Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist

[sore_ron]

Just downloaded a single pdf at random....One from a minor research department in the USA...MIT. Published in a second rate journal....Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Title Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(global warmingyclimate sensitivityyclimate modelingygreenhouse effect)
RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Building 54, Room 1720, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

Conclusions? Yes CO2 can cause warming but the degree of warming attributed to a doubling of CO2 levels is lost in the natural variability of CO2 in the atmosphere...

I don't know amateurs...we all know its goiing to kill us don't we.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by sore_ron

Just downloaded a single pdf at random....One from a minor research department in the USA...MIT. Published in a second rate journal....Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Title Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(global warmingyclimate sensitivityyclimate modelingygreenhouse effect)
RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Building 54, Room 1720, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

Conclusions? Yes CO2 can cause warming but the degree of warming attributed to a doubling of CO2 levels is lost in the natural variability of CO2 in the atmosphere...

I don't know amateurs...we all know its goiing to kill us don't we.

Traditionally, papers like those from RICHARD S. LINDZEN that can be traced back to denier’s websites (i.e. The OTHER side of the debate) are typically rejected out of hand even when published in the same peer-reviewed journals as the Warming Alarmists.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by ChrisR

Why isn't the subject better explained in the wider world if, as they say, the case for CO2-cause GW is so unequivocal?

here's a good source of information Chris, this site is run by several well known climate scientists:

RealClimate: Start here

Matt

[ChrisR]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

here's a good source of information Chris, this site is run by several well known climate scientists:
RealClimate: Start here

Thanks Matt - some more reading matter to keep me going

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by ColonelBlimp

I ask you again, why not publish your findings, or at least present them to a climate scientist, in lieu of merely 'preaching to the (largely) converted on the internet?

In light of the fact that your argument over the last few days has changed from the same type of blustering to avoidance once scientific papers are involved (per your request), it is a waste of time if you refuse to present the same kind of literature.
RobSutton and Matt_xyz have some research leads that I have found interesting and I am looking forward to publishing some data on the Watts site. Have fun trying to baffle the next guy.
Ted

[ColonelBlimp]

Neither of us are climate scientists. Therefore, having some inane debate over science that neither of us fully understand is likely to be pointless. This is neither blustering nor avoidance: merely realising the limits of the debate.

I was only drawn into analysis of specific papers (rather than discussion of manufactured dissent, something I have more expertise on) in order to try to undermine your "argument by textwall".

I'll say it again, if you do think that your approach has the potential to overturn the consensus, then it is your duty to publish it. Otherwise, all you'll be doing is preaching either to the converted or to people unable to fully analyse your arguments. Which might be beneficial to your ego, but not to climate science as a discipline.

[Digit]

That would seem to be a very reasonable suggestion Colonel, apart from one point, where is this consensus?
The fact that posters are able to post contrary papers suggests that it might not exist, also there was a scientific consensus in the past for Phlogiston, Aether, and a flat Earth.

Roy.

[ColonelBlimp]

Do you even understand what a scientific consensus entails?

Apologies for quoting from Wikipedia, but "[scientific] consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity".

As for this 'general agreement', Doran and Zimmerman (2009) state that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causally linked to global warming. But I suppose, they're all just part of the cabal...

[Digit]

Yep! I do.

Popular Technology.net: NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But as I pointed out, consensus has a poor record, after all, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein et al all opposed the then current consensus. That is not to say that the 'consensus' is necessarily incorrect, just that because it is claimed by some as a consensus doesn't make it correct, and regretably Gore and Mann's apparent conversion of mm sea rises into feet does their case very little good.
'Methink the lady doth protest too much.'
When Gore's film was to be shown to all schools it was challenged, successfully, in the courts and that result was not challenged.
And if Dr Jones were to tell me that tomorrow was Saturday I would be checking a calender!

Roy.

[ColonelBlimp]

What abject nonsense. I have defined scientific consensus, and shown how there is in fact such consensus on global warming, and yet this is still not good enough. Do you want me to define "abject nonsense" as well so you can pick that apart?

As for consensus, I would rather believe the vast majority of the people that spend their lives working with this stuff, as opposed to a dubious handful. Comparing the current situation to Galileo etc. is facetious.

Might I ask, what are your credentials in climate science? I am a lowly undergraduate: that I make clear. So what about you?