Another nail in the coffin for global warming

[sharper]

As for the arguement about peer review, if you cannot put all you data on the table your research is for the bin. It is either published or it is nonsense. Every branch of science has peer reiewed journals available on line with all the data of their research available to one and all. Anyone who refuses access to that data should be automatically ignored.

This is not the case.

When your research is published it includes everything about how to reproduce your experiment. What you did, how you did it, how you collected results and how you analysed it and of course your results.

The purpose of peer review in journals is to identify flaws in your methodology and approach, not to confirm your results are correct. It would obviously be impossible to reproduce and verify every single piece of research before publication.

If someone wants to actually reproduce the results they have to reproduce the experiment. If you contact the research team they will likely provide you with anything you need (within reason) but they have no particular obligation to do so. Otherwise once you publish something you'd be at risk at spending most of your time satisfying arbitrary requests rather than doing more research.

[Akrasia]

[quote=X-ray;2129836][quote=Akrasia;2127924][quote=X-ray;2127557]

A debate on a politics website is not going to change anything.

You keep pretending that you're some kind of neutral 'undecided' observer, but you're clearly someone who believes that Anthroprogenic Global Warming is not real and have no interest in finding out the facts of the matter.



Thanks, that is a useful post. I still dont get how if the levels we were pumping out in 1950 caused warming then they would not continue to cause a problem if we reduce to that level? Although a smaller problem. Surely 1950s level would not result in cooling, but a reduced rate of increase in temp?

If that is that case surely we need more than nature to remove the 30% CO2 that has built up?

Most of the excess CO2 is absorbed naturally over a number of years. about 4 years is the carbon cycle. So if we reduced emissions, within a few years, the levels should start to drop. (that said, it's much more complicated than that, the carbon once it's absorbed, still remains in the carbon cycle and can be released back into the environment, but the bulk of it should be out of the atmosphere and there should be a cooling effect in the short term if concentrations reduce. (the carbon will eventually be released back into the environment, but at least it would buy us a bit of time to come up with other ways to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere)

[Destiny's Soldier]

I am not sure if that info you have put up is scientifically robust, but if it is and there is a question over the accuracy of ice core CO2 then the debate is a nonsense from beginning to end

It's perfectly robust. It's just people in high places don't like the look of it becuase it contradicts their carefully laid plans.

It seems reasonable to think that CO2 traped in frozen water may not remain in the same % in air as it was when it was first captured. Does anyone have a link to a research paper that show this is not the case. It must have been done as it is at the core of this theory.

X Ray: this is a very good place to start. Full bibliography at the bottom.

Ancient Ice

[Oppenheimer 235]

no it isn't bull... - you go on to amazon, science direct, wiley, emerald insight, oxford journals etc etc and you buy publications you don't buy raw data sets.

There are lots of instances where the raw data won't be made available. The first most obvious one is privately funded research where the information is proprietary. If the information is proprietary does that make the science any less valid.??? There are also a whole raft of IP issues etc.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because in this instance the data has been relseased to real scientists just not some muppet mineral miner who runs a vendetta blog - he's kicking up a fuss.. so what.

Yes - many argue it would be less valid given the likelihood for the information that arises from that dataset to be interpreted in a groupthink way with a particular agenda being pushed. It smells rotten and taints the motivation of those who keep it secret.

Your second point indicates you are obfuscating the illegitimate point of refusing on the grounds of background (and who is to say this muppet mineral miner would not give the dataset to someone who is a "real scientist" - whatever that means!) with the integrity of the science argument. Also why would a globally critical set of data be held confidential? I can understand the big-pharma argument or other technology but if the public pay taxes based on the data (or for the data) then the public are entitled to its publication.

[sharper]

X Ray: this is a very good place to start. Full bibliography at the bottom.

Ancient Ice

Don't forget to read the other scholarly articles there debunking the theory of evolution too

This paper deals specifically with the theory of evolution and the hold that this theory has taken upon the scientific community as well as the popular imagination. The theory of evolution has become so popular and so pervasive that it is difficult for anyone to question it without being branded as, "ignorant, stupid, or insane." 1 The passion of those who hold such views testifies to their firm belief in evolution as "more than a theory." So why don't I get it? What is wrong with me?

Some might suggest that I am too biased by my upbringing or religious background to see the truth of the theory of evolution. Certainly it is true that I am human, prone to bias. But, at least I am aware of this and really do desire to know the truth - wherever it may lead.

Edit: or maybe this one!
http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress....sean-d-pitman/

Noah’s Flood Human Fossils Relicts Artefacts Ancient Technologies Metallurgy Forbidden Archaeology Evidence of Humans Millions of Years Ago Geologic Column Sedimentary Deposits Strata Sean D. Pitman Detecting Design Noah’s Flood Deluge Geology Paleontology Evidence Darwin’s Evolution Non Existent in Geologic Column Syngameons of Animals Gene Pools Biblical Kinds on Noah’s Ark Deluge ICR’s John Baumgardner’s Global Flood Model

[Húrin]

There are many people employed in unis around the world who would be out of a job if the greenhouse effect dissapeared, not as many as there are who depend on oil, but it is a factor. They are not all neutral.

The people who work in unis are also dependent on oil for their jobs.

Many people will make millions from new green technologies just as others did in oil.

How dare they, capitalist pigs.

They are not all concerned about skinny polar bears.

If you think that climate change is about polar bears then you really are totally clueless. You think all this arguing is for the sake of an obscure polar species like that?

[Destiny's Soldier]

Don't forget to read the other scholarly articles there debunking the theory of evolution too



Edit: or maybe this one!
Noah’s Flood Human Fossils Relicts Artefacts Ancient Technologies Metallurgy Forbidden Archaeology Evidence of Humans Millions of Years Ago Geologic Column Sedimentary Deposits Strata Sean D. Pitman Detecting Design Noah’s Flood Deluge Ge

Who cares what his view of evolution is, there is scientific method to the site on ice.

Have you a single study to show how CO2 trapped in ice is validated?

Sinn Fein favour abortion on demand, Coir are the opposite, but both are on the same side on the Lisbon treaty. By sharing the same view of Lisbon make their opinions on abortion the same? No.

Pick a single point in the ice analysis and present a scientifically validated opposing view.

[Propforward]

If you think that climate change is about polar bears then you really are totally clueless. You think all this arguing is for the sake of an obscure polar species like that?

No you are right it is about control and money...

Its not about the continuation of life on the planet, or polar bears, or ozone layers... its about filling the void the religion is leaving...

It is about tapping into the guilt gland and controlling people...
it is about being the first to strike renewable oil... i.e. to get the economic cost of harnessing renewable energies inline with drilling for oil...
Carbon taxing is the way to close the divide

[sharper]

Who cares what his view of evolution is, there is scientific method to the site on ice.

His views on other scientific theories are completely relevant when evaluating his views on this scientific theory.

Have you a single study to show how CO2 trapped in ice is validated?

I'm not a scientist, do you have anything not written by creationists (who don't accept stuff like radiocarbon dating) to indicate there's an issue.

Actually do you accept radiocarbon dating? If so can you explain why we can reliably date something to say 10,000 years but we can't figure out how c02 was originally in an ice sample?

Pick a single point in the ice analysis and present a scientifically validated opposing view.

His bibliography consists of geocities sites,online FAQs and articles I can't access (so I can't see if he's referencing them correctly). I don't see how it's possible for anyone to evaluate this unless they have access to the papers he's referencing. Considering his views on other topics I have a very low confidence in this one.

[Akrasia]

The point is the science is not settled. Antarctic Ice is not an accurate method to monitor CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere.

If the Gas Analysers used in 1940 were faulty, people would have died in hospitals when there bloods were tested for blood gas concentrations.

The pictures a fine to show the history of CO2 by CHEMICAL analysis.

The IPCC graph uses a PROXY til the 50's and then an IR method. Not using like with like.

What does the proxy (antarctic) say from 1950 - 2009 ?

No, the point is that the deniers are looking to instill doubt and uncertainty in order to paralyse action.

I've said it before, but it's no different to the creationism 'debate'. Picking obscure points of data from pseudo scientific sources and then claiming that the debate is still ongoing.

The Deniers don't even try to win the debate, they just want to prolong it.