JohnStOnge
Member
- Jul 8, 2005
- 321
- 43
- 16
Well, Spiderman, there are a lot of posts in this thread so I don't know if anybody has already posted this one:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
A quote:
"Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed
warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of
alarm–assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model
depictions of greenhouse warming are correct."
I'll tell you something else, Spiderman, the attitude behind your request displays a dismissal of the possibility that there is bias associated with the process that determines what is published in scientific journals and what is not. I think that is a mistake, especially when one is dealing with a politically charged issue. I think what you need to do is look at the rationale, evidence, etc., included with arguments made instead of resorting to the "published in peer reviewed journals" cop out. The "peer review" process as a control on validity is very over rated.
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
A quote:
"Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed
warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of
alarm–assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model
depictions of greenhouse warming are correct."
I'll tell you something else, Spiderman, the attitude behind your request displays a dismissal of the possibility that there is bias associated with the process that determines what is published in scientific journals and what is not. I think that is a mistake, especially when one is dealing with a politically charged issue. I think what you need to do is look at the rationale, evidence, etc., included with arguments made instead of resorting to the "published in peer reviewed journals" cop out. The "peer review" process as a control on validity is very over rated.