looking for scientists or scientific evidence that refute global warming?
920692
Unfortunately, all sites I've managed to find that supposedly refute anthropogenic global warming contain scientific research that have not been peer revied by the scientific community.\n\nIn other words, they "could" be correct but the fact that they haven't been subjected to a review by their peers (or have been rjected by their peers) means that they don't have much in the way of legitimacy.\n\nOn the other hand, there have been many scientific research projects that have been subjected to peer review that support the theory of anthropgenic global warming. You can find these pretty quickly doing a google search.\n\nI am a supporter of human influenced global warming, as I've seen the data and it's pretty solid. But it would be quite interesting to see a counter-study that has been through peer-review. Such a study could be quite enlightening and give us a better idea of what the environment is actually doing.\n\nIt should be telling though that none have been found, or if they have been they have not withstood an extensive scientific review.\n\nHowever, if you don't need scientific work that has ben rigorously reviewed, there are scientists and sites online you can find. Do a google search on "global warming myth" or something similar and you'll get a few hits.\n\n~X~
1107357
Global warming caused by humans is a myth.  It has been debunked by scientist after scientist.  The reason the earth is in a "warming cycle" (the temp on earth has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years..1 DEGREE) is because the sun is hotter.  \n\nThe environment is the new "religion" of the left, both in America and abroad. They don't believe in God and hate America.
1169481
As partisan and insulting a statement (not even question) as that is, there are a few aspects to be addressed when discussing global warming.\n\nGlobal warming is the term used to describe how the average temperature of the planet is going up.  No one denies that the temperature is, in fact, going up.  Therefore, no one denies that global warming is a fact.\n\nHowever, according to studies of Antarctic ice, the average temperature of the planet has been rising for 6,000 years, which is well before the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago.  This proves that global warming is not caused by man.  In that time, however, the rate of temperature rise has increased, which means that the actions of humanity probably has worsened the situation.\n\nThe critical facts about global warming are these:\n\nWhat are the effects of global warming going to be, and how can we prepare for them?  Currently, no model of global atmospheric projection has shown itself to accurately predict to any degree the general weather patterns of the Earth (such as the number and ferocity of hurricanes).  Until we come up with an accurate way of predicting the effects of global warming, preparing for them will be difficult and based upon conjectures, which are a difficult sell to taxpayers.\n\nWhat can be done to limit the effect of humanity on global warming in the future WITHOUT putting a major damper on economic growth and development, especially in developing nations?  For example, all nations could agree to stop driving vehicles that use internal combustion engines, but to do so at once would devastate the economies of many nations.  However, other options, such as diverting tax funds to subsidize the development of alternative-energy propulsion for vehicles, would accelerate the advent of such earth-friendly technology.\n\nAll in all, because of the massive stakes involved when discussing global warming (and the subsequent misinformation flying around about it), many people are confused as to the facts about it.  I was hoping to be as informative and unbiased as possible.\n\nPlease let me know what you think!
698388
The artic ice shelf IS melting .Not a myth .Polar bears ARE drowning .Artic communities have experienced increased flooding and evacs.Worst droughts out west since the thirties.There is abundant evidence of glaciers retreating.The science is out there and I will believe scientific evidence and experience  over people who want to bury their heads in the sand and stupidly do nothing any day of the week.Don't let yourself get conned by people who are in denial and have no proof of their own to contradict scientific evidence and eyewitness accounts .Global warming is no joke and we must do something to prevent it from getting worse now before it's too late.
865117
It's full of lies. Keep in mind, this is the same person who predicted another ice age in the seventies...sorry, i really don't believe in global warming until i get some real facts. After all, how do you think the glaciers melted? The earth had to warm...and that was long before SUV's were around. just my thoughts.
960490
CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
426386
Local phenomena don't really form evidence for global changes.  Despite global warming, the recent winter has been one of the coldest in years for the last fourty years I have experienced.\n\nWeather changes have a much greater amplitude than the small changes caused by global warming. You need to consult statistics to measure those changes, like number and strength of hurricanes in a 10 year interval (to give an example that can be counted rather than tediously measured).
669941
I don't see any correlation of electro-magnetic radiation and global warming at all.  Honestly, I am not even sure that we as human beings have caused what we call 'global warming'.  Every day scientists discover more and more natural patterns on this planet, some of them hundreds of years to work full swing.  This entire 'global warming' may be a 1000 year 'pattern' that we have just yet to discover because we have insufficient data (aka, haven't been measuring it long enough).\n\nBut EMF or EMR having an effect on it?  No, I don't think so.\n\nJust my .02 worth.
329268
global warming is a designer cause like so many of the other causes that are being puffed up at your local Starbucks as we speak. Of coarse we want to be smart and clean about how we live.  Try punching in global warming and you will see that the real science institutions i.e. MIT. Cal Tech. etc. have this cause under junk science.  real scientist, I don't mean phd's who are looking for easy research money, will laugh at this notion that your weed wacker is warming the planet.
570780
What you want to do is best done by a science called Dendrochronology:\n \nology: the study of \nchronos: time, or more specifically events in past time \ndendros: using trees, or more specifically the growth rings of trees \n\nApplications in dendrochronology include: \necology: insect outbreaks, forest stand structure, past fires\nclimatology: past droughts or cold periods \ngeology: past earthquakes, volcanic eruptions \nanthropology: past construction, habitation, and abandonment of societies\n\nGo to the site in the url and you can learn a lot of real information, not media hype about global warming.\n\nPS. The thermometer was only invented a few hundred years ago. No record of temperatures older than that exists. But old wood lasts for thousands of years and is a true account of local conditions. \n\nEnjoy! It is a fascinating science.
984253
I'm very skeptical of global warming. When I was a kid back in the seventies the conventional wisdom was there would be a new ice age sometime around the year 2000. It was even a front page story in Time magazine. Fool me once...
998066
Global warming is the term used to describe how the average temperature of the planet is going up. No one denies that the temperature is, in fact, going up. Therefore, no one denies that global warming is a fact.\n\nHowever, according to studies of Antarctic ice, the average temperature of the planet has been rising for 6,000 years, which is well before the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago. This proves that global warming is not caused by man. In that time, however, the rate of temperature rise has increased, which means that the actions of humanity probably has worsened the situation.\n\nThe critical facts about global warming are these:\n\nWhat are the effects of global warming going to be, and how can we prepare for them? Currently, no model of global atmospheric projection has shown itself to accurately predict to any degree the general weather patterns of the Earth (such as the number and ferocity of hurricanes). Until we come up with an accurate way of predicting the effects of global warming, preparing for them will be difficult and based upon conjectures, which are a difficult sell to taxpayers.\n\nWhat can be done to limit the effect of humanity on global warming in the future WITHOUT putting a major damper on economic growth and development, especially in developing nations? For example, all nations could agree to stop driving vehicles that use internal combustion engines, but to do so at once would devastate the economies of many nations. However, other options, such as diverting tax funds to subsidize the development of alternative-energy propulsion for vehicles, would accelerate the advent of such earth-friendly technology.\n\nAll in all, because of the massive stakes involved when discussing global warming (and the subsequent misinformation flying around about it), many people are confused as to the facts about it. I was hoping to be as informative and unbiased as possible.\n\nPlease let me know what you think!
609697
Here's one theory:\n\nClimate Model Links Warm Temperatures to Greatest Extinction\nWork supports theory that rise in levels of carbon dioxide triggered die-off\n\n\n\nScientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado have created a computer simulation showing Earth's climate in unprecedented detail at the time of the greatest mass extinction in history.\n\nAccording to an August 24 press release from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the work supports a theory that an abrupt and dramatic rise in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide triggered the massive die-off at the end of the Permian Era, 251 million years ago.\n\nDuring that time, an estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species became extinct -- an extinction even greater than that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.\n\nMany scientists equate high concentrations of carbon dioxide with warmer temperatures, and a close correspondence has been found between carbon dioxide and temperature for the past 570 million years.\n\nAt the end of the Permian, Earth had a single landmass (a supercontinent) called Pangea. Higher-latitude temperatures were 10-30 degrees Celsius warmer than today, and volcanic activity had released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere over a period of 700,000 years.\n\n"The implication of our study is that elevated [carbon dioxide] is sufficient to lead to inhospitable conditions for marine life and excessively high temperatures over land would contribute to the demise of terrestrial life," the authors concluded.\n\nTo understand how such conditions might have affected climate and life around the globe, the researchers used the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), which can integrate changes in atmospheric temperatures with ocean temperatures and currents.\n\nThe CCSM indicated that ocean temperatures warmed significantly at higher latitudes because of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.\n\nIn the ocean, warmer temperatures reached a depth of about 4,000 meters, interfering with the normal circulation process in which colder surface water descends, taking oxygen and nutrients deep into the ocean.\n\nAs a result, ocean waters had little oxygen, proving deadly to marine life. Because marine organisms no longer removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the rate of warming accelerated.
899851
"In a report sent to Congress at the end of August, government scientists argued that the warming of the atmosphere in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes but must include such human sources as energy consumption and deforestation. It's a conclusion that a consensus of the world's climatologists reached years ago but that Bush has ignored throughout his presidency.\n\nWhen the New York Times quizzed Bush about why his scientists had shifted their positions on what caused global warming, he appeared entirely ignorant that they had. "I don't think we did," he said. When tipped off to the paper's coverage of the report, he added: "Oh, OK, well, that's got to be true." Maybe he really doesn't read the newspapers. His aides then assured reporters that, no, this report wouldn't signal any change in his policies around climate change."
100299
>>> info saying global warming is not a big deal.\n>>> I got stuck on the side saying global warming does not\n>>> exist.\n\nHang on, are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or are you arguing that it's not a big deal? Those are two totally seperate arguments with no relationship to one another.\n\nIf you are arguing that it's not a big deal then I second the recommendation of Lomborg. \n\nIf you are arguing that it doesn't exist then Lomborg is worthless since he is one of the most vocal supporters of global wamring the world has ever seen. Lomborg is quite convinced that it exists and goes to lengths to convince others that it exists. He just doesn't  see it  as a catastrophe.\n\nAs you can see these are two totally separate issues, and you really need to tie down what you mean before you can even start your research.\n\nIf you really are attempting to argue that global warming does not exist you have an uphill battle.  AFAIK all scientists accept that it exists. The only argument is how much of it is caused by humans and what the efcets will be. You are really knobbled if you have to arguee against the entire scientific community. I can't believe your teacher would set this up.\n\nBut if that is the case then you are really restricted to a few essentially crank websites. I've provided a link to one of the best ones out there, but it's still not terribly scientific or accurate.\n\nGood luck and return if you need more help. And you're gonna need if you are arguing that global warming doesn't exist.
1032968
Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."  The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.\n\nClaims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."\n\n-----------------------\n\n"Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:\n\na) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.\n\nb) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].\n\nc) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.\n\nd) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.\n\nConclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years." \n--Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer\nPresident, The Science & Environmental Policy Project\nbefore the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change
314675
Scientific data is ambiguous and conflicting as it pertains to "global warming." Current data only exists for a few hundred years. The rest is from computer "models" which use differing assumptions and yield differing results.\n\nSince no conclusive data exists upon which to base conclusions, actions ought not be based on inconclusive data. Those are facts rarely discussed or admitted globally.