Peer Review - New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears?

Question

Washington DC - An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart." The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

Answer 1

A great collection of information, the truth always prevails when science and mathematics are involved. Of course peer review does not matter when it opposes the views of the occult.

Thanks Slim.

Answer 2

Well, as noted, this came from a conservative blog. Secondly, the scientist who is most quoted as citing this study as sounding the death knell for human influenced global warming is an astronomer. Not a climatologist or anyone you'd think would have expertise in the field. Then they quote a physicist and a meteorologist. The meteorologist would be the best one for your side, but your local weatherman is also a meteorologist, so who knows how important this one is? Now, I went and read the actual paper. Not being a scientist, I couldn't make much of it. But certainly if it said what you're claiming, that would be there. Oddly enough, it wasn't. Here's what was in the paper: "The upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."" Why would that be included in a paper that was making the point that there is no evidence for human activity contributing to climate change? Simply put, it would not be. The paper does not say what this blog claims. I followed some of the links in the blog, and they also do not support his position, they are basically links to his other blogs. There are no other citations to peer-reviewed papers supporting this claim. Let's face it, the science is not on your side, and your side has yet to come up with a good explanation for why scientists would be biased. They'd get funded either way, so why would they all be on one side? If they cared about publicity and fame, they wouldn't have become climatologists in the first place. Sorry, but you've really got nothing to support your beliefs.

Answer 3

The impact of global warming can not be denied. And a much greater threat than the USA and all our polution is starting to surface. China!

American corporations are finding new ways around the laws and rules put into effect to stop global warming. A flood of mass American corporations are now set up in China so that they do not have to abide by the rules and regualtions set forth In the states. A recent study has confirmed that green house gasses and many other forms of environmental strain are going unchecked in China do to the flood of corporations using them as a host spot for production. The recent study confirmed that much of the polution has already spread to the west coast of the USA and is expected to double if not triple in very short order. If we let China go unchecked like this, not only will the states lose most of our jobs, but every tactic we have in place to combat global warming will be in vein!

THIS MUST STOP NOW! these corporations for years have destroyd this planet and they keep finding loop holes to do more damage and save them self more money for greedy intentions. so to say that blobal warming is a scare and nothing is going to happen, go to China and have a look around. see what you think then

Answer 4

Well, you've got a nice compendium of the official disinformation posted in a blog by the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. These are the folks blocking enforcement of various aspects of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. There isn't much connection between the posting and peer review, except that they mention it. I presume they want this to come up on Google when people use "global warming" and "peer review" as search terms?

Answer 5

This question, exactly, was dealt with yesterday.

The quotes are from Senator Inhofe's denier propaganda blog. It is an attempt to deal with the criticism that there are almost no papers in the reviewed scientific literature that support GW denial. To do so, it cherry-picks a few articles in the reviewed scientific literature that provide some anti-AGW evidence, then exaggerates the conclusions to the point of distortion. Then it adds some summary papers from non-peer reviewed denier-controlled journals, and incorrectly asserts that this represents a change in the scientific results. It doesn't---Inhofe is just lying.

P.S. Cherry-picking is an error. Inhofe's blog is in no way an unbiased survey of the scientific literature---it is, in fact, a description of the scientific literature by someone who is willing to go much further than simple selection of favorable results and suppression of unfavorable results. The summary restates and exaggerates favorable results to the point of falsehood.

Answer 6

It's completely nuts to say the cited study "disproves global warming". The study actually says that global warming is real and mostly caused by us. It accepts the IPCC work as basically valid. Read it for yourself:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

It just uses an admittedly "simple model" to claim that the warming will be somewhat less (and not a lot less) than predicted by most scientists. It completely neglects the idea of "positive feedbacks" which recent data says are likely to make global warming even worse than predicted by the IPCC.

Just more nonsense from Senator Inhofe, a paid shill for the oil industry.

Inhofe would do well to listen to Newt:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Answer 7

This was answered yesterday.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgcGJb2l0MlAiab_Tgb77jXty6IX?qid=20070821120337AAFfHaO&show=7#profile-info-oTk87WeSaa


Here is where it is wrong.
"The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the
observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2."

They can't obtain the full effects of GHG's by measuring real time GMST (Global mean surface temperatures). They don't reveal their full effect for many years. Also, the radiative forcing of aerosols have not remained constant over the measured time. This also hides the effects of primarily CO2.

Jim z, keep lying.

Answer 8

Yep funded and paid for by big oil just like this one : http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Oops, you mean Brookhaven National Labs is a government lab and the study sheds doubt on the factor CO2 plays in Global warming. What's a leftard to do? Just keep sending your money to Algore and using one sheet and you'll feel less guilty.

Answer 9

Hey- If they aren't UN approved(funded)!
they are just semi "educated deniers".
Where's the political consensus and science channel time?
Can't be true.......

Answer 10

It's 105+ degrees in my front yard right now. It hardly got below 47 this winter.

I live in Georgia.

Those of you who think there isn't anything to worry about are going to be the ones who have to explain this to your children.