Slashdot Mirror

ISI Web of Knowledge is fairly comprehensive, but it isn't free. Many university libraries pay for it though.

I really appreciate you passing this along. I plan on reading this.

Cheers.

One note: Would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be the best place to look for evidence of if climate change exists, on the scale we're talking about, and whether CO2 affects this process and by how much? I would expect they would assume an outcome to justify their entire existence.

The best place to look would be on an academic abstracting and citation service. Going this way, however, would require a lot of time and effort. The IPCC Working Group 1, reports are the most convenient place to look. When I was reading Science, being the lazy sod that I am, I'd always look for review articles (if only to locate relevant primary articles). You can think of the IPCC Assement Reports as review papers on steriods.

As such they must ultimately cite published work from recognised peer-reviewed journals. The idea of using the Executive Summary of this technical paper is that the numbers in the brackets direct you to relevant areas of the paper, which in turn direct you to the published work. It's turtles all the way down.

If you don't want to spend that much time, but want somewhat more detail than is contained in the cited summary, you could consult the Summary for Policy Makers and/or the Technical Summary in the last AR4 WG1 Report. These will also link to the relevant parts of the report and in turn to the published work.

The name alone implies a huge conflict of interest. Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.

Well IPCC was set up around 1990 to evaluate the emerging science on the issue so the name should not surprise. It is good to be sceptical of sources, and of course once you have more than 2 people in a room you'll get politics. But Science, at least, has established a set of epistemological rules which eventually (though it may take decades) seem particularly suited to establishing "truth" in the face of such politics. Particularly in a highly contested field, as this was at one time, an eventual consensus ought to give you some faith in the results. You can expect the Working Group on Mitigation to be far more ideologically contested.

And when you think about it, if they were merely trying to justify their existence their line would be "much uncertainty still remains ... more funding is needed."

If you you of any good place to read some papers of the causal links. I'd like something to read and bookmark for future uses.

If you don't have access to an academic library, or the electronic resources thereof, that may not be easy.

I think anyone can access the ISI Search Page (An ISI listing of a journal is perhaps the best guarantee of its repute, and will steer you clear of "phish-journals") And perhaps even the abstracts (sorry it's hard for me to tell, I'm working at a uni) Accessing the actual articles though is another matter. But search away and see what you get.

The Web of Trust proposal sounds a lot like the website Faculty of 1000. I also would suggest looking at the website for the Web of Science. If I cite another's work, I've reviewed it and, at least on some level, agree with the findings. I'm certainly not going to cite that I think are bogus.

In 1965 and through the 1970s and early 80s, virtually all scientists were Not discussing global warming. They were discussing Global Cooling.

I'm sorry, but the scientific literature disproves your claim. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself at the papers published back then. Web of Knowledge will find them for you. Or just read this paper, written by a group of scientists who got fed up with claim and did a full literature review from 1965-1979. See, in particular, Figure 1. During that period, there was only one year in which cooling papers than warming papers were published (1971), and more warming papers than cooling papers were published in every year after 1971.

In another comment you respond,

I read the article, but I was also ALIVE at that time.

That's nice. Did you read scientific journals back then? Or go to climate conferences? Somehow I doubt it.

The mainstream media isn't the scientific community, and neither was Carl Sagan. Yes, back then some scientists did think that cooling was going to win out. Most of them didn't. The fact is, throughout the 1970s and certainly into the 80s, the scientific community — as measured by the papers they published on the subject — was definitely projecting warming more than cooling.

The paper was published in 2003 and was cited twice in total - by themselves (I just checked Web of Science).
If there would be a real advancement behind this, many people would use it. Sad but true, but they sound like quacks.

The paper was published in 2003 and was cited twice in total - by themselves (I just checked Web of Science).
If there would be a real advancement behind this, many people would use it. Sad but true, but they sound like quacks.

The paper was published in 2003 and was cited twice in total - by themselves (I just checked Web of Science).
If there would be a real advancement behind this, many people would use it. Sad but true, but they sound like quacks.

I haven't read the paper yet, but I checked ISI for the journal's impact factor: 3.4 This would suck in neuroscience, but in environmental science that makes it #2 right behind GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES (3.9)