390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[Wangler]

but but...WHY

Here's a clue, Mac.

 

[zerospeaks]

The OP seems to be silent. hmmm....

 

[Hokulele]

And Curiously, also, a number of the papers in Energy and Environment have been discussed at great length in various blogs.

Well, that is certainly convincing...

 

[zerospeaks]

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.

 

[varwoche]

Please explain to your audience how the CATO institute is not an excellant source for commentary on this subject.

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:

 

[Poptech]

Wow, that many? 11,000 papers relevant to AGW?

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.

 

[Poptech]

Most of those “papers” were published in the climate equivalent of UFOligy today.

Not at all.

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.

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

 

[Poptech]

OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.

Energy & Environment is a fully peer-reviewed journal that is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar.

 

[Poptech]

See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

 

[zerospeaks]

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.

 

[Poptech]

Nature it the most reputable so I figure I will start there and work my way down.

It is?

Jan-Hendrik Schon: Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

 

[zerospeaks]

It is?

You just proved my point! Someone either messed up a test or falsified research (the highest crime in science) in Nature. And you know what happened? They were found out and their reputation is ruined! Don't think those scientists will be overseeing a lab anytime soon because it is basically career suicide for LIFE to falsify data.

 

[Poptech]

You just proved my point! Someone either messed up a test or falsified research (the highest crime in science) in Nature. And you know what happened? They were found out and their reputation is ruined! Don't think those scientists will be overseeing a lab anytime soon because it is basically career suicide for LIFE to falsify data.

I proved your point by showing that fraudulent science got published in Nature? Is that a joke?

 

[Wangler]

Quick question OP!
How many and which papers were published in Nature.
And could you give me issue numbers please!

So personally (from my knowledge) I think I should start with nature.

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!

 

[zerospeaks]

I proved your point by showing that fraudulent science got published in Nature? Is that a joke?

My point was if you post research in Nature you better make sure it is solid because it will get found out if you missed the slightest detail.

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.

 

[zerospeaks]

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!

He posted them like he knew them to be true and accurate. OK then! He should be familiar with them. I don't see the harm in asking him that question. And let us say he gave an answer and then I looked, and I discovered that he was wrong. Then that would call into question the entire list.

 

[lomiller]

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.

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.

 

[Poptech]

"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.

"The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles."

 

[Poptech]

You proved my point! If you publish wrong data in Nature you will get called on it and your reputation will be ruined.

Actually it doesn't all it proves is that Nature's peer-review process is no better than any other journal and it's alleged "reputation" irrelevant.

 

[Poptech]

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.

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

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.

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.