Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

[FactFinder]

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]
Tim Ball - SourceWatch

From the desk of Dr. Ball:

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

 

[FactFinder]

Oh, guess who owns SourceWatch? The internet version of the Salem Witch hunts.

Center for Media & Democracy

Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 310, Madison, WI 53703
Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email [email protected]


The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

 

[Sinatra]

OK, you state that an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the AGW theory of global warming. Yet the only scientific society to change it's position on global warming changed it to the overwhelming consensus on global warming. Your statement would carry a bit more weight if even a single scientific society, National Academy of Science, or major university would change it's postition. Apperantly these 'scientists' do not carry enough weight within their own scientific societies to influence the policy statements.

$$$$ drives opinion my friend, and there is BIG $$$$ in the GW industry.

Secondly...

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

And these guys have stepped out very recently to oppose the GW mantra...

Japan Society of Energy and Resources

And the warnings of potential cooling is nothing new...

National Policy Analysis #388: New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling

And here is a post both informative and entertaining if you are interested in such debates...

St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)

No, money is driving the global warming deniers.

You don't know much about scientists, my friend. Most scientists would love to knock down another scientists theory. It is how reputations are made. But this requires facts and experimental data. All the facts such as melting ice caps and melting glaciers show that our 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm. That's why there are no peer reviewed studies stating otherwise.

I provided peer review studies in an earlier post.

It makes it rather difficult to discuss possibilities or variables of opinion if those participating do not actually keep up with the very discussion they wish to participate in.

Please keep up - you appear to have some potential in more fully understanding the debate within the science community regarding this topic, but have yet to reach said potential.

 

[Sinatra]

Oh, guess who owns SourceWatch? The internet version of the Salem Witch hunts.

Center for Media & Democracy

Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 310, Madison, WI 53703
Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email [email protected]


The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Yes, you are quite correct. These groups, led by the all consuming hunger of the IPCC and UN, who work tirelessly to keep the media focus on advocating for them to ensure continued research and PR dollars that amount to hundreds of millions each year, have slanted the science for decades regarding this topic.

Shameful? Yes.

Unbiased Science? No.

 

[Old Rocks]

$$$$ drives opinion my friend, and there is BIG $$$$ in the GW industry.

Secondly...

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

And these guys have stepped out very recently to oppose the GW mantra...

Japan Society of Energy and Resources

And the warnings of potential cooling is nothing new...

National Policy Analysis #388: New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling

And here is a post both informative and entertaining if you are interested in such debates...

St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)

No, money is driving the global warming deniers.

You don't know much about scientists, my friend. Most scientists would love to knock down another scientists theory. It is how reputations are made. But this requires facts and experimental data. All the facts such as melting ice caps and melting glaciers show that our 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm. That's why there are no peer reviewed studies stating otherwise.

I provided peer review studies in an earlier post.

It makes it rather difficult to discuss possibilities or variables of opinion if those participating do not actually keep up with the very discussion they wish to participate in.

Please keep up - you appear to have some potential in more fully understanding the debate within the science community regarding this topic, but have yet to reach said potential.

Really? All I remember is posts from right wingnut thing tanks.

 

[Meister]

Perhaps, the debate isn't over, Old Rocks. Seems that fact Finder, and Sinatra have put a chink into your armor. Just sayin'....

 

[Sinatra]

No, money is driving the global warming deniers.

You don't know much about scientists, my friend. Most scientists would love to knock down another scientists theory. It is how reputations are made. But this requires facts and experimental data. All the facts such as melting ice caps and melting glaciers show that our 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm. That's why there are no peer reviewed studies stating otherwise.

I provided peer review studies in an earlier post.

It makes it rather difficult to discuss possibilities or variables of opinion if those participating do not actually keep up with the very discussion they wish to participate in. He was in fact on of the most highly respected members in the field of climate studies whose reputation has only increased since his death last year - particularly with his contribution of the Mobile Polar High theory, which in combination with solar activity, is in my humble opinion, the true path in understanding earth's vast and highly complex climate patterns, where man's own influence is negligible at most.

Please keep up - you appear to have some potential in more fully understanding the debate within the science community regarding this topic, but have yet to reach said potential.

Really? All I remember is posts from right wingnut thing tanks.

This is the kind of right vs left nonsense that has actual members of the scientific community so frustrated.

Perhaps take some time to look into the work of Marcel Leroux - he was neither a "wingnut" nor a member of a "thing tank". (I assume you meant think tank...)

Here is just a start - this was posted already but I shall do so again for your benefit. Leroux is just one of a growing number of scientists who are giving very credible arguements opposed to the man-made global warming theory. You will find a number of links of other Leroux studies based on this subject at the end of the article...

European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I read the article concerning Leroux. And as I said before, interesting, but the physics of CO2, well documented, simply prove him incorrect.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, I read the article concerning Leroux. And as I said before, interesting, but the physics of CO2, well documented, simply prove him incorrect.

Ah, you are showing a clear lack of intellectual honesty here, making you unworthy of serious consideration in discussing this topic.

The entire CO2 premise is of much debate as well, and I would hope you are aware of that...

http://mattjduffy.blogspot.com/2007/10/with-all-apologies-to-al-gores-nobel_13.html

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PApGe.162.1557K

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good. This is the kind of thing I have been looking for. A real article from a real journal of science, not a 'think tank' political article.


M. L. Khandekar1 , T. S. Murty2 and P. Chittibabu3
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/

(1) Consulting Meteorologist, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
(2) Department of civil engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
(3) W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Received: 19 November 2003 Accepted: 21 June 2004

Abstract A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper. The term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere. Since the mid to late 1980s there has been an intense and often emotional debate on this topic. The various climate change reports (1996, 2001) prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have provided the scientific framework that ultimately led to the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels. Numerous peer-reviewed studies reported in recent literature have attempted to verify several of the projections on climate change that have been detailed by the IPCC reports.
The global warming debate as presented by the media usually focuses on the increasing mean temperature of the earth, associated extreme weather events and future climate projections of increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide. In reality, the climate change issue is considerably more complex than an increase in the earth’s mean temperature and in extreme weather events. Several recent studies have questioned many of the projections of climate change made by the IPCC reports and at present there is an emerging dissenting view of the global warming science which is at odds with the IPCC view of the cause and consequence of global warming. Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.
Keywords Carbon dioxide - global warming - land use effects - sea level - extreme weather events - solar influence

 

[Old Rocks]

News Archive - The Earth Institute at Columbia University


The North and Equatorial Pacific Ocean is known to undergo, over decadal time scales, major physical and biological changes commonly called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The most recent and well-documented major shifts occurred in 1977 and around 1990. While causes and effects of PDO have been investigated extensively in recent years, its effects on CO2 chemistry have not yet been identified.

Measuring the pCO2 for the past two or more decades through each of these shifts, the researchers found that the 1977 PDO shift was followed by a decrease in emission of CO2 from the equatorial Pacific ocean to the atmosphere , while the 1990 shift was followed by an increase in emission. This increase in carbon dioxide release from the sea to the air is large enough to affect the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, whereas colder waters in higher latitudes are sinks of atmospheric CO2. In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas. This uptake rate corresponds to about 25 percent of carbon emitted to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities. The equatorial Pacific is characterized by high seawater carbon dioxide and nutrient concentrations provided by upwelling, or the bringing up of CO2-rich deep waters to the surface.

As a result, the region is a major site for release of carbon dioxide from the ocean interior to the atmosphere, and the intensity of the release depends on how rapidly the ocean waters circulate vertically. During decades dominated by stronger overall circulation, more carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, further exacerbating the global warming impacts of CO2. Thus, decadal changes in ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific may have a profound impact on the CO2-induced global warming.

 

[Chris]

Yes, I read the article concerning Leroux. And as I said before, interesting, but the physics of CO2, well documented, simply prove him incorrect.

These people are so stupid they are debating something that was proved experimentally in 1859.

 

[Sinatra]

News Archive - The Earth Institute at Columbia University


The North and Equatorial Pacific Ocean is known to undergo, over decadal time scales, major physical and biological changes commonly called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The most recent and well-documented major shifts occurred in 1977 and around 1990. While causes and effects of PDO have been investigated extensively in recent years, its effects on CO2 chemistry have not yet been identified.

Measuring the pCO2 for the past two or more decades through each of these shifts, the researchers found that the 1977 PDO shift was followed by a decrease in emission of CO2 from the equatorial Pacific ocean to the atmosphere , while the 1990 shift was followed by an increase in emission. This increase in carbon dioxide release from the sea to the air is large enough to affect the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, whereas colder waters in higher latitudes are sinks of atmospheric CO2. In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas. This uptake rate corresponds to about 25 percent of carbon emitted to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities. The equatorial Pacific is characterized by high seawater carbon dioxide and nutrient concentrations provided by upwelling, or the bringing up of CO2-rich deep waters to the surface.

As a result, the region is a major site for release of carbon dioxide from the ocean interior to the atmosphere, and the intensity of the release depends on how rapidly the ocean waters circulate vertically. During decades dominated by stronger overall circulation, more carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, further exacerbating the global warming impacts of CO2. Thus, decadal changes in ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific may have a profound impact on the CO2-induced global warming.

Now I am a bit confused here - you state a dislike of "think tank" style articles, and yet you in fact post an article from a liberal think tank - the Earth Institute at Columbia. The president of the Earth Institute, Jeffery Sachs was a "special advisor" to the UN. Now while I don't begrude Sach's right to hold firm to his liberal utopian version of the world (that generall comes at the expense of the United States), I am uncertain as to how he qualifies in a post by someone (you) who disregards any source not conducive to their own narrow philosophy based on that source being viewed as "non-scientific". Sachs himself is not a climate scientist, but rather another in a long line of liberal economists - and a highly controversial one at that - though he has been richly rewarded with being a global warming proponent...

http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/9. Canada Free Press 4.26.06.doc

I would counter that my own posting of information from Leroux, a noted scientist in the fielf of climatology, whose opposition to the standard man-made global warming theory continues to hold up - and hold up well.

Yet another Leroux example, a nice back and forth between he and a global warming proponent published in the French science magazine Fusion:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf

 

[Chris]

Sinatra, the article you posted is from 4 years ago. Even the title is wrong.

It says there is no global climate. This is false. When you increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% all over the globe, you are effecting the climate all over the globe.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, the article you posted is from 4 years ago. Even the title is wrong.

It says there is no global climate. This is false. When you increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% all over the globe, you are effecting the climate all over the globe.

I am sorry Chris, but your assertion makes no sense.

Are you attempting to say something posted four years go regarding climate change is irrelevent based upon it being four years old? Is the climate really changing that fast? If that were the case, then the vast majority of IPCC reports would also be irrelevent, yes?

As to the specifics of Leroux's premise, I suggest you research it further, as it not only has merit, but also a good deal of science to back it up.

Again, this can be a starting point regarding Leroux:

European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

I am not opposed to reducing CO2 emissions, I simply want it to be done in an orderly and scientifically responsible way.

The Global Warming junta is far from scientifically responsible, and in fact, could downright dangerous.

Despite what Al Gore and his ilk claimed, the debate within the scientific community was never over - in fact this debate continues to escalate, with a rising number speaking out in opposition.

Here is another very interesting science article from 2002 showing there appears to be a near-consistent discord between high levels of CO2 and corresponding high temperature levels in earth's climate history. Please focus on the upper right portion of page 4. This fact was one of the motivations for Leroux to continue to look at earth's climate in a much more region-specifc style. This article seems to nicely compliment the cooling trend we have seen in more recent years - while CO2 levels increase, temperatures have begun to decrease. Why? Many possibilities are circulating regarding this, but for now the general tone of the man-made global warming proponents is to suggest that this cooling is temporary, and warming will start back up in the next 10-30 years and we will be warmer than ever!! Yeah...

According to this same article, CO2 likely plays some part - though likely a much lesser one than other influences such as....THE SUN. Hah! Imagine that!

Once again, less CO2, a cleaner environement, etc. - I am all for that and always have been. But I am not for Draconian measures instituted against the United States by international agencies and over emotionalized leftist environmentalists who wish to see a decline in this nation's standard of living to appease their own version of a "nice world."

So here is that other article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf+html

 

[Chris]

Sinatra, what we are experiencing has nothing to do with the past.

We are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and that number climbs higher every day. This is all unprecedented.

Attacking Al Gore and talking about the past is all you have because you can't accept the reality of the situation. We are using the earth as a giant lab experiment.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, what we are experiencing has nothing to do with the past.

We are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and that number climbs higher every day. This is all unprecedented.

Attacking Al Gore and talking about the past is all you have because you can't accept the reality of the situation. We are using the earth as a giant lab experiment.

I have to ask, and with all due respect, how old are you?

I say this as a former educator who instructed nearly 5000 students during my career, and you have the tone of an incoming freshman. And please don't misunderstand - that is fine. Youth is a time of emotion, and a desire to see a better world. We would all do well to maintain some of that even as the years accumulate - but also understand, that experience and understanding of reality then must temper the naivete of youth, and from there is the foundation of sound reason.

The earth has all on its own, produced greater amounts of CO2 than man ever could - the climate changes, growing warmer, growing colder, and on and on - and so it will continue to do so long after humankind has shuffled off the global stage.

There is recent evidence contained in this very thread showing a lack of a conclusive link between CO2 and climate change. That is not to say I disagree with the desire of reducing CO2 - or that it might play a part in the global climate. What I am saying is that the part CO2 plays, particularly the anthropic contribution, as it correlates to climate, is a minor player, dwarfed by such causitive factors as solar activity, and Leroux's MPH model, among others.

True science is to be based in fact.

Anthropic global warming is based upon conjecture, and meddling socio-political agendas.

Has the earth warmed? Yes.

Has the earth cooled? Yes.

'Tis the times between the two that have been taken advantage of - and I feel you are among those to suffer from that condition...

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, less CO2, a cleaner environement, etc. - I am all for that and always have been. But I am not for Draconian measures instituted against the United States by international agencies and over emotionalized leftist environmentalists who wish to see a decline in this nation's standard of living to appease their own version of a "nice world."

So here is that other article:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years — PNAS
............................................................

An interesting article, much too much math. However, the conclusion was interesting in that he stated that the atmospheric CO2 did not seem to be the dominant influence on global temperatures on time scales of ten million years or longer. We are not dealing with a ten million year or longer time scale.
We are dealing with a time scale measured in decades. On that time scale, we are seeing major changes. And the only thing that has changed that we know of is the per centage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

While the article gave a very good explanation of the use of strontium isotopes to determine CO2, and a broad brush stroke graph of what was found with that method, it has little to do with the present situation.

However, thank you again for an interesting article. Would love to read the one in the geophysical journal, but am not going to spend $34 for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now I am a bit confused here - you state a dislike of "think tank" style articles, and yet you in fact post an article from a liberal think tank - the Earth Institute at Columbia. The president of the Earth Institute, Jeffery Sachs was a "special advisor" to the UN. Now while I don't begrude Sach's right to hold firm to his liberal utopian version of the world (that generall comes at the expense of the United States), I am uncertain as to how he qualifies in a post by someone (you) who disregards any source not conducive to their own narrow philosophy based on that source being viewed as "non-scientific". Sachs himself is not a climate scientist, but rather another in a long line of liberal economists - and a highly controversial one at that - though he has been richly rewarded with being a global warming proponent...

http://www.hudson.org/files/document... 4.26.06.doc

.....................................................................

Had you read the article, you would have seen that the findings quoted in the article were in published in an article in the Science journal, October of 2003. Science is a world renowned peer reviewed journal.

As for your Hudson article, I believe the subject is global warming, not freaked out conspiracy theories;

Global wealth redistribution program, Millennium Development Project
Jeffrey Sachs’ Hollywood Style Dud at the United Nations
By Joseph Klein
Monday, April 24, 2006

 

[Old Rocks]

There is recent evidence contained in this very thread showing a lack of a conclusive link between CO2 and climate change. That is not to say I disagree with the desire of reducing CO2 - or that it might play a part in the global climate. What I am saying is that the part CO2 plays, particularly the anthropic contribution, as it correlates to climate, is a minor player, dwarfed by such causitive factors as solar activity, and Leroux's MPH model, among others.
.....................................................................

Yes, to your credit, you have put up some people with credentials and logic that disagree with the AGW theory. However, we have put up many, many that say just the opposite. And the vast majority of scientists are convinced that AGW is correct.