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

[bobdroege7]

So, what's your point?

I'm skeptical of climate change or AGW and so are the following JREFG posters

lomiller, sezme, varwoche, myriad, capeldodger, benburch, macdoc, megalodon, and I can go on, but knowledgeable readers will get my point.

Those who are not skeptical include Poptech and Mhaze among a few others.

If you want to pick one of those 390 papers that are not behind a paywall to discuss, we can do that.

Or maybe we can discuss, how the use of commas, can help in clearly making a point.

 

[Poptech]

Now, if you go to the OTHER papers, those "mainstream climate science" papers, or to put it bluntly, the papers that JREF WARMERS FAVOR, we find curiously, that there oftentimes is a BIG PROBLEM with data availability or integrity.

Yes DATA integrity seems to be a major problem with them...

Global Warming ate my data (The Register, UK)
Treemometers: A new scientific scandal (The Register, UK)

 

[Poptech]

So, what's your point?

That an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects exist.

I'm skeptical of climate change or AGW and so are the following JREFG posters

lomiller, sezme, varwoche, myriad, capeldodger, benburch, macdoc, megalodon,

Um... no they are not. They are true believers in the alarmist fantasy.

 

[BenBurch]

A point you have embarrassingly failed to even come close to making.

 

[Poptech]

A point you have embarrassingly failed to even come close to making.

No I clearly made the point overwhelmingly. I understand your concern of not wanting anyone to read them.

 

[seycyrus]

Really? I'd say objectively that Einstein's papers have extremely high impact since just about every physics grad student

Greetings.

I'd claim that the impact of Einstein's papers is due to the quality of the work. Not due to the journal he originally published in...

We've got a BIG problem today. Publication by letterhead.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, indeed the OP is about peer-reviewed papers.

So you have no rebuttal. Of course CATO is a prestigious and well recognized source. And many who go there have a long career in science or economics, and many, many published papers - before and after they affiliate with CATO.

So really, you have NO argument against CATO, do you?

No problem, it is only a minor point here that I have corrected you on.

200 proof fail. As most everyone here no doubt knows including you, CATO is a free market advocacy group, not a scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed studies.

That said, sure, political advocacy groups such as CATO and Greenpeace might publish informative commentary by people with impressive resumes who may or may not have published peer-reviewed scientific studies elsewhere. BFD; that's not the thread topic. (Before you get overly excited again, no, I don't turn to Greenpeace as a data source.)

 

[BenBurch]

No I clearly made the point overwhelmingly. I understand your concern of not wanting anyone to read them.

Oh, I hope people do read them, as they show how utterly stupid AGW deniers actually are.

But no, its another humiliating defeat for you, so I understand you wanting to declare victory and slink off for another 5 months.

 

[mhaze]

200 proof fail. As most everyone here no doubt knows including you, CATO is a free market advocacy group, not a scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed studies.

That said, sure, political advocacy groups such as CATO and Greenpeace might publish informative commentary by people with impressive resumes who may or may not have published peer-reviewed scientific studies elsewhere. BFD; that's not the thread topic. (Before you get overly excited again, no, I don't turn to Greenpeace as a data source.)

All you've done is prove the error in your initial post about CATO, which I did you the favor of pointing out. You can't even smear someone by the fact that they are now working with CATO. Doesn't work.

And by the way, you can if you like, make note of a particular paper as being "Published by the CATO Institute" and then your comments would make some sense. But then that would not be a peer reviewed paper, and the Poptech List in question is peer reviewed papers.

So therefore you must acknowledge that there is simply nothing smearable about the fact that some scientist, publishing in a peer reviewed journal (Present or Past), happens to currently reside at the CATO Institute.

Hell, I'd say the same thing about any of the nutcase scientists who sold out their integrity to associate with the Center for American Progress or one of it's spinoffs. They may have done good work before or even while falling for the Kool Aid.

And that was all I was pointing out, really.

 

[Poptech]

200 proof fail. As most everyone here no doubt knows including you, CATO is a free market advocacy group, not a scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed studies.

Cato's Journal is a Peer-Reviewed publication. Some of the papers as I stated relate to the economic effects of climate change.

- Acquire Content; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes
- iCONN; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes (PDF)
- ProQuest; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes

Regardless only 3 papers are from that Journal and all are must read.

Global Warming: Correcting the Data (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 31, Number 3, pp.46-52, 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 87-98, 1992)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp.16-22, 2007)
- Stanley W. Trimble

I fail not.

 

[Poptech]

Oh, I hope people do read them

Excellent! Then we clearly do not need your rabid commentary to attempt (and fail) to discredit them.

 

[SezMe]

The choice to cite or not to cite is purely based on opinion and irrelevant to the science.

Poppycock. You're ... well, nevermind.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why do all these denier articles have 'Al Gore' in the title? Do they think it's a magic word that'll somehow make their threads seem more plausible? Should we sceptics give a 'Sylvia Browne' tag to every thread on psychics?

 

[JJM]

That an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects exist.

You might be more convincing if you used caps, too.

I don't have a dog in that fight; but I may add that 1- merely counting papers and 2- alleging they are peer-reviewed and 3- that they discredit AGW is not meaningful.

1- Before WW2, the German government sponsored a publication titled (something like) "100 Scientists Opposed to Einstein." Apparently Bert commited the sin of being highly acclaimed and Jewish. He responded that if he were wrong it would only take one to show it.

2- There is peer-review and "peer-review." The latter refers to "journals" written by and for jokers; thus, their peers are also jokers. Some of the comments have suggested that many of your references are in that category. (You should also note that good journals sometimes publish junk. Publication is just the beginning of scientific acceptance or rejection of an idea.)

3- Sometimes the authors' interpretation of their data is misguided, or someone discussing the article may misunderstand it.

I also object to someone publishing a long list and then asking others to search through it to see if it is meaningful. In a field that big, there must be a few reviews that you can point to, and/or recent articles with "leading references" that summarize the field and the latest results. So, I suggest (as did someone else) you to choose a few articles that make the best case.

 

[BenBurch]

I call liars what they are and I am "Rabid?"



Woo is always spun like that.

 

[mhaze]

You might be more convincing if you used caps, too.

I don't have a dog in that fight; but I may add that 1- merely counting papers and 2- alleging they are peer-reviewed and 3- that they discredit AGW is not meaningful.

1- Before WW2, the German government sponsored a publication titled (something like) "100 Scientists Opposed to Einstein." Apparently Bert commited the sin of being highly acclaimed and Jewish. He responded that if he were wrong it would only take one to show it.

2- There is peer-review and "peer-review." The latter refers to "journals" written by and for jokers; thus, their peers are also jokers. Some of the comments have suggested that many of your references are in that category. (You should also note that good journals sometimes publish junk. Publication is just the beginning of scientific acceptance or rejection of an idea.)

3- Sometimes the authors' interpretation of their data is misguided, or someone discussing the article may misunderstand it.

I also object to someone publishing a long list and then asking others to search through it to see if it is meaningful. In a field that big, there must be a few reviews that you can point to, and/or recent articles with "leading references" that summarize the field and the latest results. So, I suggest (as did someone else) you to choose a few articles that make the best case.

All of your points are valid, with the exception of the last one (choose a few articles that make the best case).

The total article count, in this case, 390 (and that is very incomplete, if I had 3 spare hours I could likely double it) is in fact representative of several branches of the current true diversity of opinion in these subjects in the scientific literature.

The "Monolithic Consensus", asserted by ideological Warmers, is in fact falsified by a measure such as the article count. It is not falsified by a few chosen articles, although I grant you, that is preferred for purposes of discussion (and I did that earlier in this thread with a group of 5).

 

[mhaze]

Cato's Journal is a Peer-Reviewed publication. Some of the papers as I stated relate to the economic effects of climate change.

- Acquire Content; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes
- iCONN; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes (PDF)
- ProQuest; Regulation: Peer Reviewed - Yes

Regardless only 3 papers are from that Journal and all are must read.

Global Warming: Correcting the Data (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 31, Number 3, pp.46-52, 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 87-98, 1992)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp.16-22, 2007)
- Stanley W. Trimble

I fail not.

That is my error, if the earlier attempt to smear was not by simple association with CATO, but instead referred to published and peer reviewed work by CATO. Bit of a difference there.

It would seem neither challenge stands...

 

[bokonon]

I'm still skeptical that the climate is already on rails to catastrophe, and it's the humans' fault.

Maybe CO2 from fossil fuels is the primary cause of the warming trend over the past century, and maybe it isn't.

Maybe the warming trend will continue, and maybe it won't.

If the warming trend does continue, maybe it will lead to the end of life as we know it, and maybe it won't.

Frankly, the whole argument-from-authority tack in this thread is unconvincing either way. Peer review, or publication in Nature, is not the sole criterion of scientific truth. A peer-reviewed paper in Nature can still be false, and a note on a napkin can still be true. The attempt to short-circuit discussion by implying that the sheer weight of "authoritative" opinion makes it unnecessary is intellectually lazy.

Since fossil fuels are finite, and may soon be exhausted, it seems like good policy to encourage the development of alternatives, independent of whether or not one regards AGW as settled science.

How about a heat pump that generates electricity by converting atmospheric and oceanic heat energy into flowing electrons? Then even if AGW was true, it would only mean we'd filled our own reservoir with the energy of the future.

 

[mhaze]

I'm still skeptical that the climate is already on rails to catastrophe, and it's the humans' fault..... How about a heat pump that generates electricity by converting atmospheric and oceanic heat energy into flowing electrons? Then even if AGW was true, it would only mean we'd filled our own reservoir with the energy of the future.

Yeah....

Rather that flog citizens and industry with taxes in some fake hyped solution that doesn't fool anyone, why not encourage capitalists to harness the natural steam engines?

There are probably terawatts down under the ocean in huge steam vents. I'd imagine that would be possible to harness some of that just by placing turbines in the upflow.

At least in some locations, these vents are close enough to land to run power cables (or perhaps pipe water, using the power directly to desalinate).

One or two turbines in this scenario would make a laughing stock of thousands of windmills.

 

[macdoc]

Bokonon


recall your proposition next time you get on a plane...

maybe it will take off, maybe it won't
maybe flapping your hands on take off will help, maybe it won't
etc ad infinitum ad nauseum


The physics don't lie.

This is observed not modelled