quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
I tell you what - here is a link www.scholar.google.com . Go to the link and type in the relevant query about problems with AGW theory and see the results. I am not here to do your research work

That is just google for scholars! You said:

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
"I have journal articles that are peer reviewed that questions the AGW theory. What do you mean by 'practically no papers'? Is this another metaphor to hid behind?"

And I am asking you to name these. I am now beginning to think you just made this up.

Just to be clear what I meant to say in earlier post- I do think politician are using AGW theory as a way to raise tax and also impose punitive tariffs on developing nations on use of carbon. But stating that does not mean that there is a conspiracy between politicians and scientists

Well RobbieWriter, if you do what I have asked you to do you will come up with number of peer reviewed articles that disputes AGW theory.

But to get rid of you (electronically of course ) I will cite one such paper which came up in the search

Journal Article

Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
Journal Environmental Geology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0943-0105 (Print) 1432-0495 (Online)
Subject Earth and Environmental Science
Issue Volume 46, Numbers 6-7 / October, 2004
Category Original Article
DOI 10.1007/s00254-004-1112-2
Pages 970-979
SpringerLink Date Friday, July 16, 2004
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Request Permissions
Recommend this article



Original Article
Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1

(1) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

Received: 11 February 2004 Accepted: 10 May 2004 Published online: 16 July 2004

Abstract The authors believe that recent global warming of Earths atmosphere is not due to an increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission but rather to long-term global factors. The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission. Discussed in this paper are sources, avenues of migration, and the amounts of naturally produced carbon dioxide and methane (greenhouse gases) and long-term changes in the Earths climate, which are necessary for understanding the causes of current temperature trends.
Keywords Global warming - Climatic changes - Gas migration


Happy reading

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
Robbie, your whole output never ceases to be driven by your being fed-up with modern, democratic society. You accuse the people in it of being paranoid and yet your posts are loaded to the gills with intense paranoia about people lying, cheating, being greedy, having ulterior motives, causing the end of the world, being politically corrupt and conspiratorial etc etc etc. Ever heard of 'projection'?

I'm happy with the way things are and I'm inviting you to take a break from gathering "evidence" of the crime and tell us what kind of world you want to live in - as this one seems so clearly unpalatable for you.

I want to live in a world that ensures that future generations can also live in it.

Sorry but you haven't proven why I am anti-democratic. I believe in democracy. I believe in free education so that people have a better understanding of the world and decisions are made by majority rather than decisions being made through the influence of rich lobbyists.

There is ample evidence of lobbying effecting political policy.

The reasons I am critical of corporate funding of science for example is that money is being used to cloud issues. This is well documented and criticised by well-established respected institutions such as The Royal Society and The British Medical Association.

For instance the smoking lobby is an example, where it is argued that the clear link with cancer was held back for 10 years and could therefore resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

I accuse some people of being paranoid, not all sceptics but those who point to the politicians desire to raise taxes as evidence that AGW is
a conspiracy. These paranoid people have not explained how the IPCC has managed to silence 1000s of scientists from telling the "truth". That is paranoia.

Thanks What's In Your Mind. I will see if I can get a hold of those papers you've listed.

Who knows it might even change my view.

Well can't get ahold of that particular 2004 paper, either online or at the university.

Will read their 2006 paper instead.

Happy to see that you have a open mind about this and apologies for some earlier rude comments

quote:

Originally posted by Robbie Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
Robbie, your whole output never ceases to be driven by your being fed-up with modern, democratic society. You accuse the people in it of being paranoid and yet your posts are loaded to the gills with intense paranoia about people lying, cheating, being greedy, having ulterior motives, causing the end of the world, being politically corrupt and conspiratorial etc etc etc. Ever heard of 'projection'?

I'm happy with the way things are and I'm inviting you to take a break from gathering "evidence" of the crime and tell us what kind of world you want to live in - as this one seems so clearly unpalatable for you.

I want to live in a world that ensures that future generations can also live in it.

Sorry but you haven't proven why I am anti-democratic. I believe in democracy. I believe in free education so that people have a better understanding of the world and decisions are made by majority rather than decisions being made through the influence of rich lobbyists.

There is ample evidence of lobbying effecting political policy.

The reasons I am critical of corporate funding of science for example is that money is being used to cloud issues. This is well documented and criticised by well-established respected institutions such as The Royal Society and The British Medical Association.

For instance the smoking lobby is an example, where it is argued that the clear link with cancer was held back for 10 years and could therefore resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

I accuse some people of being paranoid, not all sceptics but those who point to the politicians desire to raise taxes as evidence that AGW is
a conspiracy. These paranoid people have not explained how the IPCC has managed to silence 1000s of scientists from telling the "truth". That is paranoia.

So are your politics are basically Marxist?

Marxist? No I don't think so. From what little I have read by Marx, I don't think so.

I certainly don't believe in centralisation.

I do believe in democracy. Ultimately I believe in true democracy, not representative democracy. Although there is difficulties with democracy when the public is ill-informed and are not able to rationalise arguments.

Can you explain what you consider a Marxist?

quote:

Original Article
Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1

I strongly urge everyone to read this paper. It's the funniest.

I found this a while ago, and can remember two things from it.

Firstly, they proved that global warming wasn't due to humans because power stations hadn't released sufficient heat

Next they proved that human CO2 was negligible because the output of CO2 for 200 years of fossil fuel burning was less than the output from volcanoes and mantle outgassing etc. for...wait for it...four and a half billion years.

So, no, I don't think this adds anything to the debate on either side.

Ok, no links.
I haven't had a chance to watch all of GGWS, but as a "denier", I'm disappointed that some scientists I respect are associated with it.

Dr Lindzen, you can't cry foul and use the vile dishonest tactics.

That said, my skepticism flairs when the “deniers” are slandered and advocates try to suppress the debate (Yea, I know Hansen’s suppressed. He mentions it every time he’s on 60 Minutes). Al says the debate is over. Senators Olympia Snowe, John Rockefeller, and others sent a letter to Exxon Mobile demanding the company cease funding global warming skeptics. Environmental writer David Roberts called for war crime trials, “some sort of climate Nuremburg” for deniers. Weather Channel Climatologist, Heidi Cullen, called for stripping skeptical meteorologists of their scientific certification.

It's true the 100% deniers are a small minority, but there are many legitimate scientists who question the alarmism. Chris Landsea believes in CO2 induced GW, but resigned from the IPCC, because he felt the hurricane reporting was dishonest. Other GW advocates appeared in today’s NY Times.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
“We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,” Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. “On the other hand,” Dr. Hansen said, “he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.”

Ok. I lied. Just one link. Does anyone have comments on this BBC program that I found to be reasonable.
Overselling Climate Change
Thursday 20 April 2006 20:00-20:30 (Radio 4 FM)
Simon Cox reports on how scientists are becoming worried by the quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate predictions.

Every week we are assailed by scare stories about the climate. Malaria in Africa, hurricanes in Florida, even the death of frogs in Latin America - all are being linked to global warming. But does the science behind these claims really stand up, or are the risks of climate change being oversold to win the battle for influence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thebattleforinfluence/pip/abkim/

To be fair to What's In Your mind, he posted that because I was badgering him for the anti-AGW peer review articles he has read.

What's In Your Mind never argued the strengths of the article by the petroleum geologists.

quote:

Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1

Check Wikipedia's profile of Chilingar which is linked to their article. Here is the relevant quote regarding the CO2.

"Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate."

and for the directly heating the atmosphere idea

"The world total energy production in the year of 2003 was equal to 1.34×1020 erg/s (Key World Energy Statistics 2004), which is about 0.0077% of the total solar irradiation reaching the Earth’s body. Comparison of the above figures clearly shows that the solar radiation is the dominating source of energy supply to the Earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere."

Presumably you find findings of article not credit worthy. That is of course your opinion. The fact is that this is a peer reviewed article deemed publishable under standards set by the scientific community similar to other peer reviewed articles that are pro AGW theory.

Many of the pro-AGW theory lobbyists in this forum try to project an aura of scientific credibility (often by putting funny faces in their postings), but it is obvious they are no way close to being one. Rather they make the dishonest attempt to project something they are clearly not.

The point of the citation is to demonstrate that there are plenty of peer reviewed articles that contest the veracity of the AGW theory and the situation is not that 'practically no papers'exists that contest the pro AGW theory as has been claimed here

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
The point of the citation is to demonstrate that there are plenty of peer reviewed articles that contest the veracity of the AGW theory and the situation is not that 'practically no papers'exists that contest the pro AGW theory as has been claimed here

Well, although I've defended your reason for citing it (assuming Environmental Geology is a peer-review journal) it does not demonstrate "plenty" of peer reviewed articles contesting AGW theory.

That said I now accept your original point on peer-review journals and we should argue the science as Steve_M is doing.

It's funny you said we should argue the science as though we are fully qualified environment scientists. My guess, in which I think I am correct, that none in the forum is one. We can of course discuss ideas and different forms of arguments but quicker some of forum members come off the high horse of posing as environment scientists, the better the quality of the discussion will be

quote:

Presumably you find findings of article not credit worthy. That is of course your opinion. The fact is that this is a peer reviewed article deemed publishable under standards set by the scientific community similar to other peer reviewed articles that are pro AGW theory.

I really, really, really, would advise you never to cite this paper again. Nobody has ever suggested that anthropogenic heat is a contribution to CO2 and noone could reasonably compare 200 years of fossil fuel burning with the complete geological history of the carbon cycle.

I'm not having a go at you, because it is often easy to find abstracts but hard to find the actual paper. And I apologise for the smilies - it's sometimes fun to try and add a bit of humour.

I don't know where you got this link from, but you should be warned that lobby organisations such as co2science.org have the tendency to cite a paper and summarise its contents, but quote very selectively indeed to make their points. I've had 4 papers from co2science.org cited to me, and all 4 did not live up to their billing (unlike the Chilingar paper, its usually because the science is fine, but the co2Science interpretation was wrong).

Environmental Geology is a peer reviewed journal, but it is a geology journal, so maybe the peers missed the flaws - that's the most charitable explanation I can think of. For the record they published a rebuttal late last year.

Oops misprint, should have said:

Nobody has ever suggested that anthropogenic heat is a contribution to global temperature rises.

Well the paper was found through a search in scholar.google.com. I don't find any particular reason to believe that I should not ever cite this again- It is enjoyable to read and although I will not cite for my work (as I am not environment science) I will certainly recommend it to anyone who wants an alternate perspective to the AGW theory of global warming.

The point again is that there are lot of peer review science that questions the AGW theory (of course less in number to the AGW theory papers) and those of us who are sceptics need and should be aware of the arguments presented in these papers that are deemed publishable under the standards set by the scientific community

quote:

It's funny you said we should argue the science as though we are fully qualified environment scientists. My guess, in which I think I am correct, that none in the forum is one. We can of course discuss ideas and different forms of arguments but quicker some of forum members come off the high horse of posing as environment scientists, the better the quality of the discussion will be

I don't think you need to be a climate scientist to make judgement calls about the science. I base my opinions on a combination of:

1. Knowledge of the scientific process. I used to be a scientist. Knowledge does not equal trust by the way.
2. Trust in the ethics of some friends who are climate scientists (though we don't discuss it down the pub).
3. My own basic research into the subject.
4. My observation that there are a large number of websites with friendly sounding names and nice graphics with no real purpose other than to put forward arguments against global warming. But when you look at them, they say some preposterous things about the science, and they are continually repeating "memes" such as "volcanoes produce more CO2 than man". So I ask myself, why are they lying to me?

By point 1. if you mean the peer review process, we are in agreement. I dont understand your distinction between knowledge and trust. Care to expand?

By point 2, if you are saying you trust the ethic of the average pro AGW theorist, I am again in agreement. In science, you dont have to unethical to be wrong

By 3, with all respect to you and your research, you are a virtual character and the paper in consideration is by a scientist from University of Southern California- who would you trust?

By 4, I don't know what you mean honestly but I will give the benefit of doubt

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
...The [pro AGW] argument here is that as some of these scientists have funding from oil industry and other big business, they have produced bad research to suit the needs of private business. In putting forward this line of argument, what is conveniently forgotten that the pro AGW scientists have also received huge funding from business and most notably from governments. If that does not prevent pro AGW scientists to produce good research (peer review and other checks and balances) why it should prevent scientists who are sceptics to produce good research?

Than you WIYM, you raise a good question -- which makes me realise that there's a possible source of bias IN FAVOUR of AGW which I simply hadn't considered before. Let me know if you agree with the following.

Generally speaking, I'd say that scientists are more likely to produce good research if they're left to investigate their subject impartially -- without being bribed or pressured to come up with particular answers. What we need to ask about any source of scientific funding, is whether or not is a vested interest in getting certain results. That's grounds for suspicion of bias; for evidence, we need to ask if scientists funded by that source are more likely to come up with the 'desireable' results.

When 10 scientist say, "chemical X is perfectly safe", we have good reason to be a bit suspicious if it turns out that they are all being paid by the manufacturer. Our doubts will surely increase if 100 scientists, in different universities, who's funding comes only from government research grants, all indepedently conculde that X is highly toxic!

A large number of businesses have an obvious vested interest in convincing us that AGW is wrong -- because measures to curb CO2 emissions will hurt their profits. So when it turns out that of the very few scientists who reject AGW, many receive funding from these businesses, we have good reason to doubt their integrity. That doesn't mean we should IGNORE their arguments... but we should be on our guard!

On the other hand, if AGW were false, no government would have any plausible reason for wanting us all to believe. The truth is, many of them don't even want to believe it themselves; AGW is horrendously bad news for governments. If its true, the problems they face are immense -- and the action they need to take is bound to be unpopular.

Then again, it occurs to me that there are businesses that stand to benefit from the promotion of AGW -- for example, renewable energy, biofuels, nuclear power. The renewable sector has enjoyed enormous growth in recent years, as a direct result of concern over man-made global warming. Likewise, the nuclear industry has been lobbying heavily for renewed investment, arguing that this is the only viable route to a low-carbon economy.

If there were evidence that a large amount of pro-AGW research was being funded, openly or covertly, by these industries, it would obviously be a cause for concern. All the more so, if it also turned out that these particular researchers tend to produce the most alarming, doomladen and scary results!

AGAIN, if this were the case, it's no reason to IGNORE the nuclear/renewable-industry funded research... just a good reason to be on our guard for bias and bad arguments.

This bring's me back to your point; you say "what is conveniently forgotten that the pro AGW scientists have also received huge funding from business and most notably from governments". I've hitherto taken it for granted that most mainstream climate-science research is government funded... Do you have evidence for large scale industry funding -- and if so, from what industries?