now switched to attacking the peer review process, they are nothing if not predictable.
 
Ask Dana, one of his peer reviewed articles brought up that there was three natural events that dampened severely man's CO2 enough that it caused cooling. Then another article that he posted showed that a very strong El Nino could temporarily increase the average temperature by up to a full degree celsius. This tells me that CO2 must not be the driver that current scientists want us to believe. Also, there is a WVU website that explains that water vapor may have doubled since the Little Ice Age. Finally, take a look at the US EPA website where they question the validity of past recreated temperature graphs that play a large part in "proofing" man made climate change.
 
If you wanted to know the strength of the denier case you only have to look at the list of 'blogs' crazycon has supplied. The only scientist in the list is Roy Spencer and the marked difference in the papers he gets published and what he puts on his website should be obvious to even a denier.
 
Get the book called "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon.

It's an excellent breakdown of the best arguments that cast doubt on AGW.

And print out this article and keep with with you.... I was around when this was published.....

http://debunkglobalwarming.info/coolingworld.pdf
 
If you wanted to know the strength of the denier case you only have to look at the list of 'blogs' crazycon has supplied. The only scientist in the list is Roy Spencer and the marked difference in the papers he gets published and what he puts on his website should be obvious to even a denier.
 
The AGW crowd are well funded and well organized. Anyone doubting or refuting are usually a single scientist who is obviously a solo flag flapping in the wind. If there is more than one at the same time, then they are accused of being funded by an oil company.

It would be better to investigate why this sort of scenario has come about. I fear for the future of public trust in science, or lack thereof.
 
Back
Top