Theres no peer reviewed papers against AGW?

Ha! Ha! This is fascinating how well you took on these bullies of Y!A. When you make too much sense they usually get your question pulled.

Yes the evidence is out there that there are peer reviewed papers but these are silenced, just as they did with Lord Monckton. This is consistent with hiding the truth. These 'saviors of the earth' use everyone of Goebbels' dirty tricks and it is all propaganda and not science.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Gobbells, Hitler's minister of propaganda.

Substitute 'Global Warming' instead of 'State" and you will clearly see their methodology.

Just remember, the truth needs no maintenance but a lie does. Or as Goebbels so eloquently states 'for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie'. Us true scientists could kill their goose that lays the golden egg and they know it.

Interestingly a few posters have asked her to explain how the papers are against AGW (as yet she offers no response). Analysing scientific papers is a basic premise of any scientific degree (let alone a major in astrophysics).

I personally think Ottawa Mike is on the ball. Most papers argue the extent and influence of humans/climate change more so than against AGW.

Also as suggested Skeptical Science provides links to argumentative papers on both sides ...

Edit: So your first link doesn't argue AGW ... in your own words it is merely "Data from antarctic ice cores reviewing climate changes of the past" (not addressing the reasons for the current trend).

The only other paper you review for us is a critique of a movie?? (Which if we aren't subscribers can't read anyway).

Sure any good scientists should question new research, and ask "why" etc. However, you give yourself away within your last sentence:

"If something doesn't add up, it probably isn't true, especially when theres a truck load of rational explanations"

Anyone with a scientific background would know that there is NO KNOWN national explanation for the current trend. There is however a lot of evidence supporting the conclusion that humans are having a net effect. Therefore using your logic you should agree with the scientific theory, because natural variables "don't add up, so probably aren't true, especially when there is a truck load of EVIDENCE (even better than rational explanations)."

Can you clarify a few of you comments?

>>relate to theories proposed by AGW supporters in relation to "warming" today>>

By the plural "theories" do mean supporting theories like Greenhouse Theory and Quantum Theory? There is only one scientific theory in play regarding the warming trend, and that is AGW. As I am sure you are aware, the scientific process only allows for one theory at a time. The accepted explanatory model remains in effect until - and if - it is replaced by a superior theory that provides a better explanation.

>>the theoretical warming of today<<

There is nothing "theoretical" about the warming - which is an empirical fact.

>>Vostok Ice Core samples, which i have mentioned before. These findings definitely counter the theory of AGW as they depict C02 following temperature changes, and not the other way around as proposed by alarmists. I'm most disappointed you couldn't connect<<

How is this possible? For 4,200 years of the warming event, temperature does not lead CO2. That only applies to the first 6-800 years.

>>Climate models from the past indicate the sun activity played a primary role in warming in cooling, among other natural factors.<<

Indeed true, but they are not the only indicators. Nevertheless, thanks for acknowledging that our understanding of the solar effect on climate comes from climate scientists.

>>especially when theres a truck load of rational explanations.<<

Please name one. There are neither truck nor boat loads. We know that it is not the sun or any of the known solar- or geophysical-cycles that influence climate. If you know of some cycle that the rest of us do not, then please tell us what it is.

Deniers keep claiming that such a cycle exists, however they won't provide the time and frequency domain properties that define it. Perhaps you can direct us to a spectral analysis of some relevant time series data that identifies the significant peaks and that provides an a priori reason for their presence.

If you misinterpret papers to claim that they are "against" AGW, when really they are nothing of the sort, then surely you should be able to find many thousands of them--but you've only come up with a few. However, if you're trying to claim that all these papers you list are evidence against AGW, perhaps you need to read them again (or at least once).

If you really did major in physics, I'm surprised that you don't understand the effects that CO2 (not C02) can have on climate, although there are many physics programs where things like Stefan's Law and the Clausius-Clapeyron may be glossed over. Especially if you get too wrapped up in H-R diagrams or AGN.

Did you go past the Bachelor's degree? What are you doing now?

Y!A will only allow for a certain number of edits:

30109124541AARbxkl

*edit*

Yeah, that poof is only coming out of your ***. If you can prove that polar bear numbers have been increasing since the 1980s, it just means that scientists are wrong when they say their numbers are falling (I'd like to see your evidence, though, because you're wrong). How does that prove anything with regard to AGW? One could conclude from that article that polar bears are so adaptable, their numbers will not be affected by the current global warming, i.e., AGW.

And here are some ice cores for your ***:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ice+cores+clim...

Who made such a claim?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer...

Pro-AGW liks are green. Skeptic links are red.

<Its a theory with many debunked claims and research that suggests C02 is not a significant driver of climate.>

What a nonsensical claim.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?s...

<Paleoclimatology helps determine significant periods of heating and cooling throughout history, which could help determine what the theoretical warming of today is caused by.>

Paleoclimate is a useful tool, but they do not mean that carbon dioxide does not absorb infra-red.

<A primary piece of evidence relating to paleoclimatology would be the Vostok Ice Core samples, which i have mentioned before. These findings definitely counter the theory of AGW as they depict C02 following temperature changes.>

Someone who claims to have majored in physics with a specialization in astrophysics should know the difference between then and now. In the distant past, carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere because of warming, because the warmer seas outgassed carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide was also added due to the oxidation of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas, which explains cooling while carbon dioxide was increasing) which had been released from the tundra. Today carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere because of humans burning fossil fuels. An uneducated person who believes everything she hears in denialist blogs and Faux News. But not an educated person.

<How does C02 drive climate, and why?>

How did you get a degree in physics without knowing this?

http://www.kids.esdb.bg/basic_principles.html

<Polar bears are going extinct.>

That is not the argument. The argument is polar bears could go extinct. How would you know they wont? Do you have a time machine? Are you psychic? Or more likely, psycho?

The problem here is that many of these papers have nothing whatsoever to do with AGW. Take your second link for example. The abstract says:

"Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries".

Now how, exactly, does that sentence imply anything contrary to AGW? What it tells us is that the sun goes through cycles and the earth's climate (in this case ocean temperatures) responds. They're suggesting that we should expect a solar increase in the next few centuries based on this cycle and this will add additional heat. Or, in other words, 'add to the warming'. So this paper doesn't say what skeptics think it did.

If you look at your fifth link, at the bottom of the paper the authors conclude:

"Our review points out the enormous scientific difficulties facing the calculation of climatic effects of added CO2 in a GCM, but it does not claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate". Ooppps that seems to contradict what the skeptics thought the paper was about.

Let's look at your ninth link. That abstract contains the following sentence:

"Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half."

So, what these guys are doing is trying to filter out the variability in the quality of data which is dependent on effects such as, say, aerosols and pollution over urban areas. What they suggest is that if you filter these effects out it would halve the temperature trend over the 1980 to 2002 period. This is, of course, interesting from a scientific point of view. But what has this got to do with AGW? If you're about to answer 'IT MEANS THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE IS HALF WHAT WE THOUGHT!!' well, that doesn't disprove AGW. It means the temperature over land maybe wasn't increasing as fast as we thought. And, what about the 71% of the surface of our planet that is covered with water ...

So this paper doesn't actually discuss AGW but discusses filters and methodologies of extracting instrumental data.

I picked those three links at random. The point is that people tend to read a few lines of the paper (or the abstract since most people don't have subscriptions to the journals), see phrases they like such as 'solar variability' or 'unknowns and uncertainties', and then jump to the conclusion that the paper somehow shows disagreement over AGW. It's what we technically call in science 'not doing your research properly' which is why we leave science to scientists. It would seem that the assumption is made that ALL climate papers are about AGW. Which they aren't.

So much BS - so little time

Another denier industry stooge who hasnt bothered to read any of the links they post .

The first three are not "against AGW" - the third is a movie review....I dont have time to read all the other links in case one is relevant - you obviously didnt

. Come back when you have something intelligent to say ....I guess that means never

EDIT : it was a good idea changing your name from Brittany who had a reputation for posting such inane plagiarised drivel . But you need more than a name change : you really are old mutton dressed as lamb

"I majored in physics with a specialization in astrophysics" I got one of them too http://thunderwoodcollege.com/

Wow did you do a lot of busy work for no real effect. These are basically all magazine articles

A peer reviewed article would be published in a PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL, not in a magazine. Plus what we are looking for is peer reviewed article written by a REAL CLIMATOLOGIST and I doubt if you can even show even one climatologist contributing to any of the articles you presented.

You are way off base with this. The fact that something is published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed. Better luck next time

Frankly even if you found a single paper it wouldn't change the fact that man made global warming has been proven to be real and we have already begun to experience consequences of it worldwide. You can deny reality all you want but you can't change reality. You might as well try denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun

Flaws in a movie aren't proof that AGW doesn't exist. It just means that the movie is inaccurate, or outdated. I'm accepting your assertion that it is flawed, but I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm just pointing out that you're not too smart.

And by alarmists, I'm assuming you mean people like Richard Muller.

*edit*

If you could read between the lines, like you're taught in high school, you'd understand that Hey Dook is saying the same thing I'm saying. You're out of your league. Try getting your GED, and come back when you can at least make a clear and concise argument.

*edit*

Copying and pasting links is no way to make an argument that there is more evidence for or against. The fact is, even deniers who are scientists are coming around.

*edit*

What are you talking about? Do you mean the credibility of Al Gore?

You try again.... I don't believe you.

*edit*

Here's an example of why I say what I say about you. You can't even understand what is and isn't proof. You posted a link to an article in another question as proof against AGW that's about polar bears titled, "Good News For Polar Bears Is Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists." However, all that article is saying that an evolutionary biologist is claiming polar bears will adapt to climate change:

"....polar bears have successfully adapted to severe climate change many times in the past and will likely adapt to future climate change, as well."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/08/15...

Do you get it? It has nothing to do with accepting or denying AGW, just that polar bears will likely adapt, according to one professor. And, if you could properly interpret what you read, then you could see that there is a bit of bias to this professor and journalist by the use of inflammatory language, such as, "merchants of doom and gloom," activist scientists," and "tales of imminent doom."

You don't understand the propositions that are being made. Or, maybe you just don't even read the links you provide.

Well, I hope she's right; however, the die-off of polar bears this time, this climate change is thought to be going at such an accelerated rate, they won't be able to make it back given the time allotted for the change.

*edit*

I don't how dumb a person can be. First of all, it's Cee Oh Two, not Cee Zero Two. As a physics major, you should know this.... you know one carbon and two oxygen.

What the polar bear article says, and a lot of your "debunking" articles say has nothing to do with claiming AGW doesn't exist. Nowhere in these articles mentioned by me and others are the authors claiming to be debunking AGW.

The polar bear, which is more my area, all the researcher is saying is that polar bears will adapt to climate change. What she's claiming is that there has been climate change before where they have adapted, therefore they will adapt again.

Please explain how that debunks AGW. Please explain how that even talks about anything more than simple climate change. Please offer a peer-reviewed paper on her assertions. This is how academic and intelligent discussion works.

Here is the question on which you say the polar bear article proves AGW does not exist:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApIi2...

I don't think anyone is claiming there are no papers against AGW there are certainly a few and you can tell when they come out because twerps likes watts suddenly switch from saying you can't trust peer review, to look here's a paper that debunks it, yawn.

I usually say there are few papers, deniers attempt to pad this number by including papers that are not actually debunking AGW, how far through your list do I have to go to find such a paper how about link No. 1 then how much further how about link 2

Neither paper debunks AGW in anyway, you claim to have majored in physics with a specialization in astrophysics, such work requires the ability to at least read and you seem to have not done that for either of these the first is a 1985 French Russian work that covers why we have glacial cycles, please tell us how you think that disproves AGW.

Then we have your favorite "it's debunks Al Gores documentary, I'm sorry but that just funny, why would any real scientists worry about a documentary no real scientist is writing papers to support it because it's a Documentary, yet Spencer feels the need to debunk it in a paper, I suppose he covered all the important points like was the ice fly over real or digital because that seems so important to deniers.

The second link is about the variable Sun theory, which is still debated, and oddly for someone who claim to be an astrophysicist you seem to no understand that we monitor the Sun and have done since the 1970s and the 1950s if you count some ground base cosmic ray equipment.

So please tell us how these instruments have missed some change in the Sun happening now, plainly your astrophysics degree came out of the same box of breakfast cereal as jims geology degree, why you guys play at this nonsense escapes me given how easy it is to show you don't know squat.

On the springer link: you post (as deniers often do only one part), it was part of a larger debate that clearly you don't want to hear

http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/sprin...

Strange for someone who claims to be a scientist, but not unusual for a denier only claiming to be a scientist.

Also re added detail: I'm sorry but it's not really that hard to see when someone is padding with big words and are clearly out of their depth, Trevors answer shows you up as it did in the previous retort you tried on him. You may (whoops) also want to look up what an astrophysicist actually studies as it's not ice. That you are posting things like the OISM petition (in other answers) shows what interest in science you really have.

So we "whine" interesting then, that you completely avoid trying to answer direct points a common feature for deniers like sage and jim (or am I speaking to them, yet again)

As In link 4 you post Singer's opinion piece but completely ignore the link I post back on the rebuttal then we have this "How does C02 drive climate, and why?" I'm sorry what sort of physics was it you were studying, anyone with a basic physics understanding should be able to understand the why, as all real climate scientists do (of which physics is a basic requirement) I realise you have not the wit to understand, but in this statement alone you have shown you are not what you claim, sad.

"especially when there's a truck load of rational explanations" so post one, instead of link to papers that don't dispute AGW, while you try to claim they do, I note not one attempt to explain my points on links 1 & 2, sadly predictable and just what I would expect from a jim or sage.

(chuckle) Even Ottawa Mike is trying to tell you some of your links don't dispute AGW, are you going to call him a whining alarmists as well, that should be funny to watch.

A rare thumbs up from me to mike!