Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was... The Cause of Global Warming...



Hi All:
I've mentioned this before on this list. For a class project a few
years ago, I had my students explore the peer-reviewed literature to
find articles about physical measurements related to global warming. I
would not accept modeling papers or non-peer reviewed papers. In the
endeavor, I had to look at over 800 papers to approve them for the
students. During that process, I went from believing the
anthropogenic cause of global warming to being a skeptic. I found the
physical evidence nearly non-existent. Now, much has been published
since then, which I have not read, but the papers I did look at would
have been the same as Oreskes and those up to an including those
through 2005.
If you read the introductions to those papers, you'll find that
most include some mention of the anthropogenic cause, but the
content of the papers provided little to no evidence to support that
premise. If you limit yourself to the conclusions of those papers, you
would find very few papers that make the anthropogenic claim as a
result of the actual research that was done.
People have attacked me (on other e-mail lists) for doubting
the premise, even when I follow that with discussion about things we
ought to do to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Because, even though I
am a human-caused global warming skeptic, I do support replacing
fossil fuels with renewables and reforesting wherever possible (trees
make great carbon storage facilities). People have told me that as a
scientist that I have an obligation to support the main line because
otherwise I am helping those that want to destroy the planet. They
also discount my review of the literature because I am not a climate
scientist. My response to them is to go and read it for themselves.
The literature doesn't require a lot of specialized knowledge to read it
and judge for yourself. Why rely on government or international
panels? Read it yourself and decide.

Cheers,
David Marx

This thread began with a link to a chat by Naomi Oreskes. I need to
bring up the
point that she published a paper in Science 03 Dec 2004, in which she
claimed to
have reviewed all 928 papers written on climate change from 1993-2003
and found
that 75% conclude explicitly or implicitly that we are causing global warming
and the other "25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change". Paper is at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686


Unfortunately for Naomi, Benny Pieser of Moores U in UK, yes a skeptic and an
anthropologist to boot, re-ran her data and found glaring errors.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm

His findings after reviewing the same 928 papers and 200 more he found
were that
only 13 papers (<2%) explicitly agreed with anthropogenic causes. When
taken to
task, Oreskes agreed that "there was indeed a serious mistake in the Science
essay."

Take it for what it's worth, but I find little faith in anyone, regardless of
their credentials, passing off information that just isn't so.

Daryl L Taylor, Fizzix Guy
Greenwich HS, CT
PAEMST '96
International Internet Educator of the Year '03
NASA Astrophysics Educator Ambassador
www.DarylScience.com

This email prepared and transmitted using 100% recycled electrons.



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM