The myth that the earth has been cooling is one of the stupidest, and easiest to handle arguments out there, and to think there is any scientist that believes that is rediculous. There is an 11 year solar cycle where temperature rises and falls, then starts over again, the trend of warming is shown in the increasingly higher highs each cycle. So when they say "there has been no global warming for the past decade" and present that as proof, it is invalid because that isn't enough time for a full solar cycle, and like I said earlier, the amount of time needs to be over 15 years for it to be a significant measurement.
The fact of the matter is that back in 1998 we had an outrageously hot year that was a complete anomaly that spiked outside of our current warming trend completely, and it isn't very likely we will reach that temperature again very soon, and so climate deniers like to compare any temp today to that and say "see? its cooler than it was in 1998, therefore we are cooling." When in science statistics the peaks like that are smoothed out.
The bottom line is that any number of years that shows a cooling trend that is under 15 is invalid as a legitimate statistic, because it isn't enough time to make a scientifically significant measurement.
And I read around in your last article, and clicked the link they claimed as their source, and guess what I found?
Quote:
|
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
|
That was the preface to the source article that YOU posted. The paper was NOT peer reviewed, and as everyone knows as a fundamental step in the scientific process: no paper is considered legitimate science until it is peer reviewed. Not only was it not peer reviewed, but the people who published it take an aside to let the reader know that they officially agree with anthropogenic climate change. The link claims it was peer reviewed, but if you click it you find out that it is not. None of these sources are from reputable science journals.
There were a few links in it that actually did go to peer reviewed papers, but I couldn't read them because I needed to be a paying member of their info website or something, so I couldn't check them- they were only vaguely cited anyways so I don't think they had a huge impact on the article you posted. But there are a number of scientist out there with legitimate papers out there that do go against what the majority of science papers are saying. But we don't go with the theories with the least support, we go for the ones with the most.
I don't have time to check everything you link, but I think the random check I made should be a good indicator of how credible your sources are.