Wayne Stollings wrote:
Links you can keep, but papers published in recognized peer-reviewed publications could be used to try to support your claim, however the consenus concerning the science such as gravity and evolution would also have to be considered with the same criteria.
There is significant evidence of the level of extreme weather events increasing, which indicates a currently occuring change in climate. The historical effects of similar climate change indicate those changes will more likely be negative impacts on the majority of life on the planet. There will be no proof of the level of impact until such impacts have been measured ... if there is anyone there to measure them.
Okay, with regards to your first point, here are three papers that refute to major "consensus" papers. Oreskes 2004 and Doran 2009.
The Oreskes 2004 paper is seriously flawed, because not only does it cherry pick papers to show a predetermined conclusion, it also mathematically incorrect. For example, in Oreskes 2004, Naomi Oreskes claims she analyzed 928 abstracts, but in the paper it shows that she only analyzed 905 abstracts. This means that Oreskes' claim is incorrect. In addition, when Dr. Benny Peiser did the same search from 1993-2003, he found 12,000 papers, when he searched for "global climate change." This means that Naomi Oreskes' paper is flawed, cherry picked, and has been debunked over and over and over again.
Here is Dr. Benny Peiser's quote in its entirety.
Quote:
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993-2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
Source for the quote.
The link to the paper appears to be void, so here is a link that quotes that paper.
The Doran and Zimmerman study isn't neccessarily flawed, but has some serious poor wording issues, as these two papers document.
Here are
the abstracts, respectfully.
Quote:
In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is.
Quote:
While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.
With regards to your second point, it is not true at all. Take this recent peer reviewed study conducted by Dr. Ryan Maue, who finds that Accumulated Cyclonic Energy has not increased over the last 40 or so years, and is currently at record lows. (
SOURCE)
Quote:
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
And according to the NCDC, there has been no trend upward in Strong Tornadoes.
Many have tried to link the Somalian drought to Global Warming as well. The drought is fairly significant,
But the IPCC models completely missed the mark, and predicted a surplus amount of precipitation in Somalia.
Perhaps, maybe, the drought in Somalia is evidence that Climate Change is not man made. ;)
Login
Register
FAQ
That paper has so many errors, and it cherry picks many things quite honestly.