Do any of the people that do not believe in global warming have anything published in a peer reviewed journal?

Question

Where. I have been looking for papers like that in my university library. I have all journals published since 1988.

Answer 1

You're that guy that said that you believe that AGW is real because you couldn't find the words "skeptic" and "hoax" with the word "global warming" in any scientific literature. If that is still your search, then I will repeat what I told you on the other thread:

I have to say, it is a good thing you did not find the word "hoax" in your search. "Hoax" is a serious accusation of intentional misinformation and fraudulent practice that has no place in the professional scientific arena. If you do see the word "hoax," I would suggest further examination and possibly that you report it as scientific misconduct.

The word "skeptical" also has little use in scientific literature--but if you do see it, it is likely just word choice on the part of the author (It sounds effective in certain situations).

The fact that you did not find widespread use of the words "hoax" and "skeptical" in the scientific literature should come as no surprise--I wouldn't take any meaningful conclusions from such a result.

Oh, and tongue-in-cheekiness is inappropriate in scientific literature. I would love to see the studies that include the word "skeptical" in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

Beyond that, could you provide a scientific study that gives conclusive evidence of man's CO2 emissions have caused the recent warming? (A study saying that man has caused the warming is not enough--we need evidence) That would be truly amazing if you could.

Answer 2

There are a very few.  Don't have them at my fingertips.

Most don't completely contest anthropogenic global warming, but rather make a case that it won't be as bad as most scientists think.

Answer 3

Senator Inhofe published a list of 400 scientist who are skeptics, do you really want me to believe these people got their info from reading right wing blogs?  

The Oreskes study mentioned above is nothing but a pure piece of propaganda and promotion of it makes me question the credibility of those supporting the AGW hypothesis.  Are they seekers of truth or they promoting an agenda?

As for the peer review, the WegmanReport set up to investigate the Mann hockey stick fiasco said it the best:

"‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research

materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0607/0...

Answer 4

What a great question to have elicited so many referenced and elite answers.  

I'm only answering so that it'll be easy for me to access this from my Answered Questions.

Thanks to all.

Answer 5

No, but they do have episode 3 of Star Wars.

Answer 6

I would start with the latest IPCC report on Climate change which states that Climate Change is not man made but man is a catalyst in speeding it up.

Looking at the Royal Society of Science they also admit that Climate change is not man made but man does have an effect on the rate of change.

In fact I'm finding it difficult to find any current papers that say climate change is purely to do with people. I haven't seen one in a few years that doesn't admit that climate change is a natural process. The extent that man has effected the rate is more debatable.

Answer 7

Sure, it doesn't have to be a proven fact to be published and there are a few "Recognized" scientists that have doubts about the CAUSE of global warming. And for that I am glad. It is never a bad thing for someone to play Devil's advocate. If it weren't for a few skeptics, science would be static and stale. I, for one share the commonly accepted theory that high levels of CO2 were caused by man. But think about a world where all the flat worlder's  give up their nonsense. Who are we going to laugh at then? Those folks buying up oceanfront property in Kansas?

Answer 8

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol."

"This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science."

"The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict."

"Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim."

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Great site enumerating and quoting all the support for the IPCC

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Skeptic argument  the IPCC exagerates:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

Skeptic Argument: There is no consensus:

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

"A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"It's easy to refute all the contrarian arguments but that seems to have very little effect on how commonly they are believed. Refuted arguments seem to live on in the public imagination."

Michael Tobis Ph.D. - University of Texas Institute for Geophysics

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point," said Mahlman, who lives now on a mountain in Colorado. "You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away." - The Star Ledger

Shell Oil Co.

"It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - President John Hofmeister : MSNBC

In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”.  Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus.  Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change."  Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Science / AAAS

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Yeah the skeptics really have a good case.

Answer 9

Start here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008...

Answer 10

Actually, yes. But not much. Madhav Khandekar has compiled a bibliography of 68 peer-reviewed references that are skeptical of some part of anthropogenic global warming.

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

That compares to, for example, the IPCC 2007 report, which references about 4600 peer-reviewed papers.

Answer 11

To the question,

The IPCC 2007 report is your best bet for an extensive summary of the literature, and thousands of peer-reviewed publications on varying topics (they have references at the end of each chapter which you can backtrack to the original paper).  Thus far, there is absolutely no literature that has refuted the physics behind AGW, or provided a contrary explanation for the observed warming trend that carries explanatory and predictive weight.  Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) was one paper, but probably an example of how bad skeptical arguments have become, and certainly anyone who reads it should spot the obvious flaw in their work.  

Some examples of detection and attribution work, can be found

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/31584...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/pdf/heg...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

I alos have a post on the Scientific Basis for anthropogenic climate change and the physics of the greenhouse effect on my site

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/02...

As for above comments, you could take the very one-sided bias toward AGW in the literature (kind of like evolution vs. creationism) as being indicative of a conspiracy plot, or being indicative of what the data and evidence actually points to.  If you say the former, try using that line of thought amongst any other field or subject and on rather well accepted topics like "gravity."  Peer-review is not meant to "give both sides" it is meant to give the right side. This, like evolution, is rather controversial in laymen venues such as this, but not in the scientific community.  An example would be the illusion of the quality of Inhofe's "400" cited above, but only when you look at the credentials and publication record of the "400" do you see the absurdity.

Answer 12

I don't but i remeber someone one told me it can't be gobal warming becuz they said that ice capsols were melting on Mars and last time they checked people werent living on Mars. So is Global warming men made who knows?. Im sorry i didn't answer your question. Just putting in my two scents :)

Answer 13

Try this:

"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster.

In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils, which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins; it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection." - John Galt

Answer 14

I cut and pasted the following list of peer reviewed materials from a previous question that was asked about peer reviewed material supporting global warming.  I would just like to point out that the second resource is dated 1896 way before Al Gore's time.  To all the people who hate him just remember you can hate the message but don't shoot the messager.

Edit: I understand that this does not properly answer the question, but I just wanted to so the it is possible to find the documentation in support of CO2's effect on climate.

I highly doubt that anyone can find a list quite this comprehensive against global warming.

Augustsson T. and Ramanathan V. 1977. "A Radiative-Convective Model Study of the CO2 Climate Problem." J. Atmos. Sci. 34, 448-451.

Arrhenius, Svante 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-76.

Bertrand, C. 1998. "Climate simulation at the secular time scale." Thèse de doctorat, Université catholique de Louvain, 208 pp.

Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M. C. Reader, and D. Ramsden 2000. "A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: Experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the twentieth century." Climate Dynamics 16, 405–425.

Boer, G.J., N.A. McFarlane, and M. Lazare, 1992. "Greenhouse Gas-induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model." J. Climate, 5, 1045-1077.

Boer George G. and Yu Bin 2003. "Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity" Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(3), 35-1 - 35-4.

Callendar, G.S. 1938. "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64, 223-40.

Chen C.-T. and Ramaswamy V. 1996. "Sensitivity of Simulated Global Climate to Perturbations in Low-Cloud Microphysical Processes. Part I. Globally Uniform Perturbations." J. Climate 9, 1385-1402.

Chou Ming-Dah, Peng Li, Arking Albert 1982. "Climate Studies with a Multi-Layer Energy Balance Model. Part II: The Role of Feedback Mechanisms in the CO2 Problem." J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2657-2666.

Dai A., Wigley T. M. L., Boville B. A., Kiehl J. T., Buja L. E. 2001. "Climates of the 20th and 21st centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model." J. Climate 14, 485– 519.

Delworth Thomas L., Broccoli Anthony J., Dixon Keith; Held Isaac; Knutson Thomas R., Kushner Paul J., Spelman Michael J., Stouffer Ronald J., Vinnikov, Konstantin Y., Wetherald, Richard E. 1999. "Couple Climate Modelling at GFDL: Recent Accomplishments and Future Plans." CLIVAR Exchanges 4(4), 15-20.

Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984. "Volcanic, CO2 and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures." Nature 310, 38-41.

Goosse H., Arzel O., Luterbacher J., Mann M.E., Renssen H., Riedwyl N., Timmermann A., Xoplaki E., Wanner H. 2006. "The Origin of the European 'Medieval Warm Period'." Clim. Past, 2, 99–113.

Gordon, H. B., and S. P. O'Farrell 1997. "Transient climate change in the CSIRO coupled model with dynamic sea ice, Mon. Weather Rev. 125, 875–907.

Hall C.G. and Cacuci Dan G. 1982. "Sensitivity Analysis of a Radiative-Convective Model by the Adjoint Method. J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2038-2050.

Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P., Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. "Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms." Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.

Hegerl, G. C., K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz 1997. "Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change." Climate Dynamics 13, 613–634.

Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. "Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries." Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).

Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. "Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions." Nature 360, 573-576.

Hulburt, E.O. 1931. "The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth." Physical Review 38, 1876-1890.

Idso, Sherwood B. 1980. "The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration." Science 207(4438), 1462-1463.

Lambert Stephen J. 1995. "The Effect of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming on Winter Cyclone Frequencies and Strengths." J. Climate 8, 1347-1452.

MacKay Robert M., Ko Malcolm K.W., Shia Run-Lie, Yang Yajaing, Zhou Shuntai, Molnar Gyula 1997. "An Estimation of the Climatic Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Losses during the 1980s." J. Climate 10(4), 774-788.

Mahfouf J.F., Cariolle D., Royer J.F., Geleyn J.F., Timbal B. 1993. "Response of the Meteo-France Climate Model to Changes in CO2 and Sea Surface Temperature." Climate Dynamics 9(7), 345-362.

Manabe, Syukuro 1971. "Estimates of future change of climate due to the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air." Man's Impact on the Climate, W. I-I. Matthews, W. W. Kellogg, and G. D. Robinson, Eds., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 249-264.

Manabe Syukuro 1975. "The dependence of atmospheric temperature on the concentration of carbon dioxide" 73-77 in The Changing Global Environment, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.

Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1979. "A CO2-Sensitivity Climate Study with a Mathematical Model of the Global Climate." Nature, 282, 491-493.

Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1993. "Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system." Nature 364, 215-218.

Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1967. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity." J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-59.

Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1980. "On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase of CO2 Content of the Atmosphere."

Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1975. "The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model." J. Atmos Sci. 32, 3–15

McAvaney, B.J., Colman. R., Fraser, J.F., and Dahni, R.R. 1991. "The response of the BMRC AGCM to a doubling of CO2." BMRC Technical Memorandum No. 3 (in preparation).

Mitchell, J.F.B., Senior, C.A., and Ingram, W. J. 1989. "CO2 and climate: A missing feedback?." Nature, 341, 132-134.

Möller, Fritz 1963. "On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth's Surface and on the Climate." J. Geophysical Research 68, 3877-3886.

Nicoli Maria Pia and Visconti Guido 1982. "Impact of Coupled Perturbations of Atmospheric Trace Gases on Earth's Climate and Ozone" Pure Appl. Geophys. 120(4), 626-641.

Noda, A., and Tokoika, T. 1989. "The effect of doubling CO2 concentration on convective and nonconvective precipitation in a general circulation model coupled with a simple mixed layer ocean." J. Met. Soc. Japan, 67, 95-110.

Oglesby, R.J., and Saltzman, B., 1990. "Sensitivity of the equilibrium surface temperature of a GCM to systematic changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide." Geophysical Research Letters, 17(8), 1089-1092.

Ohring George and Adler Shoshana 1978. "Some Experiments with a Zonally Averaged Climate Model." J. Atmos. Sci. 35(2), 186-205.

Plass, Gilbert N. 1956. "The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change." Tellus 8, 140-154.

Ramanathan, V. 1981. "The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem." J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 918-930.

Rasool, S.I. and Schneider H.I. 1971. "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." Science 173, 138-141.

Roeckner, E., L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, and H. Rodhe 1999. "Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle" J. Climate, 12, 3004–3032.

Schlesinger Michael E., Zhao Zong-Ci, Vickers Dean 1989. "Design and Critical Appraisal of an Accelerated Integration Procedure for Atmospheric GCM/Mixed-Layer Ocean Models." J. Climate 2, 641-655.

Schlesinger, M.E., N. Andronova, A. Ghanem, S. Malyshev, T. Reichler, E. Rozanov, W. Wang and F. Yangi 1997. "Geophysical Scenarios of Greenhouse_Gas and Anthropogenic Sulfate Aerosol Induced Climate Changes." Climate Research Group Report, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

Sellers, William D. 1973. "A New Global Climatic Model." J. Appl. Meteorol. 12, 241-254.

Sellers, William D. 1974. "A Reassessment of the Effect of CO2 Variations On a Simple Global Climatic Model." J. Appl. Meteorol. 13, 831-833.

Shaviv, N., Veizer, J. 2003. "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" GSA Today 13(7), 4-10.

Stern, David I. 2005. "An atmosphere–ocean time series model of global climate change." Computational Statistics & Data Analysis uncorrected proof -- http://www.rpi.edu/~sternd/CSDA_inpress.... accessed 1/31/2007

Sumi, Akimasa 2005. "Global Warming Simulation due to the High Resolution Climate Model by Using the Earth Simulator." Annual Report of the Earth Simulator Center April 2004 - March 2005.

Temkin Richard L. and Snell Fred M. 1976.

Answer 15

I'm not directly answering your question, just clarifying:

Global warming is undeniable, on average, since the last deadly Ice Age ended some 18,000 years back.  The glaciers have been melted back over a thousand miles and the oceans have risen hundreds of feet.

During the Medieval Warm Period, the Earth was several degrees hotter than it is now.  Vikings farmed on Greenland, hence the name.  After that, another deadly temperature dip re-froze parts of the world that had thawed.  Now, the Earth is once again resuming its normal warming pattern, recovering from the post-medieval 'little ice age'.

What is disputed is whether Man is the cause of it or even contributes significantly to this cyclic occurrence.

We know the Earth underwent a frightening cooling spell during the 1960s and 1970s, despite industry pumping CO2 into the air, demonstrating our inability to warm the planet when nature chooses to cool it.  We were warned of another oncoming ice age.  Thank goodness the peer-reviewed 'scientists' had it wrong then, too.

Answer 16

I would like to clarify the above answer by saying that corporations, rich elite and government employees and politicians are the only reason We the People don't stop them from risking the future of humanity.  And by stopping them we should do so at all risks.  Even if it means Civil War, these killers of humanity must be stopped.  Terrorists all, they are.