The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Not only has FC not watched the video. He has not looked at the slides either that are being presented in front of the legislature in our state (and many other states) and D.C. (link below). The slides clearly indicate that there is complete scientific controversy over 'global warming'.
Using Consensus to imply Correctness is absurd. 600 years ago 97% of the scientists thought the earth was flat.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/stat...scienceunderassault-130202180030-phpapp01.pdf
24 papers... I think not.
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Quote from futurecurrents:
Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). (You can see his methodology here.)
What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.
The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.
"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."
And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-c...limate-finds-24-rejecting-global-warming.html
Wow, some folks went to a lot a effort to sow doubt here. Smacks of FF interest money to me. The fact that Exxon-Mobil specifically did not directly fund it means nothing and that was a lame "criticism"
Putting aside the simple fact that CO2 has gone up 35% from the burning of fossil fuels and CO2 is greenhouse effect, let's have look......
First thing I notice is that very few of these papers actually deny the basic premise that temps are rising from the higher CO2 levels due to man's activities. Thye have issues with such things as how many icebergs are off Antarctica and such auxiliary details that really have no relevance to the larger truth of AGW and very few if any of them directly counter the overwhelming real science that proves AGW is real.
So then I looked for something that might be relevant and I found this study.
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. This will be good. And here's the abstract...first two sentences.
"Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate."
Oh really?! The authors are disputing one of the bedrock principles of climate science and physical chemistry, which has been proven in multiple ways in the chemistry lab and by historic observations of temps and CO2. To say a rising concentration of CO2 would result in the long term cooling of the atmosphere is tantamount to saying up is actually down.
Oh, but they did not say "long term" did they. Is it possible that they are saying a short term cooling my occur as clouds increase ? Maybe. And maybe they say nothing about long term effects and if were pressed would admit that long term temps would go up.
Either way, if this one example is any indication then it's pretty likely the rest are bullshit also.
But I will admit that there are scientists, especially the further away they are from being climatologists and the closer they are to being Republicans, who test the prevailing thought.
So you have proof that any of these papers were funded by FF money. I expect that you believe the 50 BILLION dollars spent to promote "global warming" over the past few years is perfectly acceptable. However if a single dime is spent to disprove "global warming" then this is 'proof' of FF complicity. The reality is the spending by promoters of 'global warming' is at least 50 times greater than the spending of the 'deniers'.
There is no scientific proof that "CO2 has gone up 35% from the burning of fossil fuels" - this is merely a theory at best and total scientific fraud at worst.
Did you watch the video yet and learn anything...
600 years ago the prevailing thought among scientists was that the earth was flat and anyone who thought it was round was a heretic.
Using Consensus to imply Correctness is nonsense.
As demonstrated in many studies over the last 16 years... more CO2 leads to global cooling.
The reality is that man-made CO2 has no impact on global cooling or global warming. Using data sets in an attempt to 'prove' that man-made CO2 causes global warming (or cooling) is pure fraud.