------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by prashamk

How does it link with the topics we are discussing?

Svensmark work on the relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation will be quantified by the multi-billion dollar particle accelerator's experimentation capabilities and our understanding of climate change will be advanced as a result. Since this thread deals with climate change, and this is potentially going to provide 'breakthrough' proof of a completely different theory than that of Global Warming, I find it related to the topics here.

~Paradox

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

and this is potentially going to provide 'breakthrough' proof of a completely different theory than that of Global Warming, I find it related to the topics here.

Not unless there has been a change in cosmic radiation since the middle of last century, over which time the temperature change has been attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Which there hasn't.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

These are a couple of really great sources for reality in climate science:

The Heartland Institute - Discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to public policy problems.

CO2 Science

And here we see the counter scientific basis of the deniers.

None of the peer reviewed journal articles published in the last 15 years about climate change are correct.

All of the worlds respected scientific organisations are correct.

The only truth can be found in pressure group blogs, with funding from ExxonMobil.

If that's the limit of your critical thinking, I would say that you need a rethink.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

The majority are still in the closet...

I'm not convinced.

It seems that people close to some of this 400 think that Inhofe doesn't understand their position.

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 | Atmoz

Perhaps if you found a paper published in a peer reviewed journal by one of these 400 prominent scientists?

Or even found a respected scientific organisation that supports denial?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

For the forum, my stuff is in blue!

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Regarding peer review in paleoclimate journals, Dr. Edward Wedman had this to say in his report to the US House of Representatives that debunked the Hockey-Stick graph:

The Wegman report was not peer reviewed.

The NRC report was, and that vindicated Mann's work.

So science still supports Mann. People who disagree with Mann have to attack science, but I think that attacking science is pretty obviously a poor argument.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Written By: Peter Risdon
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: August 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite what many global warming alarmists assert in the media, there are many articles in the world's leading science publications contradicting the assertion that "the debate is over" about global warming. These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming. The following is the second of a three-part list of many such articles.
Compiled by Peter Risdon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Hockey Stick'

I notice many of your papers cannot be called "peer reviewed", having only been published in E&E, which is not listed as an ISI peer reviewed journal.

However, the point is moot. The Hockey stick has been found to be largely valid by the NRC. There were papers that raised statistical issues with the treatment of the tree-ring proxy, the the effect of these was found to be negligible.

And in any case there have been other reconstructions since that support Mann's work.

So, starting from the next paper:

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

'Kyoto'

Scientists opinions on the efficacy of Kyoto are not arguments against global warming.

Especially this one.

From the paper:
"climate change is so complex and rooted in the "globally interlaced supply system of fossil energy,'"
Which implies that climate change is related to fossil fuel energy, which is supportive of the current scientific view of global warming is it not?

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

And here we see the counter scientific basis of the deniers.

None of the peer reviewed journal articles published in the last 15 years about climate change are correct.

All of the worlds respected scientific organisations are correct.

The only truth can be found in pressure group blogs, with funding from ExxonMobil.

If that's the limit of your critical thinking, I would say that you need a rethink.

Do you need me to repost the piles of peer-reviewed articles that question whether anthropogenic global warming has any basis?

Please go forth and compile the total dollars for A) the small amount of money spent by oil firms combating AGW vs. B) the large amount of money spent by the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, and other environmental groups trying to prove AGW. You will find that environmental group spending FAR outweighs oil company spending.

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

I'm not convinced.

It seems that people close to some of this 400 think that Inhofe doesn't understand their position.

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 | Atmoz

Perhaps if you found a paper published in a peer reviewed journal by one of these 400 prominent scientists?

Or even found a respected scientific organisation that supports denial?

Are you kidding me? You dispute the 400-skeptics paper because an environmental BLOG states that a single scientist in the 400 does not want to be categorized as a 'skeptic'? Your blog author does not even give a first-hand account of Dr. Castro denying that he is a skeptic. He says, "From my personal discussions with Dr. Castro, I do not believe that he is a “climate skeptic”, and I don’t believe that he would think so either." Apparently he THINKS that Dr. Castro does not want to be considered a climate skeptic.

Try re-reading the paper and this time take a look at the first-hand statements from each of the scientists (complete with reference links).

I gave you tons of peer-reviewed skeptic articles - or did you conveniently gloss over that post?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Then there are these 60 scientists that say that anthropogenic global warming is crap:
Open Kyoto to debate

And there is an almost complete list of the usual suspects.

Not the tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists that some would have us believe.

A mere sixty individuals, and there are few that don't have links to the fossil fuel industry, and some have overstated their qualifications.

And some are now dead.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Are you kidding me? You dispute the 400-skeptics paper because an environmental BLOG states that a single scientist in the 400 does not want to be catagorized as a 'skeptic'? Your blog author cannot even spell: "This is what Inhofe wrote in his Senete report." On top of that, he says, "From my personal discussions with Dr. Castro, I do not believe that he is a “climate skeptic”, and I don’t believe that he would think so either." This blog is not even a first-hand account of Dr. Castro denying that he is a skeptic.

Try re-reading the paper and this time take a look at the first-hand statements from each of the scientists (complete with reference links).

I gave you tons of peer-reviewed skeptic aritcles - or did you conveniently gloss over that post?

No, I doubt it because it was gathered without talking to any of the scientists, and by doing a google search for statements that Inhofe thought might be indicative of denial.

And with little care for their qualifications:

Inhofes 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com

* Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
*84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
*49 are retired
*44 are television weathermen
*20 are economists
*70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
*Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations:

*Taking money from companies that have an established stake in burning fossil fuels doesn't mean your science is junk, but it ought to sound alarm bells for anyone aiming for the label of "skeptic."
*Being retired doesn't mean you've lost your smarts, but it does make it harder to be considered "prominent" on a cutting-edge issue.
*Weathermen help us navigate the vagaries of weather on a local level every day, but this isn't a discipline that requires forecasting world climate conditions decades from now. (Prominent? In one sense: They are more frequently seen and heard.)
*Economists, clearly, are valuable participants in policy debates. Clearly, they aren't climate scientists.