Peer reviewed scientific journal articles that algore doesn't believe exist [Archive]

Vegas

05-03-2007, 08:21 PM

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026510.shtml

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/Kossin_2006GL028836.pdf

http://www.agu.org/journals/eo/eo0718/2007EO180001.pdf#anchor

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gav/REPRINTS/VS_07_SHEARS.final.pdf

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6336/6336.pdf

http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/623

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProjects/Hartmann%20and%20Wendler%202005.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL027175.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025539.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2004JD005021.shtml

Hotpapa666

05-04-2007, 12:12 AM

Show me the quote where Gore says these articles don't exsist.

Vegas

05-04-2007, 12:16 AM

Show me the quote where Gore says these articles don't exsist.

The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.

Hotpapa666

05-04-2007, 12:20 AM

The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.

I haven't seen the movie what "debate is over".

Vegas

05-04-2007, 12:21 AM

I haven't seen the movie what "debate is over".

That global warming is a real threat and that the cause is man made CO2.

Hotpapa666

05-04-2007, 12:34 AM

I see. A few points spring to mind.

1: Al Gore isn't a climatologist. He's a guy who passionate about the environment and he did a movie about it. Whether or not you can refute Mr. Gore's claim has nothing to do with whether or not the global climate is changing and if Man is contributing to it.

2: Allot of your articles (I haven't opened all of the links, I may as the afternoon wears on) are about sea level change not global climate change; they may be linked, but they are not the same thing.

3: There was recently a conference where 2,500 scientists from 100 countries got together and signed (Here's their web-site http://www.ipcc.ch/) and signed this document stating that climate change is real and it's 90% likely that it is being caused by humans. I'll look for the actual document. Here is another article if you interested. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=un-climate-talks-progress. There are tons.

LSU

05-04-2007, 12:43 AM

Hotpapa666

05-04-2007, 12:47 AM

The scientists are? Or is it the Gores and such that are trumpeting the science?

Thanks for the tip on getting this site to work. It was a pain in the ass but it worked.

LSU

05-04-2007, 12:48 AM

Thanks for the tip on getting this site to work. It was a pain in the ass but it worked.

No problem

IBC

05-04-2007, 02:04 PM

That global warming is a real threat and that the cause is man made CO2.

And the article that disputed was where in there Vegas? I admittedly didnt read all of them, just the titles and abstracts. I missed the one that said Global Warming isnt a real threat and is not caused by CO2. I saw some that looked at solar contribution to warming. I saw some that debated sea-level change (most of them), but I saw none that said CO2 is not contributing to the warmong of the planet. Is ther eon that I missed?

i_hate_righties

05-04-2007, 11:16 PM

I have said it once and I will say it again...If we side with the scientists who believe global warming is in deed occuring, and we change our habits, laws, etc....If they are wrong, well we did no harm, we improved our lives and those of other living creatures in the world....If we side with the scientists who believe that global warming is a hoax, and we should stop being alarmists,so we do nothing to change our environment..... and they are wrong....we are fucked now arent we?...I would want to side with the alarmists on this one!

Tom Joad

05-05-2007, 01:07 PM

Vegas

05-05-2007, 01:56 PM

The exceptions make the rule? I think not.

The exceptions have made the rules in science over and over throughout history.

Tom Joad

05-05-2007, 02:21 PM

The exceptions have made the rules in science over and over throughout history.

So have sound scientific investigations. 2500 scientists call BS on those sources.

LSU

05-05-2007, 02:43 PM

The exceptions have made the rules in science over and over throughout history.

Could you please elaborate?

Vegas

05-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Could you please elaborate?

The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, etc.

LSU

05-05-2007, 03:40 PM

The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, etc.

There are some notable botches in knowledge. Much of which (at least that which is described above) was garnered by assumption rather than scientific methods. But, there are those occasional things that come along that shows the majority of science to be mistaken...but in the scheme of thing in science, relative to the things science is generally right about versus the things science is generally wrong about...do you think science is wrong more than it's right (in terms of majorities)? Not asking for any statistics, just your opinion on whether or not science, for the most part, has it right.

Hotpapa666

05-05-2007, 10:02 PM

The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, etc.

Neither one of those ideas of cosmology came from science. They came from the assumptions of people who didn't even have science as a tool to answer questions. Those assumptions were challanged by philosphers in the early days of science and they turned out to be correct.

How science really works is that it builds on past discovers to make new ones and by challenging assumptions; asking new questions. Not by trusting a few outliers in lieu of the VASTLY larger set of data. Or by saying, you're not 100% absolutely, positively, certain that X causes Y so we're not going to anything about X until you reach that certainty and 100% conscensus. It's absurd to that that is even possible, yet the lack of 100% or the status of sciences conclusions being "theories" (they always leave out all of the evidence that's supports the theory, convienently) is the arguement that the Hacks use to dispell the scietific discovers that don't fit with their agenda.

Ed Who?

05-06-2007, 07:00 PM

There are some notable botches in knowledge. Much of which (at least that which is described above) was garnered by assumption rather than scientific methods. But, there are those occasional things that come along that shows the majority of science to be mistaken...but in the scheme of thing in science, relative to the things science is generally right about versus the things science is generally wrong about...do you think science is wrong more than it's right (in terms of majorities)? Not asking for any statistics, just your opinion on whether or not science, for the most part, has it right.

I think a lot of the AGW critics would claim that the science supporting AGW was conducted assuming an outcome before applying the scientific methods.

LSU

05-06-2007, 07:06 PM

I think a lot of the AGW critics would claim that the science supporting AGW was conducted assuming an outcome before applying the scientific methods.

So, are you insinuating that a bunch of scientists (or maybe just a few) got together and decided they needed a conclusion, derived said conclusion, then manipulated all the data to point towards said conclusion? And everyone thereafter just bought into it? And then everyone that peer-reviewed the data was also along for the ride, not really caring about the validity of the data and conclusions?

Ed Who?

05-06-2007, 07:27 PM

So, are you insinuating that a bunch of scientists (or maybe just a few) got together and decided they needed a conclusion, derived said conclusion, then manipulated all the data to point towards said conclusion? And everyone thereafter just bought into it? And then everyone that peer-reviewed the data was also along for the ride, not really caring about the validity of the data and conclusions?

I think it's more like this:

1) Scientists see trend of warming (after they saw a trend of cooling in the middle of the 20th Century mind you, where they warned of an Ice Age)
2) Politicians seize upon said trend to offer up reasons that place blame on industry.
3) Scientists set out to prove said conclusions correct.

I'm not saying they fudge data, but that their tests have a foregone conclusion. Why else completely eliminate all studies that disagree with your findings??? That's exactly what the scientists who claim a "consensus" did, ignore those findings that disagreed with the "good answer."

LSU

05-06-2007, 07:34 PM

I think it's more like this:

1) Scientists see trend of warming (after they saw a trend of cooling in the middle of the 20th Century mind you, where they warned of an Ice Age)
2) Politicians seize upon said trend to offer up reasons that place blame on industry.
3) Scientists set out to prove said conclusions correct.

I'm not saying they fudge data, but that their tests have a foregone conclusion. Why else completely eliminate all studies that disagree with your findings??? That's exactly what the scientists who claim a "consensus" did, ignore those findings that disagreed with the "good answer."

Did they ignore them? Or is it a numbers game? You can take any topic in science and find papers that say one thing...and perhaps on the same topic find 100 times more papers that say the exact opposite. So is it they don't consider the opposing viewpoint or that the opposing viewpoint isn't strong enough?

Numbers 2 and 3 in your answer perplex me. Scientists do it because the politicians need a platform? What about the people on the Right that believe the science? Just dummies? That's quite a claim that a large proportion of scientists in this particular field put on the blinders to appease some politicians. A HUGE claim. I'd like to see the evidence.

Ed Who?

05-06-2007, 08:26 PM

Numbers 2 and 3 in your answer perplex me. Scientists do it because the politicians need a platform? What about the people on the Right that believe the science? Just dummies? That's quite a claim that a large proportion of scientists in this particular field put on the blinders to appease some politicians. A HUGE claim. I'd like to see the evidence.

Dude, you're trying to place this big ol' dividing line between politician and scientist. I work in science, a huge proportion of scientists are left-leaning. In my particular unit, I'd say 3:1. So while the scientists are not politicians, I believe they are personally vested in this fight on an ideological level.

IBC

05-06-2007, 08:30 PM

Dude, you're trying to place this big ol' dividing line between politician and scientist. I work in science, a huge proportion of scientists are left-leaning. In my particular unit, I'd say 3:1. So while the scientists are not politicians, I believe they are personally vested in this fight on an ideological level.

Yes, because the destruction of our planet is a left issue? Who is supporting it on the other side? What are the other vested interests?

Vegas

05-06-2007, 08:34 PM

Yes, because the destruction of our planet is a left issue? Who is supporting it on the other side? What are the other vested interests?

Is it really an environmental issue or is it a political issue?

IBC

05-06-2007, 08:40 PM

Is it really an environmental issue or is it a political issue?

It is an environmental issue IMO. It is made a political issue on both sides.

Vegas

05-06-2007, 08:44 PM

It is an environmental issue IMO. It is made a political issue on both sides.

More governmental control, more taxes, more behavior restrictions.....sounds like a liberal political agenda.

Ed Who?

05-06-2007, 08:59 PM

It is an environmental issue IMO. It is made a political issue on both sides.

I can yet again play the "the bigtime proponents of this environmental issue continue to pollute at will" card, but you always seem to think it's poor debate to point out a movement's leaders failing to commit to their own impositions.

Ed Who?

05-06-2007, 09:00 PM

More governmental control, more taxes, more behavior restrictions.....sounds like a liberal political agenda.

Oh, and don't forget that those restrictions and taxes don't seem to apply to them. Another hallmark of liberal tripe.

LSU

05-06-2007, 11:02 PM

Dude, you're trying to place this big ol' dividing line between politician and scientist. I work in science, a huge proportion of scientists are left-leaning. In my particular unit, I'd say 3:1. So while the scientists are not politicians, I believe they are personally vested in this fight on an ideological level.

Wow, dude, I'm a scientist, too...and I completely and utterly disagree that scientists cannot keep their politics out of their work.