Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Can anybody cite a peer reviewed article that disputes that global warming is real and caused by humans?

that was published after 1982?

The problem is it would do no good to look on the internet unless you are a paid subscriber. There are no peer reveiwed journals that are free to read on the internet. Anybody can write whatever they want on the internet.


The only cite you have is from an oil and gas exploration journal?

Update 2:

Bad wolf I cannot use an Oil and gas exploration journal. That would be instant failure.

Update 3:

Eric thanks. I found this disturbing though one link was to an oil, gas and coal study.

The other from Oregon Institue of Science and Medicine turned out to just be a professional scam artist.

11 Answers

  • eric c
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales." - Jan Veizer

    He stated that when temperatures were increasing and the sun's activity was decreasing (or vice versa), it was just noise of the PDO being in its warm (or cool) phase. The PDO has shifted phases from warm to cool, the sun's activity has also decreased, and winter has arrived early. Coincidence?

    "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

    We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather ex tends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions."

    (Robinson, Soon)

    If you want I can give you many more.

    In science peer review does not mean what is written is correct or fact.

    Nature, a peer review paper, refused to publish the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick finding many statistical flaws in the hockey stick saying it was of "no interest to its readers". A paper that was the cornerstone of the IPCC's third assessment report, that might be flawed and they were saying no one would be interested in that. Can you imagine that!

    Edit: And how credible is Nature, and other publications when they refuse to publish the rebuttal by McIntyre and McKitrick. Many similar journals refuse to publish any materials that goes against the IPCC, no matter how sound the science behind it is.

    If you think that Viezer is influenced by oil you should read his last comment.

    "Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me". Too bad other scientists do not want to do the same

    Like I said before given the shift of the PDO and the sun, and the sharp drop in temperatures Jan Veizer's theory is correct. If temperatures start to rise over the next couple of years only then can you say he is incorrect.

    How reliable is the Santer study that supposedly rebuts Douglas when he refused to reveal his methodology?

    If the Oregon institute is a scam why does the IRS allow tax deductions on contributions?

    Here are some more studies:


    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?

    Richard S. Lindzen



    NCGT Newsletter, no. 42, p. 3-17, 2007

    "During the late 20th century, the hypothesis that the ongoing rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of fossil fuel burning became the dominant paradigm. To

    establish this paradigm, and increasingly since then, historical measurements indicating fluctuating CO2 levels between 300 and more than 400 ppmv have been neglected."

    Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis?" -Beck

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accepted that output from the Hadley Centre transient climate model is "evidence" that man-made global warming is occurring. This paper explains that the model output only indicates that the Hadley Centre climate model does not emulate climate changes in the real world. The IPCC and the Hadley Centre have presented the GCM model's input data as being its output. This proclamation is not true and contravenes the principle of science that hypothesis are tested against observed data."- Courtney R. S

    Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered-By Christopher Monckton

    Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission

    G. V. Chilingar a; L. F. Khilyuk a; O. G. Sorokhtin b

    The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven

    Carter, R.M.

    Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature

    Author: Michaels, Patrick J.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

    Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability

    R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde,,* Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber,


    Author: Ambler, Denni

    Hope that is enough for you. The scientific method is to attack what was said, and not who said it or where. People who do the latter do so because they can not attack it on science principles.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The federal government has committed this country to compliance with the Kyoto accords, a set of

    protocols signed in 1997 that bind signatories to significant reductions in the level of emissions of what have

    been called "greenhouse gases." The remedy most often suggested to bring Canada into compliance is a

    sharp increase in taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels. By some measures, those “green” taxes would

    have to double to discourage consumption enough to ensure compliance.

    The scientific claims behind the theory of man-made global warming, a theory that has stimulated the desire

    for such corrective measures have been in dispute since they were first made, in 1978. Another warning that

    these doubts are valid was received in August 2000, when James Hansen, a NASA scientist at the Goddard

    Space Center and the "father of climate change theory," recanted his position that carbon dioxide pollution

    was causing worldwide warming. It is questionable public policy to double carbon taxes in a cold, energydependent

    country like Canada if this theory is not true.

    To present another view on global warming, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy is pleased to publish the

    text of a paper first delivered in November by Climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray to the Wellington Branch of

    the New Zealand Royal Society. It suggests that global temperature change may not even be a reality at all,

    but rather a false conclusion based on temperature readings that have been skewed by human activity. The

    stations that monitor the temperature in cities have moved closer to humans as cities have expanded, and

    many rural stations have been closed down. That explains why there has been no recorded increase in the

    measure of atmospheric temperatures, only a spike in the data on surface temperatures. Dr. Gray verifies his

    thesis by examining the surface temperature variation in remote stations, which conform to the data on

    atmospheric readings.

    The idea that humans are causing the world to heat up and risking disaster by doing so has a powerful hold

    on the public perception. It is reinforced by media reporting which finds verification for it in every weather

    event. It is being taught to schoolchildren as scientific truth. Dr. Gray offers a rebuttal to this widespread


    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    There is none since CO2 is not effecting global warming, it is the high humidity (water vapor) that actually traps the heat. You will most definitely get a lot of peer reviewed articles saying otherwise, but it is like running a computer software, garbage in results in garbage out.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • GABY
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    If you mean the "Peers" that predicted we would freeze in the 70's and 80's, or the "Peers" that killed our Nuclear Program and now force us to produce massive amounts of CO2, why would anyone believe their theory to be fact at this point?

    The earth has been heating and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years. That is a fact. The glaciers have come and gone many times. That is a fact. The oceans have risen and fallen many times. That is a fact. AGW is just a good theory at this point. There are many valid theories that question both the data and correlations used in the AGW theory. Why can't you AGW "Environmentalists" agree that global warming may/could just be primarily natural?

    Remember, thousands of species have come and gone long before man had any influence. Nature has no qualms with wiping out men, women, and children with abandon. In my opinion, nature is much more dangerous to man than man is.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't know personally of any such articles, but I'm sure they're out there. And while you might not be able to read such an article in full online for free, can you not at least search for abstracts of articles that meet your criteria?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Here's a few and some are more then flawed. I started laughing at some of the basic things missed. There's more if you dig around.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Published after 1982?

    You really shouldn't believe everything you read in peer reviewed articles. What you get are like minded people agreeing with one another. Only a non scientist or a biased one would suggest that it is only caused by humans. You would be a fool to believe anyone that suggested that.

    Source(s): geologist and environmental consultant
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Just don't worry about it. It isn't happening and that is a fact. Global warming is a myth that the green people have come up with to scare people into their way of thinking.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    There's the paper by Douglass et al which claimed the 'hot spot' in the tropical troposphere was missing, which would undermine the man-made global warming theory. Of course, they didn't suggest an alternative theory except to suggest 'maybe it's natural'. And their paper was highly flawed, as discussed here.

    There's also Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory, but he doesn't have enough data to suggest how much of the warming is due to GCRs and how much is anthropogenic. And other studies have undermined his theory (see Galactic Cosmic Rays section in the link below).

    So there are a few such studies, but not many, and they generally have fundamental flaws.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.