Log in
Register
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Topics
Members Lounge
The Meeting Place
Global Warming Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PoloMint" data-source="post: 360207" data-attributes="member: 175235"><p>The current talk of global warming not being man made seems to be media frenzy over a good story, rather than actual science.</p><p></p><p>It's newspapers, not peer reviewed scientific journals that publish stories about global warming being natural. </p><p></p><p>As evidence for this, take a look at the link below. Science magazine (one of the most prestigious scientific journals around) analysed peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming. A complete study of all papers covering the topic of global climate change published in respected journals from 1993-2003 - 928 in total. Not one challenged the claim that the global warming is happening, or that it is man made.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</a></p><p></p><p>That study was a few years ago (Dec 2004) and a couple have been published since then, mostly in out of context journals or have since been retracted.</p><p></p><p>Now you could argue that someone writing a paper saying global warming is natural wouldn't get it published in a peer reviewed journal because no one would review it and say it was worth publishing. But that is unlikely, reviewers review on scientific merit, not if they agree on the conclusions, and say why the science or deductions are flawed if they recommend that it's not published. </p><p></p><p>Science journals want reports that will get their journal noticed, like every other type of media, a report that says global warming is not a result of man made pollution is undoubtedly going to be popular just through its controversy. However scientific journals also want good science, they have a reputation that depends on it, something newspapers aren't so concerned with, and so the scientific merit of reports is reviewed before it is published.</p><p></p><p>The scientists agree that global warming exists and is the result of man made pollution. Claims that scientists don't agree causes doubt and gives support to the view that perhaps we shouldn't spend time or money on finding a solution.</p><p></p><p>There are still scientists that think AIDS is not caused by HIV, but they don't get published in peer reviewed journals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PoloMint, post: 360207, member: 175235"] The current talk of global warming not being man made seems to be media frenzy over a good story, rather than actual science. It's newspapers, not peer reviewed scientific journals that publish stories about global warming being natural. As evidence for this, take a look at the link below. Science magazine (one of the most prestigious scientific journals around) analysed peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming. A complete study of all papers covering the topic of global climate change published in respected journals from 1993-2003 - 928 in total. Not one challenged the claim that the global warming is happening, or that it is man made. [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[/url] That study was a few years ago (Dec 2004) and a couple have been published since then, mostly in out of context journals or have since been retracted. Now you could argue that someone writing a paper saying global warming is natural wouldn't get it published in a peer reviewed journal because no one would review it and say it was worth publishing. But that is unlikely, reviewers review on scientific merit, not if they agree on the conclusions, and say why the science or deductions are flawed if they recommend that it's not published. Science journals want reports that will get their journal noticed, like every other type of media, a report that says global warming is not a result of man made pollution is undoubtedly going to be popular just through its controversy. However scientific journals also want good science, they have a reputation that depends on it, something newspapers aren't so concerned with, and so the scientific merit of reports is reviewed before it is published. The scientists agree that global warming exists and is the result of man made pollution. Claims that scientists don't agree causes doubt and gives support to the view that perhaps we shouldn't spend time or money on finding a solution. There are still scientists that think AIDS is not caused by HIV, but they don't get published in peer reviewed journals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Topics
Members Lounge
The Meeting Place
Global Warming Debate
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top