450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[The Rabbi]

It doesnt matter whether there are 450 papers, 45 papers, 4 papers or 1 paper. If the author presents evidence that is testable and repeatable then it is scientifically proven. If he does not, then it isn't.
And in global warming no one has been able to present evidence that is irrefutable. That makes global warming a hypothesis at best, manmade global warming an even more remote hypothesis, and manmade global warming that requires trillions of dollars of intervention to change basically in the realm of conspiracy theory.

 

[Diuretic]

It doesnt matter whether there are 450 papers, 45 papers, 4 papers or 1 paper. If the author presents evidence that is testable and repeatable then it is scientifically proven. If he does not, then it isn't.
And in global warming no one has been able to present evidence that is irrefutable. That makes global warming a hypothesis at best, manmade global warming an even more remote hypothesis, and manmade global warming that requires trillions of dollars of intervention to change basically in the realm of conspiracy theory.

No-one has been able to produce evidence that is irrefutable.

Science isn't about irrefutable conclusions. I'd venture that human progress depends on the oveturning of currently accepted theories (explanations) of natural phenomena. I think it's more accurate to refer to the preponderance of evidence. That should guide policy.

It seems to me that if there is a preponderance of evidence that ACM is adversely affecting our environment then the prudent course of action would be to make the necessary minimal changes to how we act to avoid future problems that may be unable to be resolved or require massive sacrifices to our way of life that would set humanity back generations.

 

[Oddball]

Science isn't about irrefutable conclusions. I'd venture that human progress depends on the oveturning of currently accepted theories (explanations) of natural phenomena. I think it's more accurate to refer to the preponderance of evidence. That should guide policy.

Pure nonsense.

Even though things like gravity and electricity are inexplicable at the molecular level, you can still physically reproduce the results of the phenomena.

"Preponderance of evidence" is not now nor has ever been an accepted criteria in proving science.

 

[Diuretic]

Science isn't about irrefutable conclusions. I'd venture that human progress depends on the oveturning of currently accepted theories (explanations) of natural phenomena. I think it's more accurate to refer to the preponderance of evidence. That should guide policy.

Pure nonsense.

Even though things like gravity and electricity are inexplicable at the molecular level, you can still physically reproduce the results of the phenomena.

"Preponderance of evidence" is not now nor has ever been an accepted criteria in proving science.

But is science about "irrefutable conclusions"? Tht's not a rhetorical question.

If science isn't about "irrefutable conclusions" or the "preponderance of evidence" then what is the standard required for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community?

 

[The Rabbi]

Science isn't about irrefutable conclusions. I'd venture that human progress depends on the oveturning of currently accepted theories (explanations) of natural phenomena. I think it's more accurate to refer to the preponderance of evidence. That should guide policy.

Pure nonsense.

Even though things like gravity and electricity are inexplicable at the molecular level, you can still physically reproduce the results of the phenomena.

"Preponderance of evidence" is not now nor has ever been an accepted criteria in proving science.

But is science about "irrefutable conclusions"? Tht's not a rhetorical question.

If science isn't about "irrefutable conclusions" or the "preponderance of evidence" then what is the standard required for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community?

Reproduciible results. If the results of any experiment can be reproduced then the hypothesis is no longer a theory but a scientific fact.
This was an issue with cold fusion a number of years ago. Some scientist swore up and down he had achieved it. But no one else could reproduce the results. So it was a fraud. So even if he had 450 peer reviewed papers supporting him, the fact that the results were not reproducible over-rode that.
Same with global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pure nonsense.

Even though things like gravity and electricity are inexplicable at the molecular level, you can still physically reproduce the results of the phenomena.

"Preponderance of evidence" is not now nor has ever been an accepted criteria in proving science.

But is science about "irrefutable conclusions"? Tht's not a rhetorical question.

If science isn't about "irrefutable conclusions" or the "preponderance of evidence" then what is the standard required for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community?

Reproduciible results. If the results of any experiment can be reproduced then the hypothesis is no longer a theory but a scientific fact.
This was an issue with cold fusion a number of years ago. Some scientist swore up and down he had achieved it. But no one else could reproduce the results. So it was a fraud. So even if he had 450 peer reviewed papers supporting him, the fact that the results were not reproducible over-rode that.
Same with global warming.

And you are totally wrong. We have cases in which the levels of CO2 suddenly rose in the geological past of this planet. And that caused positive feedbacks which cascaded into a rapid climate change, which along with other major changes in atmospheric composition, resulted in major extinction periods. PT extinction event, and the PETM event, just to name two.

 

[Oddball]

And you are totally wrong. We have cases in which the levels of CO2 suddenly rose in the geological past of this planet. And that caused positive feedbacks which cascaded into a rapid climate change, which along with other major changes in atmospheric composition, resulted in major extinction periods. PT extinction event, and the PETM event, just to name two.

And it has been conclusively proven that the CO2 rise was the effect, not the cause.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are totally wrong. We have cases in which the levels of CO2 suddenly rose in the geological past of this planet. And that caused positive feedbacks which cascaded into a rapid climate change, which along with other major changes in atmospheric composition, resulted in major extinction periods. PT extinction event, and the PETM event, just to name two.

And it has been conclusively proven that the CO2 rise was the effect, not the cause.

OK, Doooodeee......., here is a book that says otherwise, and gives the evidence and the methods by which the evidence was obtained.

Methane catastrophe

More here;

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

And here;

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=lxn54r3640w34624&size=largest

Now your statement is not debating me, but scientists with multiple degrees, that are presenting evidence for what they say.

So why don't you present evidence that the heat in the PETM and PT extinction periods caused the increase in CO2?

 

[Oddball]

Yippy skippy.

That increased atmospheric CO2 follows warming periods is a matter of established fact, no matter how many misleading authorities you appeal to.

 

[Old Rocks]

And your yapping in a post on a message board makes it so

 

[Diuretic]

Pure nonsense.

Even though things like gravity and electricity are inexplicable at the molecular level, you can still physically reproduce the results of the phenomena.

"Preponderance of evidence" is not now nor has ever been an accepted criteria in proving science.

But is science about "irrefutable conclusions"? Tht's not a rhetorical question.

If science isn't about "irrefutable conclusions" or the "preponderance of evidence" then what is the standard required for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community?

Reproduciible results. If the results of any experiment can be reproduced then the hypothesis is no longer a theory but a scientific fact.
This was an issue with cold fusion a number of years ago. Some scientist swore up and down he had achieved it. But no one else could reproduce the results. So it was a fraud. So even if he had 450 peer reviewed papers supporting him, the fact that the results were not reproducible over-rode that.
Same with global warming.

Yes I remember the cold fusion debacle. But now, with global warming where is the process or experiment that has to be reproducible?

 

[Toronado3800]

Good point about the experiments, and the cooling/warming cycles the earth goes through.

I'm pretty conservative and climate models are not a perfect science.

First dismissed are those who ask questions like "So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?”" Well, that would be like modifying the climate to mess up the gulf stream and wondering why England suddenly gets colder. Pretty complicated system.

The simplest experiment is applying sunlight to a sealed fish tank full of a regular atmospheric mix alongside one of the regular mix plus x% of whatever greenhouse gases. Well guess how it comes out. The one with the increased CO2 holds more heat. w w w. energyquest.ca.gov /projects /greenhouse. html" Its not rocket science.

So even though I'm conservative I believe in the artificial warming effects of greenhouse gases. How much of a planet wide effect do we have? I don't know. What is the chance we're messing up a long term climate trend? I don't know.

But once again, I'm a stick in the mud and love my nephews and nieces. If painting their walls in lead has a 90% chance of making their lives slightly miserable I'm not going to do it. I don't understand folks who will take the 50% chance either. Or even a 10%, 5%, or 1% chance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good point about the experiments, and the cooling/warming cycles the earth goes through.

I'm pretty conservative and climate models are not a perfect science.

First dismissed are those who ask questions like "So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?”" Well, that would be like modifying the climate to mess up the gulf stream and wondering why England suddenly gets colder. Pretty complicated system.

The simplest experiment is applying sunlight to a sealed fish tank full of a regular atmospheric mix alongside one of the regular mix plus x% of whatever greenhouse gases. Well guess how it comes out. The one with the increased CO2 holds more heat. w w w. energyquest.ca.gov /projects /greenhouse. html" Its not rocket science.

So even though I'm conservative I believe in the artificial warming effects of greenhouse gases. How much of a planet wide effect do we have? I don't know. What is the chance we're messing up a long term climate trend? I don't know.

But once again, I'm a stick in the mud and love my nephews and nieces. If painting their walls in lead has a 90% chance of making their lives slightly miserable I'm not going to do it. I don't understand folks who will take the 50% chance either. Or even a 10%, 5%, or 1% chance.

A matter of science, such as global warming and the resulting climatic change should not be a political football. Here is a American Institute of Physics site that lays out the scientific history of the study of greenhouse gases.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Si modo]

Good point about the experiments, and the cooling/warming cycles the earth goes through.

I'm pretty conservative and climate models are not a perfect science.

First dismissed are those who ask questions like "So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?”" Well, that would be like modifying the climate to mess up the gulf stream and wondering why England suddenly gets colder. Pretty complicated system.

The simplest experiment is applying sunlight to a sealed fish tank full of a regular atmospheric mix alongside one of the regular mix plus x% of whatever greenhouse gases. Well guess how it comes out. The one with the increased CO2 holds more heat. w w w. energyquest.ca.gov /projects /greenhouse. html" Its not rocket science.

So even though I'm conservative I believe in the artificial warming effects of greenhouse gases. How much of a planet wide effect do we have? I don't know. What is the chance we're messing up a long term climate trend? I don't know.

But once again, I'm a stick in the mud and love my nephews and nieces. If painting their walls in lead has a 90% chance of making their lives slightly miserable I'm not going to do it. I don't understand folks who will take the 50% chance either. Or even a 10%, 5%, or 1% chance.

A matter of science, ...

OldRocks? Are you playing at science again?

... such as global warming and the resulting climatic change should not be a political football. ....

Not only is that your sport, you've quite the record of fumbles.

 

[Oddball]

The simplest experiment is applying sunlight to a sealed fish tank full of a regular atmospheric mix alongside one of the regular mix plus x% of whatever greenhouse gases. Well guess how it comes out. The one with the increased CO2 holds more heat. w w w. energyquest.ca.gov /projects /greenhouse. html" Its not rocket science.

What an absolutely unanalytical and plain old stupid statement.

A sealed fish tank is not a dynamic ecosystem, with millions upon millions of variables....And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that.

 

[FactFinder]

All this discussion about CO2 has been ignoring one important point. CO2 starts declining during cooling periods.

Some aquarium experiment is hardly a model of earth's climate.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to admit I'm all at (increasing) sea (levels) here.

It appears there's a correlation between CO2 and warming.

When it's cold CO2 is down. When it's hot CO2 is up.

So is CO2 an indicator or an effect or a cause or what?

My unscientific mind might be unscientific but it is curious.

 

[Si modo]

I have to admit I'm all at (increasing) sea (levels) here.

It appears there's a correlation between CO2 and warming.

When it's cold CO2 is down. When it's hot CO2 is up.

So is CO2 an indicator or an effect or a cause or what?

My unscientific mind might be unscientific but it is curious.

The sad thing is, with all of the politicization of this, most don't even need experience in science. CO2 levels in the atmosphere correlate with warming - sometimes - depending on model and/or methodology.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to admit I'm all at (increasing) sea (levels) here.

It appears there's a correlation between CO2 and warming.

When it's cold CO2 is down. When it's hot CO2 is up.

So is CO2 an indicator or an effect or a cause or what?

My unscientific mind might be unscientific but it is curious.

The sad thing is, with all of the politicization of this, most don't even need experience in science. CO2 levels in the atmosphere correlate with warming - sometimes - depending on model and/or methodology.

Thanks Si, I know how fractious this discussion is and how it has been politicised.

I suppose i have to ask if there's any chance of real science being produced or is it all going to be tainted by propaganda - from both sides of the debate?

I know that's a huge question but if you can sort that one out I have one more on the meaning of life and another about the numbers in the Saturday Lotto

I didn't throw the Middle East Peace on at you, after all some problems must at least have a potential solution.

 

[Si modo]

I have to admit I'm all at (increasing) sea (levels) here.

It appears there's a correlation between CO2 and warming.

When it's cold CO2 is down. When it's hot CO2 is up.

So is CO2 an indicator or an effect or a cause or what?

My unscientific mind might be unscientific but it is curious.

The sad thing is, with all of the politicization of this, most don't even need experience in science. CO2 levels in the atmosphere correlate with warming - sometimes - depending on model and/or methodology.

Thanks Si, I know how fractious this discussion is and how it has been politicised.

I suppose i have to ask if there's any chance of real science being produced or is it all going to be tainted by propaganda - from both sides of the debate?

I know that's a huge question but if you can sort that one out I have one more on the meaning of life and another about the numbers in the Saturday Lotto

I didn't throw the Middle East Peace on at you, after all some problems must at least have a potential solution.

LOL. Thanks for that last part. There is a reason I do what I do.

The science is real, actually. The problem is the current state of the science does not allow for any definitive claim about the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on world temperatures (other than CO2's role in the 'greenhouse' effect, that is).