I’m so old, I remember when science papers used to pertain to new scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. And Nobel prizes were awarded scientists based on their contributions to the advancement of the sciences.
Does this mean that global warming may be more political than scientific fact? Al Gore and a bunch of liberals want to know.
BTW, my degree is in Physics and Mathematics, so what do I know about scientific laws and theories. Move on, nothing to see here.
Now , there was Piltdown man after all. And lobotomy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0aNILW6ILk, although what is interesting about the PBS video is that Muniz, who discovered the procedure, is not mentioned , nor his Nobel Prize. The usual selectivity of the media protecting their franchises.
There is a great 30 second clip in the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on global warming. The founder of the Weather Channel shows a chart of temperature from the 1900s to today. CO2 trends up the whole century. Temperatures rise, dip in the 1920s through 1950s or so, then rise again. If there was a correlation between temperature and CO2, there wouldn’t be a cold spell. And this meteorologist says so.
Global warming is entirely political. They changed it to “climate change” because it stopped warming in the 1990s. (No statistically significant warming since 2000 for ocean or upper atmosphere).
The entire race to ration carbon and carbon dioxide, limit production and energy consumption, restrict population, force people into controlled communities - these are the same proposals they have no matter what the cause of any temperature variation. The solution for everything for liberals is fascism.
A collection of papers with an abstract. That was a scientific publication, no bias, no agenda, just facts as best they knew.
Today's media-muddled minds cannot deal with information presented in that fashion.
ps. I teach Math, Chem and Physics at the high school level.