Credible, scientific sources for AGW not happening?

Question

If you've browsed the GW section, you'll notice tons of answers that state somewhere along the line of "man has no impact on climate," "carbon dioxide doesn't cause warming," and "this is all a scam to make money." However, I rarely see any of these answers backed up, unlike the ones supporting AGW linking to NASA, .gov websites, .edu websites, etc. If the non-global warming answers have a source, it is of questionable integrity, such as a conservative blog, and not scientific. So, sources anyone? Real sources? There's got to be some (NewsBusters, Global Climate Scam, etc. are not very scientific so they don't count). Thanks. I'd like to see the other side of the debate, but scientifically.

Answer 1

Of course there are no scientific organizations saying it doesn't happen because if they give up and say "yeah the data shows global warming isn't happening", POOF! There goes all their funding. They need to keep the hoax going because they like to make money off of use hardworking taxpayers. Every elitist in the scientific community has a lot to gain from this insane hoax whose ultimate intention is to force a soft form of communism on the globe. They couldn't do it with the Soviet Union, so they're trying now with environmentalism. BTW, there are plenty of scientists who don't buy into this nonsense. Why? Because they actually use what's called the "scientific method." Turns out when you do that, you find there is no credibility to climate science. Listen to Richard Lindzen, Timothy Ball, Rodger Pielke. All credible scientists who knock down the whole AGW myth. Just remember, there is no consensus because there are tens of thousands of people who signed a petition who doubt GW. The science ISN'T settled. Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Excellent question but no one will be able to give you these sources. Why?

1) Occam's razor would say because they don't exist - simplest explanation that doesn't require, for example, collusion amongst tens of thousands of people around the world to make things up but keep it secret from "us".

So, no reports or links forthcoming.

2) Paranoia: Some, like "Independent Thinker" prefer to dodge the question and use it as an excuse to rant. Basically, his argument is based on paranoia: He starts with the (non-stated) assumption that no one can be trusted and that he is being lied to all the time: The lack of reports backing up the skeptics' claims proves their existence.

Note by using this argument he actually agrees and proves your point - there are no such reports.

"Circular Thinker" would be a better name...

No reports or links forthcoming.

3) Fear (of change, or accepting responsibility): Similar to 2) in that the actual question is dodged. Dave H epitomises this but unfortunately he also epitomises "out of the frying pan, into the fire". By pushing the burden of proof onto the proponents (dodging the question) he has asked something that is easily answered - there have been many, many citations of the reports he asks for, one of the commonest being the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/) that gives "clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are causing climate change". Dave H and his ilk simply ignore these - hence I call this group 'The Ostriches'.

No reports or links forthcoming.

4) Irrelevance/confusing data: This is shown by oracle... S/he talks about cooling in the past ten years (as evidence that AGW doesn't exist) yet the linked data covers >400,000 years from one point on the planet - there is no way to use the graph to corroborate the conclusions. There is also a little bit of 'frying pan' here as well as the graph provided shows a very clear relationship between CO2 concentrarions and temperature.

Jeff m does the same but I've refuted his claims elsewhere.

No reports or links forthcoming.

Finally - and here I agree with pegminer - excellent link, Keith, precisely what we need in this forum for rational and useful debate.

Of course, this paper doesn't prove or support the more outrageous claims made by skeptics but it gives aheads up to AGW proponents as to where the weak links in the theory are, what science is still unclear, where reasonable doubt (but not prrof!) exists thus where is the space for debate and further research.

Answer 3

there are lots of sources.  for example, this is a list of outstanding professors, from a number of prestigious institutions, all of whom have shown that AGW is just not true.

Richard S. Lindzen, http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.... - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.  <<Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.   His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.>>

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.

and many more.  look at the list:

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/02/06...

don't like that, how 'bout some "real science"?

http://www.co2science.org/  what organization would be better than one that really studies what CO2 does?  eg:

<<Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.  Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system.  If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.>>

now, there's no doubt that you're gonna complain.

that's what you guys do when anyone calls your religion into question.

however, you might consider that while the earth is not currently warming, if it did, that would be a very good thing.

if you take a globe, point somewhat north of the equator, and spin it, there's one very long stretch of land that's currently not productive.  SIBERIA.  if the world were to warm up sufficiently for that land to be actively farmed, there would be a glut of food on the market.  the current high food prices would decline.  AND, in addition, if you're the type that thinks bio-fuel is a good thing, there would be more than enough of that as well, and the price of gasoline would dramatically decline.

now you'll disagree, being of the ilk that thinks they need to control people all over the world, and what better way than to make everything more expensive, but for most of us, lower food and gas prices are a good thing.

if you've any questions, you might check out some of my other postings.  obviously you need more up-to-date, and accurate information, and appear not to be getting much.

Answer 4

Good luck. You won't find much.

Madhav Khandekar has collected a list of 68 peer reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2007 that in some way (even in some minor way) challenge the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/f...

During the same period, many thousands of peer-reviewed papers were published that supported the consensus view; for example, IPCC's 2007 report has over 6000 references alone, and they only cited the most important stuff.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

*********************

NOTE to DaveH:  If you are unaware of the clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing climate change, then you haven't been paying attention. You can start with my answer here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 5

It is not for the skeptics to disprove global warming, but for the AGW scientists to prove it. I have not yet seen PROOF that  Global Warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emmissions. If you are aware of such proof (not opinion) I would be very pleased to see it.

Without clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are causing climate change I cannot support any political move to change the make-up of the atmosphere through taxation.

We need to be shown clear causal linkage of anthropogenic CO2 and climate change before we rush headlong into policies that will destroy our economies and living standards.

========================

NOTE to Keith P. You tell me "If you are unaware of the clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing climate change, then you haven't been paying attention".

I read all the links you provided. It took a while but the result is still the same. You cite a lot of worthy information, but none of it demonstrates, or even attempts to demonstrate a causal linkage between Anthopogenic CO2 emissions and global warming.

I'm still waiting to be shown the proof, and so are all these (peer reviewed) people....

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/200...

This one is a good synopsis... again, peer reviewed.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

Answer 6

People that question whether mankind has an influence are  looking at the same data as everyone else is.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vosto...

1. Does the left side of the graph (towards modern day) appear significantly different from the right side (further in history).

2. Is the data "noisy" with a whole lot of natural variance?

3. Can mankind's influence within this graph can be discerned?

People see patterns in random data.  The conformity experiments of psychologist Asch showed people would knowingly give incorrect answers under pressure.  The placebo effect in medicine is well documented ... to the point where unless the medical experiment is double-blind, it doesn't count.

Global temps have cooled over the past ten years, and CO2 has risen over that time.  That is not the type of lockstep correlation that gives anyone confidence about the link between CO2 and temperature.  In fact it is not a correlation at all.

Answer 7

There are no credible sites that claim anthropogenic global warming is not happening.  The best you can find are sites such as Roger Pielke Sr.'s at Univ. of Colorado, that claim, in essence, that although it is happening, the effects won't be severe.  The rest are no more than right-wing propaganda.

Answer 8

I know there are a few scientists who say that global warming isn't happening, but I have never seen a large scientific organization (like NAS, AAAS, NASA...) say that global warming isn't happening.  This is why I think it is happening.  I trust scientific organizations rather than a few websites that aren't very scientific.

Truthfully, I don't think there are any credible, scientific sources that say AGW isn't happening.

Answer 9

I'd love to see some real sources too. I think there are a few (very few) but I haven't seen any links to them on here. Let's trot them out deniers, so that we can all see them and examine the evidence.  I'd like to see papers in refereed journals--not websites, conference proceedings, blogs, biblical passages, etc.

And don't try to claim that nobody will publish because they're worried about their funding--scientists think more independently than that.  Also don't make the claim that journals won't publish something that goes against prevailing science--that's not true either, I've published papers that were much more controversial than anything to do with AGW. Let's see the evidence.

EDIT: Keith P : Excellent links!! We need more of this sort of exchange in this forum.  Some of the papers I recognized but most I didn't. I think you fairly described them.  Some are definitely not about showing that AGW is not happening, but rather about showing that some interpretations of the consequences (like implications for tropical cyclones) are not correct.  Others seem to go after the theory more strongly. I look forward to looking at them.

Answer 10

I have not seen any myself (and I've looked), but I have read some papers that make unusual predictions.

I'm actually involved in an experimental study right now that, at least so far, is revealing that increased CO2 and heat benefit some tree species. This is a good thing, because these trees remove CO2 from the air and thus may serve as a negative feedback—but ONLY if precipitation remains steady or increases. (Note: This is not to say that plants will "save" us from global warming. That is impossible to predict at this point and, IMO, is highly unlikely.)

Currently, we're looking at root mass to see if the same story holds true underground as aboveground.

Answer 11

Everyone should seek to understand this issue, because the consequences of a foolish decision could be ruinous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

         An honest scientist will not claim proof, of something which is neither provable, nor disprovable. science is proved by verifiable experiments.  No experiments are possible, in this case, which will prove the hypothesis that a bit more CO2 will cause "catastrophic runaway" warming.

     Experimental proof should include description of the test methods, so that others can repeat the experiment, and check the results.

    here is an experiment ,which  demonstrates how much CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect.  People should understand  the difference between the fact that CO2  contributes to the greenhouse effect, and the conjecture of a "catastrophic, runaway" effect on earths climate caused by positive feedback effects. The second link below explains positive feedback well.

   The experiment:    Observe that clear nights cool off rapidly, cloudy or humid nights do not. Think of nights in the desert. This is because water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is 4%, with 1/4 of that blamed on man.  

    

       here is a link that describes how Manns "hockey stick " chart was discreditted, How he refused to describe his methods,  and how the IPCCs  "peer review " process was revealed to be very biased.

  http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files...

    

here is a link, which describes the skeptics position very well.  It is in laymans language, very readable. If you're a scientist, and want to read about the spectral absorption of the various gases, or ice core data details or such - it's all out there, do your own research, don't expect someone to hand you an answer, which you will  ignore, if  presented by a skeptic, for christs sake.

      http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/t...

This one discusses the effects of solar cycles on climate. again, laymans language. but  even laymen know that the sun is a variable star, and of the correspondance between high sunspot activity, and climate warming.  and that a period of high activity ended recently.  

        http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/note...

     It's not true that ordinary people cannot understand this topic, but must just believe what AGW proponents saty that scientists say.

      I'd be fully willing to agree to a course of action that included maximum conservation of fuels. so that future generations can be left with fossil fuels, which are far more practical for vehicular use, than any alternative. reduce speed limits, tax carbon -OK. Ethanol fuels - counterproductive, political subsidy, causing great poverty - stupid. denying permits to coal fired plants, so that we rely mainly on more expensive nat gas, while exporting coal to china - even more stupid (electricity is a big cost of many industries -do we need to be less competitive?)( 1 job lost, per train car load?). Cap & Trade, instead of a carbon tax  - Arrggh! why don't we just clone Joseph Stalin, and put him in charge?