Quote:
Originally Posted by kevman
I posted the information where to get a peer reviewed journal article arguing that it's natural but it appears that everyone simply ignored my post. Sorry that I can't post the full article but that would be against CP guidelines for piracy. The article is:
"The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science"
and can be found in the journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics.
It was actually really easy to find so I can track down some more if you want. Turns out that even though Mr. Gore said that there are no Peer Reviewed articles disagreeing with him this was the first article that appeared while searching for "global warming climate change"...
|
A link for you:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/
Al Gore's claim that 900 + scientific papers contain 100% agreement about climate change has been challenged repeatedly. He bases his claim on a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California who did a survey of such papers and published her analysis in Science Magazine.
Other academics were actually suspicious of her claim and did their own survey of the same papers. Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, looked at the same documents and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. His paper on the topic is here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
And there are others like him who have publicly stated their doubts about Oreskes claim and thus Gore's claim of unanimity.
Another rebuttal from a credible scientist is at the link below with a nice little stab where he notes he's never taken a dime from any special interest group to state his position on this:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4801
I only mention this to point out that Gore can be as guilty of shaping this debate as anyone.
As is common in these types of types of debates, one source first tries to discredit objectors or certainly the other side, thereby leaving himself/themselves as the only logical purveyors of truth.
If you first can't believe the other side, then you must certainly believe the only thing left, which, of course, in this case, would be Al Gore.
Both sides engage in that tactic on pretty much any subject.
Does Al Gore really help his credibility by objecting to news accounts which contain two points of view, one opposing his own?
The issue and controversy isn't whether or not warming is occurring. . . . it seems to be about the degree that humanity might be involved.
By the way, I was the guy in this thread who posted the link to the New York conference concluding today, I posted the link indicating scientists were being pressured by government to alter findings and, lastly, I would add I'm probably broadly on Gore's side that mankind is driving the boat on warming.
As with most partisans, however, he makes claims which can be challenged. . . . . and that's my point. An Inconvenient Truth isn't necessarily entirely truthful.
Cowperson