| Revision as of 22:34, 6 February 2010 editGemtpm (talk | contribs)204 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:24, 28 June 2021 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,463 edits {{R from related word}} |
| (14 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
Climate Skeptics include many leading researchers and scientists, such as Professor ] of James Cook Universtiy and Dr ]. Despite this, much of the debate has been presented as a battle between 'scientists' who are neutral and support the theory, and 'vested interests' or cranks on the other. But climate skeptcism includes a significant critique of the theory that human CO2 emissions are dangerously enhancing the greehouse effect has been made from the politically neutral or 'philosophy of science' perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Rcat shell| |
|
Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the politically neutral journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: 'Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.' |
|
|
|
{{R from related word}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
In a review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, <ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409337&c=2 </ref> Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the 'principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively - not more, more conclusively - about the greatest open systems on the planet', and goes on to predict that for this reason, the 'Kyoto Flyer' is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Mike Hulme's, a 'climate scientist' at the University of East Anglia's centre for such research, offered a comprehensive defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal <ref>{{cite news|url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
noting: "Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete." |
|
|
|
|
|
And the British social scientist and philosopher, Martin Cohen, wrote a front page feature for the again poltically neutral and scienticially respectable Times Higher Education (London <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2 </ref>) in an issue timed to coincide with the UN Climate Conference at Copenhagen (the issue was printed on 10 December 2009), highlighting what he calls the contradictions of the Climate Change camp. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both Cohen and the academics and others commenting on the article offer specific objections to the science of Climate Change theory including doubts over the historical relationship of CO2 and temperature. J.M Davidson points out that the 'brute fact' of 'record CO2 levels' - higher than they have been since recorded time seems to be a myth and that a book published in 2007 by Ernst-Georg Beck, ( Energy and Environment, Vol 18 No 2,) gives a different story. An analysis of more than 90,000 contemporaneous measurements of atmospheric levels of CO2 between 1812 and 1961. The record starts in 1812 at 390 ppmv, (and that was the year of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, when he arrived back in France with only 10% of the troops who had stared the march , most of them being lost to the arctic cold conditions encountered en route.) CO2 levels peaked in 1825 at 450 ppmv, (still in the little ice age, remember,) then fell back, and peaked again at 440 ppmv in 1942. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another objection is the disputed use of positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour to 'exaggerate' the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect, as also argued by Richard Lindzen (formerly a member of the IPCC) who says that it is rather the opposite, and that increased water vapour could turn into clouds and thus cause cooling. |
|
|
|
|
|
The temperature record is also disputed, for example and Peter Taylor, in a detailed comment, argues that "there would be no global warming scare without the warming from 1980-2005" as for "40 years before that temperatures dipped into a trough". Taylor adds that "We are at the top of a natural peak driven by a complex solar and ocean linked cyclic system - evidence for which goes back thousands of years." The article has been widely quoted on the internet. <ref> |
|
|
For example: |
|
|
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/257-suddenly-its-cool-again-to-be-a-sceptical-philosopher.html |
|
|
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4617 |
|
|
http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
|