Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[sasguru]

here's another one:

this one won a prize.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/


definitely needs a rebuttal.

makes you think, innit.

you can't just say its crap over a cup of coffee innit?

if it was crap one of the other Phds would have rebutted it by now.


etc

etc

ad nauseum

[pjclarke]

Myth

Rather than mining the odd quote from the Press and pretending it is 'what scientists were saying'... why not see if anyone has done a review of what scientists were writing in the academic journals? I wonder if such a thing exists?

Here we go ... The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

The scores on the doors:

Predicted Cooling: 7 papers.
Neutral: 20
Warming: 44.

Myth: Busted.

[BlasterBates]

Note that Mann et al 2008 also produced a 'no-dendro' version of their study, which appeared in PNAS, rather than E&E.

Which is rebutted here:

Mann et al. 2008 rebuttal

[DimPrawn]

You lot, Act on CO2 FFS.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yc-Lk62n49...o2+Al+Gore.jpg

[pjclarke]

It is a prominent paper and is worthy of a response in a scientific debate, to force a revision or retraction, as in the example I gave earlier.

Bad papers are not always retracted, sometimes they simply slide into obscurity, for example when they are simply so wrong as to be not worth wasting time on. I fear your definition of 'prominent' diverges from my own. The paper was published (after rejection elsewhere) by the Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorology. Given that, if it is correct, all the Physics textbooks will have to be pulped and rewritten, I am quite happy for this paper to 'stand' until it receives the more mainstream recognition it deserves. While we wait ...

[BlasterBates]

It is a prominent paper and is worthy of a response in a scientific debate, to force a revision or retraction, as in the example I gave earlier.

Bad papers are not always retracted, sometimes they simply slide into obscurity, for example when they are simply so wrong as to be not worth wasting time on. I fear your definition of 'prominent' diverges from my own. The paper was published (after rejection elsewhere) by the Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorology. Given that, if it is correct, all the Physics textbooks will have to be pulped and rewritten, I am quite happy for this paper to 'stand' until it receives the more mainstream recognition it deserves. While we wait ...

You are quite right...but it hasn't, and regardless of how much you may protest it is a prominent paper for sceptics. Therefore it has to be rebutted.

and yes we will wait...

[DimPrawn]

AGW smoking gun.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...oking_gun.html

Basically, if CO2 was trapping more heat, then less heat would be radiated out to space (the tenet of The Greenhouse Effect caused by CO2 levels).

Scientific papers show that the level of OLR (outgoing long-wave IR radiation) is the same now as it was in the 1970's.

No extra heat is being trapped, ergo, CO2 is not warming the planet.

If the planet is warming, it ain't CO2 doing it.

[BlasterBates]

yes kind of supports Miskolczi.

The AGW arguments just crumble by the day.

First we have the "heat problem"...where did it go, and now the fundamental pillar of the CO2 warming theory is blown to smithereens, with these observations on irradiation.

The missing heat is in outer space....well well.

Lets tell Keith Trenberth.

[pjclarke]

Have American Thinker disproven global warming?

No.

Quelle Surprise! But odd how blogs are insufficient to rebut peer-reviewed science (with which principle I agree, in general), except when they're not.

[BlasterBates]

...and on a final note

The US senates minority report on "Climategate"