• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/authors/content_types.html

Commentary

Commentary articles focus on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues related to the geosciences. Single-author articles are preferred as this is an 'opinion' section of the journal. Commentaries are usually commissioned by the editors, but proposals are welcome. They should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. Figures and diagrams are encouraged, but are not a requirement. Commentaries are typically no longer than 1,500 words and include up to 15 references. Article titles are omitted from the reference list.

Commentaries may be peer-reviewed at the editors' discretion.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/authors/content_types.html
Click to expand...
That is Nature Geoscience not Nature where you were attempting to make light of the "Letter" being published.

Primary research formatsLetter

A Letter reports an important novel research study. Letters typically occupy four printed journal pages. The text is limited to 2,000 words, including the introductory paragraph, but excluding Methods, references and figure legends. Letters should have no more than 3—5 display items (figures and/or tables). References are limited to 30. This format begins with a title of, at most, 90 characters (including spaces), followed by an introductory paragraph (not abstract) of approximately 200 words, summarizing the background, rationale, main results (introduced by "Here we show" or some equivalent phrase) and implications of the study. This paragraph should be fully referenced and should be considered part of the main text, so that any subsequent introductory material avoids too much redundancy with the introductory paragraph.

Letters include received/accepted dates and may be accompanied by supplementary information. They are always peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...
Funny you are attempting to criticize journal publishing formats your do not even understand.
 
Last edited:
I can see where Poptech could get confused. The journals do have very similar effects sometimes.

In Nature you lose reputation for publishing fake data in it.

In Energy and Environment you lose reputation for publishing in it.
 
Funny, Mann seems to get a lot of papers published in very high impact journals while the people you claim “discredited” him seem to confine themselves to blogging.
 
lomiller said:
Funny, Mann seems to get a lot of papers published in very high impact journals while the people you claim “discredited” him seem to confine themselves to blogging.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific basis for determining what journals are "high-impact". Journal publication is at the discretion of the editors and purely subjective not scientific.
 
Poptech, the letters published in nature that you linked to were either tangential or indirect opposition to what you claimed.

The commentary by Pelkie was your best hope and that was vague support at best. I'd have called it tangential as well if I didn't' know his public position.
 
Myriad said:
Wow, that many? 11,000 papers relevant to AGW?

Let's see, then your 390 papers (even assuming all of them actually challenge AGW, which has been shown on other threads not to be the case) would be 3.5% of them.
Click to expand...
Which is consistent with the recent survey which showed that 97% of actively publishing climatologists accept AGW and only 3% don't.
 
lomiller said:
Poptech, the letters published in nature that you linked to were either tangential or indirect opposition to what you claimed.
Click to expand...
Not at all they all support sketicism of "Man Made" Global Warming or the various environmental and economic effects.
 
Poptech it’s very bad form to edit a post after someone has already responded to it.

You should have left your post where it was rather then repost it a line below my response to. As it stands now my comment in post 44 answers your comment in post 45
 
How exactly does a paper on climate change 55 million or 550 million years ago have any barring current anthropogenic warming? That’s just plain loopy.
 
Pixel42 said:
Which is consistent with the recent survey which showed that 97% of actively publishing climatologists accept AGW and only 3% don't.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way as most papers don't explicitly support AGW. Of Oreskes 1117 abstracts using the search phrase "Global Climate Change" which ignores some 11,000 papers only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view' on AGW.

The 97% you are referring to is 76 out of 79 scientists in a survey where 7054 scientists did not reply.
 
Last edited:
The actual findings…
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
Poptech it’s very bad form to edit a post after someone has already responded to it.

You should have left your post where it was rather then repost it a line below my response to. As it stands now my comment in post 44 answers your comment in post 45
Click to expand...
It is very bad form to make things up as I did no such thing. And no it does not answer it.
 
lomiller said:
How exactly does a paper on climate change 55 million or 550 million years ago have any barring current anthropogenic warming? That’s just plain loopy.
Click to expand...
It has to do with the claim that CO2 is a climate driver. Are you unfamiliar with this argument?
 
Last edited:
There is no scientific basis for determining what journals are "high-impact". Journal publication is at the discretion of the editors and purely subjective not scientific.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that!

The scientific census has decided what Journals are prestigious and what journals are not. Not to mention journals carry accreditation.

If you are published in Nature it is a BIG deal. To argue this is fruitless.
 
zerospeaks said:
The scientific census has decided what Journals are prestigious and what journals are not. Not to mention journals carry accreditation.

If you are published in Nature it is a BIG deal. To argue this is fruitless.
Click to expand...
No it is subjective. I have proven that fraudulent science can be published in Nature. You have no point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom