Why worry about global warming?

[Greatcloud]

Here is another peer reviewed paper against AGW.

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf

 

[Blayz]

Here is another peer reviewed paper against AGW.

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf

Excellent, a reprint from a book chapter which links to a website owned by the author, with not a single peer reviewer in sight.

 

[USincognito]

Here is another peer reviewed paper against AGW.

Posting something to a social networking site is not peer review.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here are 900 peer reviewed papers against AGW

Popular Technology.net: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

 

[Mikecpking]

Here are 900 peer reviewed papers against AGW

Popular Technology.net: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

which refuted by a huge number of science bodies, far more than 900+

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nostromo]

I can't say I have a strong opinion on global warming, but I don't see that I need much of an excuse to avoid pumping crap into the atmosphere.

 

[Greatcloud]

I do have a strong opinion on global warming and don't believe in man caused global warming. I do believe in pollution in big cities caused by cars and coal burning plants.

 

[Supernaut]

I do have a strong opinion on global warming and don't believe in man caused global warming. I do believe in pollution in big cities caused by cars and coal burning plants.

You realize that people manufactured and drive these cars, built and operate those coal burning plants...so how do you not think that it was man that caused this?

 

[Greatcloud]

You realize that people manufactured and drive these cars, built and operate those coal burning plants...so how do you not think that it was man that caused this?

I believe in man caused pollution but not in man caused global warming.



CO2

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What difference does it make who believes it. Nothing that's effective will be done about it.

 

[Jazer]

Nothing that's effective will be done about it.

Al Gore would have done something about it. He already has made a big difference. It is amazing to think how close he came to being elected and how different things would have been without Bush.

 

[Supernaut]

I believe in man caused pollution but not in man caused global warming.



CO2

Man caused a vast amount of the pollution that causes global warming.....so....shouldn't man take resonsibility for this?

2OC

 

[Poptech]

which refuted by a huge number of science bodies, far more than 900+

This is incorrect. Any peer-reviewed criticism of the papers was refuted by the authors and the rebuttal is included on the list following the paper.

As for your "scientific bodies", a handful of an organization's council members who release a position statement or an organization's president who signs a statement does not equal endorsement of this position by the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Please provide a complete survey of any of these organization's members position on AGW. Failure to do so means you cannot use them to support your argument.

 

[Mikecpking]

This is incorrect. Any peer-reviewed criticism of the papers was refuted by the authors and the rebuttal is included on the list following the paper.

As for your "scientific bodies", a handful of an organization's council members who release a position statement or an organization's president who signs a statement does not equal endorsement of this position by the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Please provide a complete survey of any of these organization's members position on AGW. Failure to do so means you cannot use them to support your argument.

I guess you will have to write off all the scientists linked with the IPCC.

 

[Poptech]

I guess you will have to write off all the scientists linked with the IPCC.

All the scientists "linked" to the IPCC never signed the report so you have no idea what their position is in regards to AGW.

The number of scientists that supports AGW Alarm is in the minority.

 

[Mikecpking]

All the scientists "linked" to the IPCC never signed the report so you have no idea what their position is in regards to AGW.

The number of scientists that supports AGW Alarm is in the minority.

I thik you can get a lot of information from this sirte and you tell me that there is no effect from unlocking millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere has no effect.

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

 

[Mikecpking]

All the scientists "linked" to the IPCC never signed the report so you have no idea what their position is in regards to AGW.

The number of scientists that supports AGW Alarm is in the minority.

More info for you:

BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics

 

[Poptech]

More info for you:

BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics

All of this is widely disputed but since I cannot post links, I cannot provide the counter arguments. To pick one,

The MWP was global according to data published by 983 individual scientists from 566 research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting.

Google - "Medieval Warm Period Project"

 

[USincognito]

This is incorrect. Any peer-reviewed criticism of the papers was refuted by the authors and the rebuttal is included on the list following the paper.

As for your "scientific bodies", a handful of an organization's council members who release a position statement or an organization's president who signs a statement does not equal endorsement of this position by the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Please provide a complete survey of any of these organization's members position on AGW. Failure to do so means you cannot use them to support your argument.

Hey, it's the dude that got banned from JREF.

 

[Chalnoth]

All of this is widely disputed but since I cannot post links, I cannot provide the counter arguments. To pick one,

The MWP was global according to data published by 983 individual scientists from 566 research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting.

Google - "Medieval Warm Period Project"

Yeah, this is one of the many ways that conservative think tanks lie.

The thing is, if you actually went back and asked the scientists who produced that data what they think, they'd almost certainly tell you that MWP has taken their work out of context and it doesn't imply what MWP says it implies. Furthermore, 983 is a tiny fraction of the total community of climate scientists, so that this statement is proof positive that MWP is cherry-picking data, which is a huge no-no in science.

With respect to their actual claims, the first thing I'd point out is simply that a medieval warm period does not in any way argue against present CO2-induced warming. If you would actually learn a little bit about climate science, you'd realize that there are a great many things that impact global average temperatures. And climate scientists have investigated and cataloged all of them. The main cause of the difference in temperature between now and about the 1970's is CO2.