imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>Sandy Harris |
| (171 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Global warming | | Rather surprised to find no comments on such a potentially controversial topic. I've edited this fairly aggressively and welcome any comments. There are some broken links still, and some updates would be appropriate.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| | cat1 = Earth Sciences
| | :I don't get to follow this debate much, but do I understand correctly that the terminology is turning toward [[Global climate change]] rather than Global warming so as to not confuse those who don't understand why they might be getting colder. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check = n
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = y
| |
| | cleanup = n
| |
| | by = [[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 08:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Global Warming Controversy==
| | ::I've made a redirect, but they may be two different things, so feel free to correct me. The question is whether we would want to move this article to [[Global climate change]] instead. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
| Perhaps if the Global Warming Controversy is another article in and of itself. Consider the following from the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works:
| |
|
| |
|
| :''The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.'' | | :::I think that 'climate change' is a vague term which most often pops up to appease global warming deniers. It shouldn't be used unless the article is about all forms of change in the climate - natural or unnatural, cooling or warming, pressure patterns for whatever reason, etc. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| That is actually a pretty scary thought. The role of the skeptic is an important part of the scientific process. Skeptics are stamped out in matters of religion, but not in science. The article goes on to say:
| | == Climategate? == |
|
| |
|
| :''If a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)''<ref>http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528</ref>
| | Why is there no mention of this controversy? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Certainly, this article does not prove anything about Global Warming but it certainly establishes that there is in fact a controversy. If there is in fact a controversy, it might be important to report the findings of a recent Senatorial fact-finding mission to Greenland. (I saw this in today's paper.)
| | :Not sure whether or how to handle it. This refers to a Wikileaks release of leaked e-mails from staff of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia between academics involved in climate research, They included e-mails that were extremely disparaging about skeptical scientists, e-mails that favoored resisting calls to make all data and analyses openly available, and e-mails that discussed ways of presenting data to most effectively highlight the climate changes - these e- mails used words like "trick" to describe presentational techniques. After the relevations there were several inquiries into the CRU that endorsed the science and the conclusions but criticised the lack of openness. It's an issue about the politics/sociology of science, but I guess I thought it really doesn't cast any light on global warming - unless you're a conspiracy theorist.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :''The U.S. Senate fact-finding mission, to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown, lasted three days. Now, Mr. Morano has posted his observations on the committee's Web site. The journey "revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions," he began. | | ::It depends whether this article is about the science of global warming and whether it's happening (clue: yes) or whether it is really about the way the debate over global warming has occurred. I think the former for the reason Gareth points out above. The UEA 'controversy' could be covered elsewhere in an article about the political responses to global warming. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :''Citing temperature charts, he points out that while Greenland has been "warming since the 1880s," temperature averages since 1955 have actually been "colder" than the period between 1881 and 1955. In fact, one study concludes that Greenland "was as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 40s, and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50 percent higher than the warming from 1995-2005."''<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NATION02/107310086&template=nextpage</ref> | | ::::The scientists in question above were investigated and their data was found to be sound. Unfortunately, scientists and mathematicians use the word "trick" to mean something different than lay persons. For example, for very small angles, sin(theta) ~= theta, a valid true "trick" that physicists use very often when the fourth or fifth decimal place does not matter. It was this type of trick that they were referring to. As scientists, they did try to present their findings in the most favorable terms, but did so in a mathematically and scientifically reliable fashion. As to withholding some data, that is also valid as they are working on long-term projects, and the collection of that data was expensive and will be used in the future. It is true that they used less than flattering terms to describe some of their adversaries, but whose email is completely PC these days? That is merely unprofessional behavior brought into the light. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Again, this doesn't prove anything, except for the existence of a controversy. To head off any claims of partisanship or politics, please consider the following:
| | :::::Not to mention there has been numerous investigations done: by the university, by the British government (through the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) and by Penn State, which have said it was all manufactured. Nothing wrong with having an article on it ([[Wikipedia]] does) but probably not something to be focussed on heavily inside the main global warming article. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :''Morano says in a pre-briefing for the trip that the two scientists selected by the Democratic majority '''acknowledged all temperature changes and glacial melting in Greenland is within natural climate variability'''.
| | == Plausible-looking criticism == |
|
| |
|
| :''"In fact, the scientist at this meeting admitted that [in] the 1920s and 1930s the temperature warmed up as fast or faster than it currently is -- in that there is nothing at the moment to be alarmed about Greenland. It all comes down to unproven computer models of the future and how much you believe them," explains Morano.''
| | I am not certain this is valid, but it seems worth pointing out. [http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :''The congressional staffer also makes note that a top U.N. scientist recently said half of the variables in the U.N. computer models are unknown. Morano points out that Greenland is contributing "almost undetectable amounts to sea-level rise." He also points out that Antarctica is actually reducing sea-level rise, so that in a sense Antarctica and Greenland balance each other out.'' | | :Looks like the usual denial to me. Now if it were from a site called, say, environmentalpost.com... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 21:34, 9 May 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :''"Also keep in mind that during the Middle Ages Greenland was named Greenland because it was green. The Vikings settled it -- and that was long before the age of [the] SUV or coal-powered electric plant[s]," observes Morano.''
| | == Doonesbury == |
| | | [http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
| :''Other observations by Morano include that the trip will not be an eco-friendly one. The delegation will be flying a large military plane to Greenland, then chartering a plane, helicopters, and then a boat out in a fjord, and reversing that to return home.''
| |
| | |
| :''Morano also makes arguments that Greenland is actually gaining ice in its interior but losing ice on the exterior, which is essentially how a glacier grows.'' <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/global_warming_skeptic_hopes_t.php</ref>
| |
| | |
| Again this proves nothing other than the fact that there are serious people who not only doubt the impact of man on the climate, but there are also sober informed people who doubt that the climate is actually warming. I don't pretend to know anything about climate or climate-modeling, but I know controversy when I see it. When there is controversy, our mission is to report the controversy. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 08:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :OK, let me try this. I really WISH anthropogenic global warming could be false. It is just I didn't reach the right literature. What you report here is a ''political controversy'' which has nothing to do with the fact that science came out with AGW. In other words, that opinionist or even scientists have an opinion (pro or con the theory of AGW it doesn't matter), it is not really relevant here because AGW is a scientific theory. NB: scientific theory, not a truth or a dogma!
| |
| :Anyway, it might well be this political controversy (and I am ''positive'' a political controversy do exist) reflects some consistent debate among climate scientists. If such a debate/controversy do really exist within science, then we really need a chapter about it here. So, ''could you/anyone point out some peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals against AGW, which are not outdated nor were contradicted by subsequent literature''? Because this is a very practical point: if a scientific controversy exists, then we need to address it the scientific way, i.e., by referring to published science.
| |
| :If such scientific literature do not exist, then the ''scientific'' controversy itself do not exist.
| |
| :--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 12:14, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::So Morano is just wrong? And the scientific claims made on these references are (intentionally or unintentionally) false. I don't mean to sound difficult but I've been down this path with other controversies. The path you're trying to send me down is thus: do more research to back up your claims. Guess what? After more research is done, the "true believers" will find new hurdles and create more work. I don't mean to sound difficult or confrontational. But the problem is when people claim the problem is you can't find credible references, then you find credible references and then you find new reasons to turn away from the evidence that controversy exists you begin to get the picture that anything which doesn't fit with the editorial beliefset will be disqualified as bad evidence. Is it really such a leap to assume that the opposition is dealing in equally good faith? :^D [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 14:44, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::::If they had something scientific to say, they would do so through scientific resources, such as publishing scientific papers on the matter. If they had something political to say, they would do so through political processes, such as news releases. Dr. Preto is correct--there is an ongoing and important political debate that surrounds global warming. What a TV climatologist says, while perhaps repulsive to some, has little to do with the scientific findings on the matter. If there is in fact something controversial with the scientific matters, then we should see it in the peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. Don't you agree? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 16:47, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::::More practically: a good scientific source must have at least one characteristic, that is, manuscripts are peer-reviewed. A further indication of quality is, the Journal is included in the Thomson's ISI catalogue. This is because Thomson has well defined criteria to admit a source into their files. A further measure of quality, though clearly imperfect, is [[impact factor]] (IF): does the source have an IF? How high is it with respect to other sources in the same field? Check [http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor/ IF@Thomson]. Hope this helps constraining the discussion. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 02:02, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Is there a controversy or not?== | |
| | |
| It is a fact that a field expert is making these claims. On that basis alone it must be reported neutrally. It would make sense to report these claims in the body of the article and then caveat them with the assumption that no peer reviewed science backs up this claim. (Until such time as more research proves this claim false.)
| |
| | |
| Is it your claim that these experts are just factually wrong? Or, is it your claim that these experts are liars? Either way, it is not our duty to make that judgment. It is our duty to report experts who make those judgments.
| |
| | |
| But, it's not very hard to find competing data if you look for it. [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd Here ] is a long list of studies. I have not delved a layer deeper, but I proceed with the assumption that these references are not intentionally less than truthful. From that same resource I quote:
| |
| ::''An October 2005 study in the journal Science found Greenland’s higher elevation interior ice sheet growing while lower elevations ice is thinning. According to a November 8, 2005 article in European Research, “An international team of climatologists and oceanographers, led by the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in Norway, estimates that Greenland’s interior ice sheet has grown, on average, 6cm per year in areas above 1 500m between 1992 and 2003.” Lead author, Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC “says the sheet growth is due to increased snowfall brought about by variability in regional atmospheric circulation, or the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),” according to the article. (LINK) & (LINK to Journal Science)''
| |
| | |
| This would seem to fit your editorial requirements but does not seem to fit the template of your belief set.I don't know if the globe is warming or if man is causing climate change. But I am quite certain that this is not settled science. It's difficult to prove that the globe is warming. It's not difficult to prove that people are arguing about it.
| |
| | |
| ::''The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense''
| |
| | |
| [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html That reference] proceeds to deconstruct, sentence by verifiable sentence, why this claim of "consensus" can be doubted. As neutralists it is our job to expose the reader to the facts and arguments so that the reader can make up his own mind. When there is clearly controversy, it is not our duty to decide the matter for the reader. I can't argue global warming on equal footing with any scientist, but I can argue neutrality enforcement as well as anyone on CZ.[[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:40, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::Because a claim is made by a scientist, it does not make it true. Nor does a claim in a scientific and peer-reviewed journal; but at least then it worth reporting on. Dr. Lizden says a lot stuff--mostly through newspaper editorials. While interesting, they do not go through the crucial process of peer-review. We aren't going to report what every scientists says to the press. Like I said above, if they have scientific claims to make, they'll be published in peer-reviewed journals. Further, blogs are no more reliable sources than the press, if not worse. Same goes for think tanks, unfortunately. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 07:47, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::::Yes, Benjamin is correct, I went through the links you offered but didn't find any peer-reviewed article. However, you report of a Science paper about Greenland Ice which yields ambiguous evidence. That would be the kind of reference we need. Does someone know the complete citation? At least the name of the first author? Even if the article provides evidence for stability of the Greenland ice, this would only be a local effect in a picture of rising global temperatures, and may constitute an annoying fact in need of more study, rather than a scientific controversy. But maybe citations could be tracked down to some more contrarian literature.
| |
| ::::I didn't know the Oreskes paper (2004). However, there are many new articles on this topic now in the issue of Nature of the 8th of February, 2007 which update earlier papers. E.g., Giles J., 2007: From words to action. Nature, 445, 578-579.
| |
| ::::--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 09:35, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| The question I've tried to get you to answer (unsuccessfully) is do you think these men are liars? When they say the information is from peer-reviewed studies do you doubt them for some reason? The reason I'm trying to get you on the record for this simple and direct question is because it will provide me motivation to research and quote the references upon which these experts rely. For my part, I don't question your resources. For your part, do you question my sources? For example when [http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/bbc-radio-4-january-18-2007 Denis Avery], global warming expert states:
| |
| | |
| ::''About 20 years ago we brought up the first long ice core from Greenland. And it showed the 100,000 year ice age cycle. But to our great surprise it also showed a moderate 1,500-year cycle that seemed to be linked to the sun. And 4 years later we brought up another longer ice core in the Antarctic and that showed the 1,500-year cycle. And we’ve since found it in 300 peer-reviewed studies of sea-bed sediments, cave stalagmites, pollen fossils all over the world. And yet we don’t talk about this. We assume that any change in temperature is our fault.''
| |
| | |
| And
| |
| | |
| ::''We cite in the book 100 studies of peer-reviewed science finding the 1,500-year cycle in physical evidence. We could have cited 300, probably 1,500 science authors.''' (who concur with the opinion that AGW is a false assumption.
| |
| | |
| Before I do the research to find out if his assertions are true, I ask: do you continue to believe with 100% certitude that there are no peer reviewed documents which contradict the thesis found in this article?
| |
| | |
| It is my assertion that Denis Avery author of ''Unstoppable Global Warming'' is an expert in the field which is why he turns up time and time again to debate the issue of global warming. The fact that it is being debated in a public forum is proof that there is a controversy. No one debates the existence of protons or gravity. Further, I doubt the level of reference that is required for all scientific articles at CZ is that we only quote peer reviewed journals. Consider this article which does not espouse any of Avery's claims, but in fairness it must present a [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/ point/counter] point so that the reader can make his own mind up. Consider this [http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,2032678,00.html reviewer's] characterization of the ''Unstoppable Global Warming'' and tell me if you assert that without a doubt the science is settled in this matter.
| |
| | |
| ::''It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.''
| |
| | |
| Here's a summary of my argument. I cannot say with any degree of certitude that the global is warming or cooling or what effect man is having on the climate. I can say with 100% certitude that these questions are being debated. If there is a debate our role is not to referee the debate but to report the debate so that the reader can make up his own mind.
| |
| | |
| Here's a summary of what I understand of your argument. There is no debate. This is settled science. Until a CZ volunteer takes the time and effort to do your research for you, you will not admit that this is anything less than settled science with a political component. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]]
| |
| | |
| :::Ok, briefly, this is my point of view.
| |
| :::* There was a scientific controversy about Global Warming, which is now completely settled, however. Check Giles J., 2007: From words to action. Nature, 445, 578-579.
| |
| :::* There is a 1500 yrs climate cycle of possible solar origin, BUT it is especially evident in the Pleistocene and only rarely seen in the Holocene. The most important work about the Holocene 1500 yrs cycle is Bond et al., 2001, Science, 294, 2130:2136. Following Bond's curves, and assuming this cycle is causing climate change, the global temperature should have steadely increased in the last 400 years. This is not the case.
| |
| :::* Solar output can be measured. There is no evidence of an increase of Solar Forcing in the instrumental period. Better: there is evidence of NO solar forcing (Lockwood and Froelich, 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880, and references therein).
| |
| :::Thus, given the available literature, there is no ''scientific'' controversy to report. But -again- maybe I'm wrong. If some reliable scientific literature exists about this controversy, find it and we'll write a chapter. But don't ask me to look for, I just don't know where to look!!!
| |
| :::--[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 09:35, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::Because I don't have a vested interest in the Global Warming controversy and because I have no financial incentive to do this research, I'm trying to scale down the research project as much as possible. Therefore, it's in my best interest to accept your research at face value and it's in my best interest to do the minimal amount of research. I'm not a climatologist and don't want to play one on TV. ;^)
| |
| | |
| ::::Do you accept at face value the statements by Denis Avery that his expert opinions are based upon peer-reviewed science, or do I need to verify those claims before we will admit voices like this into the debate? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 10:47, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::This is the real point. Since I could find extensive scientific literature suggesting the scientific controversy about Global Warming is over, yes, I believe claims about contrarian scientific literature should be verified, found and eventually cited directly. Not much because I don't thrust Denis Avery, but because if we are to write a quality chapter about a scientific controversy, we need primary sources. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 11:06, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Does the same burden apply to both sides of the issue? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 13:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::I would say yes. --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 16:14, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Let me answer a few of your questions. You ask, "The question I've tried to get you to answer (unsuccessfully) is do you think these men are liars? When they say the information is from peer-reviewed studies do you doubt them for some reason?" The answer is, no, I do not think they are liars. I do, however, feel they are misguided or incorrect. My problem with them, however, doesn't stem from whether I think they are right or wrong, it's that they aren't publishing their thoughts through reliable venues--and that may be for a reason. To allow comments go unchecked, even from scientists, is not a duty of an encyclopedia. Peer-review serves an essential component in the process of verification and validation. You ask, "For your part, do you question my sources?" And I say yes. I don't deny that there are scientists out there who question the idea of man-made warming. I do question the ways in which they question this idea. Because even scientists do get things wrong, misinterpret studies, or even sometimes lie or misguide, there is the important process of peer-review.
| |
| | |
| :You argue, "I can say with 100% certitude that these questions are being debated. If there is a debate our role is not to referee the debate but to report the debate so that the reader can make up his own mind." The question, however, is how is this being debated and by whom? I most certainly do not deny that are many people who debate these question. But it's important to ask who these people are. Are they laypeople, such as you and me? Are they TV anchors? Is a large scientific community debating these basic conclusions? Or is it a handful of individual scientists arguing against certain points? In answering this, I think it should be clear on what we should and should not be reporting on, as an encyclopedia. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 17:04, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Proving there is a Global Warming Controversy==
| |
| | |
| Then sire, I accept your challenge. ;^)
| |
| | |
| Unfortunately for the cause of the opposition, this advocate will be spending a number of days as the beach enjoying the UV protection provided by cow belching and frolicking in freshly melted ice pushed by the Labrador Current down to the Maryland beaches. I don't look forward to the work of the research, but I'm quite certain I can make you eat you hat. :^D
| |
| | |
| I predict that I can find a good deal of peer-reviewed journalism to stand in opposition. I also predict that I will not be able to prove the climate is doing anything. But, I think I can prove there is a controversy. That is a small hurdle to cross, even with the requirement that I quote original source material.
| |
| | |
| I do not have access to a university library at my location, so I will be overly reliant on net resources. If some misguided soul can help me with this endeavor (or do all the work in my absence) then I will be appropriately appreciative. For that poor soul, I've uncovered some tracks to follow in the notes above. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:18, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| [http://www.degruyter.de/journals/jnet/272_7009_ENU_h.htm Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics] has an interesting challenge to the [http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf entire concept of a global temperature]. The abstract sounds pretty interesting and it only gets better from there:
| |
| | |
| ::''Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and
| |
| equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically
| |
| ill-posed.''
| |
| | |
| This was on a Harvard.edu site, but it will take me a while to confirm exactly who these guys are. This certainly appears to be peer reviewed information.
| |
| | |
| Since my goal is to prove controversy and not to prove climate change, can I point to references that challenge IPCC "peer review"? For example, The book [http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=188 Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate] makes startling claims such as:
| |
| | |
| ::''Singer makes several important points: Regarding the purported peer review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Singer argues that "The IPCC chapters were never 'peer-reviewed' in the generally accepted sense . . ." Normal peer review is done by anonymous referees, but the IPCC reviewers were chosen by those who prepared the summaries. "There is no record available as to what comments from reviewers were ignored; nor is there a record of minority opinions," states Singer.''
| |
| | |
| ::''The claimed "consensus" of approximately 2,000 scientists is also dubious. This figure includes about 80 lead authors who actually wrote the chapters, several hundred scientists who allowed their work to be quoted as well as hundreds of reviewers who may or may not have agreed with the report or whether their comments were used or not.''
| |
| | |
| ::''Though the IPCC admitted that there were minority views that it was "not able to accommodate" it did not reveal "the size of the minority nor the seriousness of their disagreements." Several surveys have revealed that the consensus may be exaggerated.''
| |
| | |
| What's amazing to me is how easy it is to hit pay dirt ... and I haven't even mined the resources listed above. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:56, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| I think this guide for [http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic] is sort of sad actually. This reads like dogma and not like science. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 20:28, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I agree. Try [http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 this one] though. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 17:08, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
