It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is no Global Warming

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Maybe now is a good time to point out that the source of an article is important for laymen such as you and me.

If we were experienced PhD's in meteorology, we could judge the quality of the article simply on the basis of our knowledge. Maybe we would recognize some arguments as logical fallacies, point out the use of corrupted data, or simply how a graph misrepresents the data.

But we're not. We could read the article and pretend we know exactly what it is discussing, and try to judge its quality based on the aspects we comprehend. How much we understand what the article is about and what it is stating does not influence the quality of the article, but the way we judge articles does make it seem so.

And that is why publishment and peer-review is important. It's not simply the fact that an article is published and peer-reviewed, but where and by whom.
Journals are rated in several ways (the Journal Citation Reports for example). Peer-review of course is subject to all the rules of human interaction, and thus may be subject to in-group processes which can lead to like-minded peers reviewing the study. Since in most disciplines there are always different sides to an argument, all with followers, such one-sided peer-reviews will not pass the scrutiny of an editorial test.

Getting your paper published isn't an easy task at all. You could shoot for one of the 'lower quality' journals, but you'll be able to reach a much wider audience with a high-ranked journal. If you believe your study is valid and your data reproduceable, you should try to get it published in a good journal. But it might really take years, as your article will get reviewed by multiple scientists of that discipline before it even gets taken into consideration. Even if you claim your paper has been peer-reviewed already; that is of no importance to the editors. They will need to judge the quality of the paper at any rate. When they do take your article up for publication (which may have taken months to happen), you've probably got another few months of getting editorial comments, having to change your article for a plethora of reasons (grammar, conceptual framework, type of graphs, etc.) before the editors are content to publish it.

If you skip all this, you end up with an article that hasn't been properly peer-reviewed as far as we can tell (who reviewed it?), and may not at all hold up against the current theories in meteorology (would you know if it's outdated?). Thus, whether and where an article has been published or not provides us with quite some insight of its reviewers, and thereby its quality.

The fact that this article has been published in a journal for physicians and surgeons means that the (reviewing) editors probably didn't know what it was about. Can't find that journal in the JCR at all - its quality seems doubtful. Furthermore, the article was published more than 10 years ago, so the recent developments in the discipline of meteorology (of which there are many) aren't taken into account - neither are new theories and hypotheses.

Having said all that, I will look into the review, but I won't be able to say anything sensible about it. I could say that all the data seems to correspond with the article, but then I would only know about the data the article tells me about. I won't be aware of any modern theories (of the past decade!) that include different processes, explaining why there is a noticeable (significant) effect of human activities, or of the methodological mistakes made by the author.
Only when I'm able to spot a mistake myself will I be able to judge the article one way or the other. Even then, my judgment will not be based on the scientific quality (or accuracy) of the article as a whole, but solely on my immature comprehension of both its content and the supposedly uncovered mistake. As such, my judgment would hardly be worth listening to, as it reflects myself rather than the article.

For a clear image, just picture me putting the whole article down because the dots in Figure 7 are way too large to accurately represent data at all, or to be extrapolated in such a linear fashion. Maybe this is a methodological error; maybe it is not. The only way for me to be sure is to look up the original data, plot it, and run statistical analyses to determine the significance of the linear extrapolation (as none is given!!). The same would be necessary for one to defend the article if I were to attack it based on this apparent inaccuracy.

Hope this explains the importance of publication itself, and details like the journal it was published in and the discipline of the reviewers. Have fun discussing!




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Noting that the petition you're linking to has already been debunked, blown out of the water, declared bankrupt, is kaput, the petition is no more, is not an ad hominem. It's a simple statement of fact that you are, in fact, spreading politically biased misinformation dreamed up by a fellow who wrote and published his own work without peer review, who incidentally has no education or previous works in climatology. or even meteorology.

When you lie about your source (the peer review claim) and that source is in turn lying about pretty much everything they're saying... You're just going to have to expect that people are going to laugh in your face.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I dont care if its man made or not cap and trade wont save the planet and the fact that people still support that bunk boggles my mind. As for the source of the article who cares? if were talking about credibility and integrity then niether side has a leg to stand on. if countries really gave a damn they would be pushing the need for research into alternative fuels as opposed to pushing a sin tax. And even if man is causing it so what?
Does anyone seriously believe that corporations, car manufacturers, industry giants etc. are actually going to change? Not a chance they'll continue screwing us and the enviroment only we'll pay for it while we continue to argue about who or what is to blame for climate change.

This whole debate is a dogmatic pile of garbage lacking common sense and any respect for either sides oppinions.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Scientists have found that decomposing plants emit more chemicals supposedly causing global warming than humans. I further believe that the whole global warming idea is a scam to get more and more people to spend money on items such as economy cars in order to cut back on the emissions causing global warming.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Richard Alley is one of the biggest "hippie" jokes of environmentalism as religion.

I hope you enjoy his latest re-worked songs. All theater, absolutlely no substance. Anyone who claims to be a Penn State "geoscientist" is selling a bill of goods.

Pure FUD; lulz.

Can't refute the data, so you attack the messengers.

The most bankrupt form of "debate."

Robinson can collect data as well as Stern, an incompetent shill economist.

You just don't like the data.

Maybe if all the AGW advocates completely ceased their contributions to the CO2 content, the rest of us would be able to conduct normal business.


Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by scraze

The fact that this article has been published in a journal for physicians and surgeons means that the (reviewing) editors probably didn't know what it was about. Can't find that journal in the JCR at all - its quality seems doubtful.

...Having said all that, I will look into the review, but I won't be able to say anything sensible about it.


Then why bother with such a useless hatchet job?

"Having said all that," maybe you should refine your "research" skills.

"Climate Research" is readily available to anyone with any semblance of ability.

Cliamte Research

Too bad ATS is populated by so many pretenders and such disinformation.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 22-12-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


To be frank, I wanted to say '.. but if it truly were good, it would have been published in a real climate journal'.

However, I felt like anyone who had read the whole post would either draw the same conclusion, or simply disagree with all of it (the relevance of which journal, which peer-reviewers). In the first case, I wouldn't need to make the statement as it would be redundant; in the latter, it would only be provocative - something I do not seek to be.

You seem to have a problem with the whole post (useless hatchet job having quite the negative connotation). I fail to see what your specific problem is, though. Do you disagree with my views on the differential quality of peer-review? Do you disagree with my statement that the editors of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons didn't know what they were publishing? Or do you simply think I haven't put the right kind of effort in this article because I didn't read the relevant editions of the Climate Research journal?

If it's the latter, then let me remind you that I was simply trying to point out for those who didn't know already why the mere fact that an article has been published is not as relevant as the details of the publication.

As for pretending, I have a feeling it's not me.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Whether or not there is global warming, and there probably isn't, the big question is whether or not we want to live under a totalitarian dictatorship (well, we don't have a real identifiable dictator yet). We don't want to be under the control of a bunch of Nazis who are intent on depopulation eventually but at the moment on looting us of every dime we might ever have



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Early work on atomic weights used naturally occurring oxygen, with an assigned atomic weight of exactly 16 as the basis for the scale of atomic weights.



The molecular weight of carbon dioxide (CO2) is 44 atomic mass units or 44 grams.


These two quotes were taken from here:

science.jrank.org...


It seems to me that CO2 would be far to heavy to linger high in the atmosphere for any length of time. Maybe I'm just looking for an easy answer.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

(click to open player in new window)


Now there is solid science showing that temperature has not increased due to man anyhow. Maybe Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, should return that Nobel prize? Oh (bama) that's right! you don't have to actually accomplish anything worthwhile to humanity to get one of those anymore!

www.sciencedaily.com...

[edit on 1/3/2010 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Now there is solid science showing that CO2 has not increased due to man anyhow. Maybe Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, should return that Nobel prize? Oh (bama) that's right! you don't have to actually accomplish anything worthwhile to humanity to get one of those anymore!

www.sciencedaily.com...


Whammy, your knowledge of climate science sucks as bad as your biology.

In fact, you just suck at science I guess. The Knorr article is here. Go read the introduction and check the figure on page 2 to cure your ignorance.

And happy new year to you as well (I'm deleting your comment on my profile as your videos suck).



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Sour grapes... Denial is not a river in Egypt. You are now a happy member of the flat earther club mel.



No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So much for it being anthropogenic. And as far as the paper,



This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models,no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.


"no trend" as in none... zero, zilch, or "close to and not significantly different from zero" - newsflash: that means its not happening.

Looks like your dreams for a totalitarian scientific dictatorship with have to wait a while longer. Your cronies are already switching back to the favorite overpopulation fear mongering tactic.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
what I find interesting about what a normal trend is that there are glaciers and Ice pack at the poles that are dated at 600,000 years old. and they are melting rapidly... this is quite the cycle



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
"no trend" as in none... zero, zilch, or "close to and not significantly different from zero" - newsflash: that means its not happening.


Have you bothered to check the figure on page two of the actual study article you're referring to yet?

The one which shows the trend in atmospheric CO2 levels?

You're not the first Anti-Science Syndrome sufferer here to misunderstand this pretty simple piece of science.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I agree. There is no "Global Warming". Nothing but a scam to keep the population of people in fear and panic while the rich keep getting richer.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I know that "atmospheric CO2 fraction" does not refer to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes that has been going up steadily, increasing by a little over 1.5 ppm / year, for a long time. Rather, it refers to the proportion of the human-emitted CO2 which ends up staying in the atmosphere, rather than being removed from the atmosphere by plants and by dissolution in the oceans.

The AGW alarmists' refer to computer models assume that the ability of oceans and terrestrial ecosystems to absorb additional CO2 is nearing its limit, so that additional CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) will have an increasing effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, compared to CO2 emissions from the past. This research indicates that assumption is wrong. Maybe you can all get together and piece together another piltdown man over the weekend.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I know that "atmospheric CO2 fraction" does not refer to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes that has been going up steadily, increasing by a little over 1.5 ppm / year, for a long time. Rather, it refers to the proportion of the human-emitted CO2 which ends up staying in the atmosphere, rather than being removed from the atmosphere by plants and by dissolution in the oceans.


I know. You don't need to tell me.

So what you're saying is that when you said this:


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Now there is solid science showing that CO2 has not increased due to man anyhow.


and then this:


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
So much for it being anthropogenic.


you were talking through your ass?




[edit on 3-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I mispoke, I should have said "global warming" is not due to man not "CO2". However, this research does fatal damage to all the AGW models and the "scientific consensus" canard.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I personally have no faith what so ever with graphs.
Any scientist worth his funding can make any graph appear how they like.

Very simple scientific method of hiding the early findings that don't fit your data and start from where it suits your argument.

However you do seem to be our AGW poster boy, can you tell me if they only take their data for temperature from all over the globe during summer and winter, or do they only focus on the mild winter temperatures and the extreme summer measurements only?

I ask this because currently in many parts of the northern hemisphere they are experiencing some very cold conditions while down in the southern hemisphere we are having our normal summer, so are they going to use the southern hemisphere data during the november to march period and the northern hemisphere data during the july to september period and then average it out?

not a trick question, but more of a trick used in graphs



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I mispoke, I should have said "global warming" is not due to man not "CO2". However, this research does fatal damage to all the AGW models and the "scientific consensus" canard.


But then that would be a non-sequitur?

How would showing increasing levels of CO2 due to human activity and a consistent AF over the last 160 years support the claim that AGW is not true?

Do you think a study which you think is solid and clearly says...


Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility
that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started
loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of
the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important
claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions
have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
additional climate change.


...supports such a claim?

I'll get to the rest soon enough...

[edit on 3-1-2010 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join