Looking for a Scientific article with an opposing view to the Global Warming Theory?

Question

Hello all. I'm doing a scientific research on the validity of global warming, and it's correlation to the melting of the Polar Ice Caps, and am looking for a scientific article with an opposing viewpoint to the Theory. If anyone has a decent article on this, could you post a link to it? (author needs to have some credibility). Many thanks =D

--BiteMark

Answer 1

The most credible article in a mainstream technical journal that would come closest to saying outright what you are looking for is Lindzen's adaptive iris hypothesis (AIH) paper that appeared in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS for short, see link below).  The follow-up papers on AIH appeared in Journal of Climate, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, and other places, but those are extremely technical and are not easily digestable into parts that say "CO2 isn't heating the planet because of the adaptive iris effect."  

Other than papers you can find in journals that no reputable scientist would be caught dead publishing in them (i.e., Energy and Environment, Journal of American Physicans and Surgeons), there are very few.

Answer 2

This may not fit your criteria for 'scientific research' but common sense is far greater on these sites.

The Science of Global Warming in Perspective

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

A Fake Mechanism in the Stratosphere which Supposedly Creates Global Warming

http://www.nov55.com/str.html

Couple this with the fact that CO2 is a heavier molecule that stays close to ground level.  Means that without wind CO2 will only add to 'localized' urban heat islands.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/V...

"Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death."

The biggest factors overlooked by most scientists is the tremendous heat within:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/...

Ocean warming is what drives ALL weather/climate on earth:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.h...

Have you ever heard of EL Nino & LA Nina?

"The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes,"

http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...

Now that could be a lot of heat released into the oceans = We should find out about the number of active submarine volcanoes ASAP before rationalizing costly fixes that would not work.

Answer 3

When you find one check it out here.

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

The site refutes 26 arguments that have been made against global warming science.

Answer 4

Begin with this link..... it will provide you with some names for further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

Answer 5

Here you go:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-0...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Here is a link with a wealth of info:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Techn...

Answer 6

Go here and click the PDF link and read the entire article--- and you will know why I don't believe ground data--- and why we need much more SAT data to form a conclusion about GW.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=4...

Answer 7

Don't think your going to find a scientific article refuting the entire theory of GW.  After all, it has been know for more than a century that CO2 holds the heat and makes life as we know it possible.  Accelerated global warming that can result in climate change has been around for 20-30 years I think.  It is widely accepted.  If you look, you'll see there are actually many parts to the theory.  Scientist work or just a small part to

try to redefine the theories or resolve unknown issues  

Maybe redefine your question to something like "What possible reasons have scientist found for melting polar ice caps."  You'll find articles around for that.  You can list the possible reason and the facts that support the reasons as well as the facts that point to different causes.  Start in the National Academy of Sciences   http://www.nas.edu    and look under publications for "Proceedings of the National Academy."  You can do a key-word search from there.

NOAA is tougher to use, but there is a search icon in the upper right of the education page http://www.oar.noaa.gov/education/     Type in search terms there.  

The IPCC is also good but they don't really post to much.  Working Group I is the scientific basis and that may provide you a place to start finding references http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/        Working Group II is impacts and that may be better for locating information http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/    These groups typically work towards answering the critical holes in the theory, and they attempt to assign some level of certainty about what they know.  This may help you figure out what are the most likely causes if GW is not the cause.  Also, loads of references.

Get some references and read them, then look at the references they list to find more information and possible opposing views

These are starting points, but I think narrowing your topic down will help a lot.

Answer 8

You should search the  journal 'Science' to get not only articles but also peer reviews thereof.

Now this is a problem I find with articles written in the broad press, they fail to wait for reviews and corrections made to the original.

Taking a link to an article is somewhat  like buying stock based on the advice of one wall street broker while ignoring contrary views.

You will not find any scientific articles that oppose 'the global warming theory' since that is not one unified theory. What you will find are articles that propose different levels of significance for various causes. In general all of them will acknowledge each of the contributing causes if they are not narrowly focussed. We have to be cautious to avoid assuming that a narrowly focussed article is denying anything that it does not explicitly deny. This too is a fault of popular press articles, and a reason to avoid basing conclusions on articles in the popular press.

Good luck