|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th October 2009, 06:39 AM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects. Myth debunked. |
18th October 2009, 07:02 AM | #2 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
Evidence that that is "a common myth?" Who has claimed there are no published peer-reviewed papers disputing human-caused global warming?
Such a myth would have to overlook that: (1) There was, in the past, a scientific controversy regarding the existence of AGW. Until it was resolved by observations, this generated numerous papers by both sides. (2) There are valid scientific disagreements at present, regarding the most likely anticipated effects of AGW and their magnitude. Papers addressing these issues can easily be misrepresented as challenges to AGW, when they are not. (3) There is, in the present, a political controversy generated primarily by interests who find the prospect of having to limit their future damage to the environment, and perhaps even pay to remedy past damage, inconvenient and a transgression of their natural rights as wealthy elitist sociopaths. It is not at all surprising that such interests can generate a few dozen published peer-reviewed papers a year. Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
18th October 2009, 07:18 AM | #3 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
|
|
__________________
It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye |
|
18th October 2009, 08:21 AM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 09:31 AM | #5 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
|
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
18th October 2009, 09:48 AM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 8,093
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Mainstream climate science sources • http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm • https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...cting-a-future https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...05/start-here/ Travelphotos >https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries |
|
18th October 2009, 11:20 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
Most of those “papers” were published in the climate equivalent of UFOligy today.
If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how little real science is being done by climate change deniers looking at where those “papers” were published should do the trick. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
18th October 2009, 12:07 PM | #8 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
The STUPID. It burns.
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 12:25 PM | #9 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Lets randomly check this list;
OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT. 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 22nd, and nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 146, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, on and on and on. It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose? Wikipedia says; "The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549." and "The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there."[6]" In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place. I think this list is debunked now... |
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 12:27 PM | #10 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 12:50 PM | #11 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Many of these papers do not say what you think they say, PT...
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 12:52 PM | #12 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Many of these are not papers, but are correspondence, which has very different standards.
A really bad job was done in putting this list together, overall. Where did you copy it from? |
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 12:55 PM | #13 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 02:26 PM | #14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 8,093
|
You were expecting anything else?
You realize he just put it up for the thread title - no other reason meanwhile in the real world...progress is glacially slow but it's getting there http://unfccc.int/2860.php |
__________________
Mainstream climate science sources • http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm • https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...cting-a-future https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...05/start-here/ Travelphotos >https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries |
|
18th October 2009, 04:31 PM | #15 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
|
You know, PopTech, what might really be convincing (maybe) is a bar graph plotting the numbers of your papers against the year of publication. If the number was growing, that might cause one to wonder.
Better yet, plot them, rather than by count, by percentage of all papers both for and against GW. That would be really useful to you, if it showed the percentage of con papers was increasing over time. You might even classify it as a miracle. |
18th October 2009, 04:49 PM | #16 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
shadron, excluding "Energy and Environment" of course. That thing is only one step better than J.O.N.E.S.
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
18th October 2009, 05:19 PM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
And there certainly is not anything wrong with that.
Not in the least. Curiously, also, a number of the papers in Energy and Environment have been discussed at great length in various blogs. That is to say, the likes of Lambert, Rabitt, and Soro's operation, RealSmuggieClimate, seem to have thought they needed to discuss them. Loehle is an example. Well, what is it? Are they right, or the self appointed moralistic bastions of scientific far left truthiness of JREF right? |
18th October 2009, 05:38 PM | #18 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
|
18th October 2009, 05:46 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
A free market advocacy group. What a non surprise. One might be astounded to read something so supremely idiotic if not for the track record.
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
18th October 2009, 06:36 PM | #20 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
Sure, glad to uh...contribute...
Who poisoned the well, me, with my ridiculous long insult to the Upholders of Sciency Moral Hygeine, or those here who poisoned the well to whom I took objection to, the Energy and Environment articles being smeared? Just curious.... I request that you take your well known, well trod, and well exercised loop of neurons which fire this off (otherwise known as neurotic behavior....that is, repeating disfunctional behavior after it is shown not to work) and actually consider the facts. Bolding is mine. The OP: Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects. Please explain to your audience how the CATO institute is not an excellant source for commentary on this subject. |
18th October 2009, 07:30 PM | #22 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
The OP seems to be silent. hmmm....
|
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 07:43 PM | #23 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
18th October 2009, 07:48 PM | #24 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
I have a blog, and I can't even get my wife! To come debate stuff on there.
So where do I sign up for the "scientists debate important stuff here" link I can put on it. |
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 07:53 PM | #25 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
Commentary? Uh, the OP is about peer-reviewed papers. (Or at least that's the topic it fails at.)
I suggest you contemplate this brief movie scene:
|
|||
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
||||
18th October 2009, 08:39 PM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
No that have the words "climate change" appear in them, instead of the words "global climate change". Not all are relevant to AGW, least of all the papers selected by Oreskes - all 1117 abstracts where only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view' on AGW.
You failed indeed. |
18th October 2009, 10:20 PM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
Not at all.
Please do... Journal Citation List: AAPG Bulletin Advances in Space Research Annals of Glaciology Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Astronomical Notes Astronomy & Geophysics Astrophysics and Space Science Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics Central European Journal of Physics Climate Dynamics Climate of the Past Climate Research Climatic Change Comptes Rendus Geosciences Contemporary South Asia Earth and Planetary Science Letters Ecological Complexity Ecology Economics Bulletin Emerging Infectious Diseases Energy & Environment Energy Fuels Energy Sources Energy The International Journal Environmental Geology Environmental Geosciences Environmental Health Perspectives Environmental Science & Policy Environmental Science and Pollution Research Environmental Software Environmetrics Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Futures GeoJournal Geology Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Geophysical Research Letters Geoscience Canada Global and Planetary Change GSA Today Holocene Hydrological Sciences Journal Il Nuovo Cimento C Interfaces International Journal of Biometeorology International Journal of Climatology International Journal of Environmental Studies International Journal of Forecasting International Journal of Global Warming International Journal of Modern Physics International Journal of Remote Sensing International Quarterly for Asian Studies Irish Astronomical Journal Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Journal of Climate Journal of Coastal Research Journal of Geophysical Research Journal of Information Ethics Journal of Lake Sciences Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics Journal of Scientific Exploration Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering Lancet Infectious Diseases Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences Malaria Journal Marine Geology Marine Pollution Bulletin Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics Natural Hazards Review Nature Nature Geoscience New Astronomy New Concepts In Global Tectonics Norwegian Polar Institute Letters Paleontological Journal Paleoceanography Physical Geography Physical Review Letters Physics Letters A Planetary and Space Science PLoS Biology Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings of the Royal Society Progress in Physical Geography Public Administration Review Pure and Applied Geophysics Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Quaternary Research Quaternary Science Reviews Regulation Russian Journal of Earth Sciences Science Science of the Total Environment Social Studies of Science Society Solar Physics South African Journal of Science Space Science Reviews Surveys in Geophysics The Independent Review The Open Atmospheric Science Journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology Topics in Catalysis Weather Weather and Forecasting World Economics Journal |
18th October 2009, 10:22 PM | #28 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 10:24 PM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 10:40 PM | #30 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
Quick question OP!
How many and which papers were published in Nature. And could you give me issue numbers please! Nature it the most reputable so I figure I will start there and work my way down. You should know, nature is also called the "reputation killer" because if you publish in it and your peers find you falsified or even messed up your test. Your scientific reputation is on the line. -edit- To clarify! What I mean to say is I know people who published in other journals and recanted there studies AFTER publication and it was ok. Embarassing but ok. I specifically have heard a friend tell me, "If I publish in nature, I better have my P's and Q's in order. Because you can lose your lab if you mess up there." So personally (from my knowledge) I think I should start with nature. |
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 10:49 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 10:57 PM | #32 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 10:59 PM | #33 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 11:07 PM | #34 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,228
|
You probably don't need PT to list the papers in Nature...just follow his link, and use the "Find on this page..." feature in your web browser.
"Nature" would be the search term. In my own search, I see a few, only one or two appear to be papers, others are "Commentary" or "Letters", etc. Might want to look for yourself, though! Good luck! |
18th October 2009, 11:08 PM | #35 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
So yes! you proved my point! If you publish wrong data in Nature you will get called on it and your reputation will be ruined. |
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 11:11 PM | #36 |
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries! Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com |
|
18th October 2009, 11:13 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
Most of them were published in Energy and Environment, which is also a reputation killer though in this case it’s because it’s a pseudoscientific rag that publishes papers or embarrassingly low quality.
There are a couple references in Nature, but aside from a couple that were listed as commentary none they seemed to have either very little relevance to current climate change or actually refute the OP’s claims. For example the very first one I found was a letter that talked about a climate change event 55 million years ago where a 70% increase in CO2 caused 5-9 deg of warming. Current accepted CO2 sensitivity is that a 100% increase will cause 3 deg of warming. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
18th October 2009, 11:16 PM | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 11:19 PM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
|
18th October 2009, 11:26 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
|
Absolutely not true. E&E is a reputation killer for frauds like Michael Mann.
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007) - David Holland And it states: "We conclude that ...other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum." Clearly stating that CO2 was not the major driver. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|