Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Global Warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've followed the concept of Global Warming since it's inception more than 20 years ago. Throughout it's development, it's been a media darling, and backed by numerous ecology groups as a spearhead for their efforts. Nevertheless, while the issues, data, and conclusions have been seriously inflamed to sell countless papers, magazines, TV spots, and page hits, the idea itself has remained somewhat of a pariah among serious climatologists, many of which either still hold out the question or refute Global Warming altogether. While numerous media and journals continue to claim that "most scientists are in agreement," and "the vast majority of data shows" with respect to Global Warming, the truth is that numerous experts in climatology continue to provide mass data which counters the GW claims of increasing temperatures, rising oceans, and the effects and sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2.
Rather than list the references here, I refer readers to Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," (ISBN0 00 718160 4)(Crichton is a fiction author, not a scientist) which discusses all sides of the Global Warming debate, including nearly all of those in the Wikipedia article. He leaves no stone unturned, having provided more than 140 references throughout his book, all of which are conveniently listed in his Bibliograpy at the end of the book. A sizeable number of the references include websites where the data can be verified online.
Since the references themselves have already undergone significant peer-review in the scientific community, and since those references relegate Global Warming to little more than media hype and an opportunity to funnel billions of dollars into needless research (the suspected motive for much of the hype from some scientists' corners), the entire Global Warming article in Wiki remains in the same serious state of doubt as has the Global Warming theory among serious climatologists.
Thus, I put it to those supporting Global Warming to refute, intelligently, the detailed analyses conduction over the last decade as referenced in Crichton's book. Dr1819 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, SoF is a waste of time, which makes this review a waste of time too. If you have any specific questions or points to raise, please do so. But do it on the GW talk page, not here. Or you could even try to improve the SoF page William M. Connolley 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are referring me to buy a book? I checked my local librairies. They did not have it. You should, in fact, list referneces here. Or on the GW talk page. Specifically references to "mass data which counters the GW claims of increasing temperatures, rising oceans, and the effects and sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2" would be helpful. BTW, absolute worst case scenario is the oceans rise 5 feet by 2010, from what I've read here on Wikipedia. Far from catastrophic, but ought to be quite a concern to caostal communities. No? TimL 19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- such as those in Louisiana. DGG 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
