Id like some more info on Global Warming? I asked a similar question on a Boortz comment a few days ago and received very useful information

Thank you

However, there is very little on the topic of G.W. is NOT happening, which is crucial to my paper.

I would really appreciate it if any of you had %26#039;negative%26#039; G.W. websites, especially those ending in .org or .edu

.com looks very bad on a paper of this importance.

I owe you
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak... 50% 6 Votes

Other Answers (12)

• wooglet.voot said:
  %26quot;I have access to my University%26#039;s online library and I can search every scholarly peer reviewed article ever written, and I can tell you that the word hoax and %26quot;global warming%26quot; never apppeared in the same article ever. Global warming and skeptical only appeared 8 times in a peer reviewed article. 7 of those were tongue in cheek....%26quot;
  
  I have to say, it is a good thing you did not find the word %26quot;hoax%26quot; in your search. %26quot;Hoax%26quot; is a serious accusation of intentional misinformation and fraudulent practice that has no place in the professional scientific arena. If you do see the word %26quot;hoax,%26quot; I would suggest further examination and possibly that you report it as scientific misconduct.
  
  The word %26quot;skeptical%26quot; also has little use in scientific literature--but if you do see it, it is likely just word choice on the part of the author (It sounds effective in certain situations).
  
  The fact that you did not find widespread use of the words %26quot;hoax%26quot; and %26quot;skeptical%26quot; in the scientific literature should come as no surprise--I wouldn%26#039;t take any meaningful conclusions from such a result.
  
  Oh, and tongue-in-cheekiness is inappropriate in scientific literature. I would love to see the studies that include the word %26quot;skeptical%26quot; in a tongue-in-cheek manner. 8% 1 Vote
  Check the publications section. 0% 0 Votes
  
  Global Warming Facts: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
  
  Climate and Global Warming Resources: http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-...
  
  The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp
  
  Global Warming Hysteria Debunked - Scientists Ignored: http://tinyurl.com/366dbf
  
  An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? Part II: http://tinyurl.com/63cfq2 0% 0 Votes 8% 1 Vote 17% 2 Votes 8% 1 Vote
  
  Here is a paper by some Professors from Harvard
  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...
  
  A copy of a speech given by a Geology professor at the University of Ottawa. He explains how the sun is the primary driver of climate. It is a .com but he is a university professor so it is reputable.
  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...
  
  If you want the technical details in which he based his speech on:
  
  http://www.sciencebits.com/files/article...
  
  It is important to also remember what the AGW hypothesis is. It is not that the earth is warming, but human lead co2 emissions will cause a significant warming that will be catastrophic. In their attempt to build up this catastrophic prediction they have to feed certain parameters into their computer models. One of these parameters is that co2 is the sole cause of late 20th century warming.
  
  Warmers discount the sun because they say the earth has warmed and there has been a slight decrease in sun activity. But there is a difference between levels and trends. If your house is heated by a furnace and you turn you thermostat down a bit and the temperature still rises, the trend has been down, but the level is still high. What warmers do is dismiss the role of the furnace (sun) and conclude that since temperature still rose there has to be an external factor and that is the only factor. We know that the sun is at an 8000 year high.
  
  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...
  
  Another factor the warmers say will cause catastrophic results is that co2 is a positive feedback, or that co2 will be amplified to get an even greater warming. But the studies coming out from newly deployed satellite data is that either water vapour is less than what the models are projecting
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...
  
  or they are acting as a negative feedback. More heat leads to more water evaporation, which leads to more clouds, which block the sun. The increase in rainfall, falls into the oceans which decrease the temperatures of the oceans.
  
  http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07...
  
  Less water vapour also affects the parameters of climate models, which means less warming. 0% 0 Votes