Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

Oh the crazy nonsense the right comes up with!

- - - Updated - - -

13950 papers is rigorous science

 

The thing is if there is a human component we need to get the brakes on and try and slow the process down to it's more natural rhythm. The problem is equilibrium, to much energy being pushed into the system to quickly is going to create intense and erratic weather conditions. Storms like Sandy will become the norm rather than the exception.Personally my biggest fear is the Asian weather patterns, if the monsoons fail for an extended period of time we are potentially looking at a billion people suddenly living on the edge.

 

HAHAHAH!! There's enough rigorous science on global warming. Feel free to read the 13,950 peer reviewed articles from the OP.

 

Maybe I didn't present that in quite the right reference, I want to make sure that my kids can have a future. When I read about fossil history, and some of the massive changes the world has been through, from near total extinctions to eras of bountiful life, I think we as a race should be able to recognize when we are acellerating a detrimental process and be smart enough to see what we can do to at least slow it down, or possibly even reverse it.

Can man completely change nature? Depends on the scale, when we dam rivers we make pretty significant changes. There have been arguments that damming rivers can have a similar effect as throwing the balance of a tire off, just a few ounces can make a tire feel like hell. Who is to say that relatively small amounts of CO2 can't have similar effects.

Of course then we have a massive earthquake, or hurricane and we are again reminded that Man has a lot to learn yet. But we shouldn't be so foolish as to sit back and expect our actions to have to affect on the environment around us.

 

"13950 papers is rigorous science"

Taxcutter says:
And that 19,000-to-0 vote count in Philly was valid. Not!

 

Most people don't live at the equator, warming just moves the temperate zones higher as in Greenland being green during the last warming period and human beings prospered.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that all the toxins we pump in to the air around the world would have some negative consequences on our environment?

 

Did they miss these?

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Peer-Reviewed, being the only criteria.

 

Well thats a bust - from their own websites FAQ

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not debunk/refute AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper can acknowledge AGW (in some form) but still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are not getting worse due to global warming).

 

Red Herring. AGW is about CO2 ONLY.

 

How is that a red-herring, lol? You mean talking about toxins we pump in the air having negative consequences is a red-herring to the argument that the toxins we pump in the air are causing negative consequences to the environment?? Hahahahahaha

 

ClimateGate: The Fix is InBy Robert Tracinski

"...But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal ...."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html


and...

RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review'



Cartoon by Josh


" "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/

"peer reviewed" + "climate change = A BAD JOKE.

 

It's a worthless number without finding the elusive rejection of the null hypothesis I quote.

 

Your BULLCRAP is easily DEBUNKED



The number of peer reviewed papers went dramtically HIGHER after the scandle (2009), menaing more scietists looked at this problem, yet only 23 were disputed, AND this includes all from 1991 to 2012.

 

Will National Geographic do?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/green-sahara/gwin-text/2

Page 2. 12,000 years ago, their scientists believe there was a shift, or as they put it a "earth wobble" that allowed the African monsoons to inundate the Sahara.

Pretty fascinating stuff.

 

Ofcourse it is

 

Spot on! We need to chart Earth crossing asteroids, comets and random space rocks. Then we need to find a means of deflecting them. This is, IMO, about 1000 times more valuable for the species than dicking around with CO2. It's what has altered the Earth balance of species several times.

And do you know why WE WON'T DO IT? Because it is external. It offers the totalitarians, green schemers, rent seekers and enviro-scolds NOTHING. They don't get to dictate to the populace. And anyone that's watched this unfold with the appropriate skepticism knows that the real appeal is for the totalitarians, green schemers, rent seekers and enviro-scolds to control YOU. They want you to knuckle under to them. It couldn't be more obvious.


.

 

According to this article, the jury is still out on the issue

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3713/how-earth-acutes-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara

Having said that, if this shift occurred and the results are as they believe it actually answers a long standing mystery about major environmental changes in Australia at about the same time. It will be interesting to see where this goes with further study

 

Lol, we spend billions looking for asteroids and figuring out ways to stop them from hitting earth. The reason it's not political is because that doesn't change anyone's lives. The oil industry has a major incentive to make a claim that all the crap we are pumping in the air is not destroying the earth. And it's very political because of how much money is involved. That's why no one considers looking for asteroids as some political hot topic.

 

And? The alarm is key component of the issue isn't it? If there's nothing to be alarmed about................................

 

BS.

All of NASA is tiny. I'd bet that direct Big Fed costs of observation is way under a billion per year.

The EPA alone costs America hundreds of billions every with next to no benefit.

 

Read the next sentence "Thus, a paper can acknowledge AGW (in some form)" So a paper can be fully supportive of man made global warming, but because it says the effect might be a little less than another paper it is put down as a strike against AGW.........loaded dice anyone

- - - Updated - - -

Read the next sentence "Thus, a paper can acknowledge AGW (in some form)" So a paper can be fully supportive of man made global warming, but because it says the effect might be a little less than another paper it is put down as a strike against AGW.........loaded dice anyone

 

"Peer reviewed" AGW "science" is hardly different than the validation/credibility loop
progressives have created with their "fact checker" sites.

 

No they didn't - that was mostly a religious belief

 

For that contention to be true then it is every scientist from Japan to South Africa from Scotland to New Zealand has to be involved in the same game

Your conspiracy theory does not even begin to hold up