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

[lomiller]

I think this thread is about to go from hilarious to bust your guts laughing!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Does the laughing dog look like the one in BenBurch's avatar, or is it just me?

 

[mhaze]

.... 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....

Sole criterion of scientific truth? It should be the very, very last consideration in establishing the truth of a matter -- if it is even on the list of considerations.

Just as one example, consider the "electric universe" theories. These are discussed here on JREF quite adequately, from the facts, basic physics and some basic references. There is no need to bring in boatloads of published articles and discuss "citation counts" or the "relative prestiginess" of the journals.

A lot of scientists would be flat out insulted if you started to tell them you ranked truth by citation counts or relative prestigeness.

Any with integrity would be.

I think this thread is about to go from hilarious to bust your guts laughing!

Really? I thought it would take three or four more pages (eg 100-120 posts additional) before you and the other losers of the argument at hand resorted to Saul Alinsky Rule #5, "Use Ridicule".

Which is all you've got left.

 

[JJM]

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

You are wrong. If you want to teach me about science, you are more than 40 years late.

 

[macdoc]

love a succinct post

••

MHaze you're just about as looney as the treehuggers you mock.
Try cold water gradient turbines or is that too sciency for you.
http://www.worldofenergy.com.au/factsheet_thermal_gradient/07_fact_thermGrad_ocean.html

 

[mhaze]

.... Try cold water gradient turbines or is that too sciency for you.
http://www.worldofenergy.com.au/factsheet_thermal_gradient/07_fact_thermGrad_ocean.html

It has no relation to what I mentioned, so why would I want to try it?

The physics don't lie.

This is observed not modelled

No of course the physics don't lie.

You do, in claiming with an unsourced graph that total Earth Heat content was 0 x 10^21 joules in 1950. Source your graph, and attribute the lie to others, or admit it is yours.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!

That can't be bad right? I thought they mainly consisted of Libertarians, Skeptics and Pro-nuclear advocates...Isn't that kinda what we've got a lot of on this site?

By the way...Since I'm still semi-noob status can someone give me a brief summary of where the skeptic community stands on global warming. I can't tell, after jumping into this madness, right in the middle, what side you guys are taking here...

GW is not something I spent a lot of time researching. By the way, everyone keeps saying AGW, what the heck does the "A" stand for an are you for the "A" or against the "A"...Perhaps "B" could be a good alternative for those "A" nostics.

 

[BenBurch]

SB,

I might listen to a Cato researcher on matters of criminal law policy or freedom of the press, but hard science is just not their remit or their skill inventory. And that's the point.

-Ben

 

[mhaze]

That can't be bad right? I thought they mainly consisted of Libertarians, Skeptics and Pro-nuclear advocates...Isn't that kinda what we've got a lot of on this site?

By the way...Since I'm still semi-noob status can someone give me a brief summary of where the skeptic community stands on global warming. I can't tell, after jumping into this madness, right in the middle, what side you guys are taking here...

GW is not something I spent a lot of time researching. By the way, everyone keeps saying AGW, what the heck does the "A" stand for an are you for the "A" or against the "A"...Perhaps "B" could be a good alternative for those "A" nostics.

Ha! You have in fact waded into a bunch of wackos who in large part actually do think the CATO institute is reaaaallly eeeevvvool.

Yep, that is so far out in left field they would likely go from Pennsylvania to New York heading easterly (and get there about 25,000 miles later).

 

[Sunray Breaker]

SB,

I might listen to a Cato researcher on matters of criminal law policy or freedom of the press, but hard science is just not their remit or their skill inventory. And that's the point.

-Ben

I wasn't aware of that. This is one of those debates I've really spent little time researching. What would be some good non "woo" sources to get solid info on this issue...and where do you good folks here stand?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

No of course the physics don't lie.

You do, in claiming with an unsourced graph that total Earth Heat content was 0 x 10^21 joules in 1950. Source your graph, and attribute the lie to others, or admit it is yours.

Really? The graph shows that the total Earth Heat content in 1950 was about 0 x 10^21 joules? Do you know how to read and interpret graphs?

 

[BenBurch]

Really? The graph shows that the total Earth Heat content in 1950 was about 0 x 10^21 joules? Do you know how to read and interpret graphs?

See why I have him on ignore?

 

[macdoc]

mHaze

That graph has been posted here a number of times....I'm not really responsible for your lack of keeping up.

Figure 1: “Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

my my Nature again....how embarrassing for you...

•••

all and sundry - caution...mHaze confuses science with politics....consider yourself warned.

 

[mhaze]

Really? The graph shows that the total Earth Heat content in 1950 was about 0 x 10^21 joules? Do you know how to read and interpret graphs?

Yes, I do. Read the Y axis label, then read the Y axis at 1950 and apply brain. Got it?

mHaze

That graph has been posted here a number of times....I'm not really responsible for your lack of keeping up.

Figure 1: “Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

my my Nature again....how embarrassing for you...

•••

all and sundry - caution...mHaze confuses science with politics....consider yourself warned.

Not embarrassing for me. Not at all. No reason to be condescending on your part either. And nobody "considers themselves warned".

You've posted the chart, without attribution, in violation of JREF rules. In so doing you left out the caption that explained the meaning and intent of the zero point.

Your posting of the chart misrepresented the intent of the original source quite obviously. I pointed it out. To restate:

"You Lied".

So in conclusion, it was your doing, and not that of the source.

JREF Rules (bolding mine): The JREF has adopted a policy of considering all published material copyrighted, including articles, images and other media, it is not the responsibility of the JREF to determine whether or not the work is in the public domain or if the work may be republished without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Copyrighted content may be posted within the doctrine of "fair use" therefore quoting of brief portions of articles, books, emails, or bulletin board messages, relevant to discussion, is permitted. All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher and a link provided (when available) to the original work.

 

[macdoc]

Sunray Breaker
read your PM.

 

[Poptech]

That can't be bad right? I thought they mainly consisted of Libertarians, Skeptics and Pro-nuclear advocates...Isn't that kinda what we've got a lot of on this site?

Three of the papers are from a Cato peer-reviewed journal. Cato is a libertarian organization and full of skeptics. But that is not what you find on this site necessarily, you find far too many ideological socialists in the global warming discussions. See if you can get any of the most vocal pro "man-made" global warming advocates to answer this question - Socialism or Capitalism? They all support government intervention in the economy and do not support economic freedom.

By the way...Since I'm still semi-noob status can someone give me a brief summary of where the skeptic community stands on global warming. I can't tell, after jumping into this madness, right in the middle, what side you guys are taking here...

This is as brief as I can provide as the debate is fairly complicated.

All skeptics do not believe any sort of catastrophe is happening or going to happen from man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

Here is some intro material to the skeptic position...

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)

Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Global-Warming Myth (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (David Evans, Ph.D. Carbon Accounting Modeller)
The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam (John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel)
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)

GW is not something I spent a lot of time researching. By the way, everyone keeps saying AGW, what the heck does the "A" stand for an are you for the "A" or against the "A"...Perhaps "B" could be a good alternative for those "A" nostics.

AGW stands for Anthropogenic [Man-Made] Global Warming.

I wasn't aware of that. This is one of those debates I've really spent little time researching. What would be some good non "woo" sources to get solid info on this issue...and where do you good folks here stand?

Cato's main scientist speaking on Global Warming issues has impeccable credentials.

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC

As for sources, there are no independent sources. You either get pro (alarmist) or against (skeptic). I can give you all the skeptic sources you want.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes, I do. Read the Y axis label, then read the Y axis at 1950 and apply brain. Got it?

I went beyond reading the Y-axis label and looked at the Y-axis values, so I knew that the values were relative to some base value. Pretty clever of me, wasn't it?

 

[macdoc]

Impeccable..... but perhaps not incorruptible

Eight of spades
Prof Pat Michaels
Cato Institute

Prof Pat Michaels from the Cato Institute. Photograph: guardian.co.uk Michaels played a starring role in Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle and is regularly used by the US media, largely because he is one of the very few deniers who has any relevant scientific credentials.



He maintains that: "When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it's not just Gore's movie that's fiction. It's the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too."
Something he is less keen to reveal is that, as a leaked memo from an electricity company shows, he has recently been paid at least $100,000 by companies involved in coal-fired power production to make the public case against climate change. In 2007 Michaels withdrew as an expert witness from a court case about climate change, after it became clear that his other sources of funding could be revealed to the public.

make up your own mind about his "climatology" chops

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

from the above

Controversy over Michaels Use of "State Climatologist for Virginia" Title

While Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in August 2006 the Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration. "The Code of Virginia does not provide for the governor to appoint a state climatologist. My office has been unable to find evidence that any governor since 1980 has made such an appointment," Hanley wrote. While Michales had been appointed to the position in 1980 by the then Governor John Dalton, in 2000 the American Association of State Climatologists assumed responsibility for certifying climatologists. "Therefore, it is the prerogative of the university to make that appointment," Hanley wrote.[28]


When Michaels left the university in September 2007, UVa professor James N. Galloway explained that Michaels' "utility industry funding, private research and controversial views on global warming made him a lightning rod on climate change issues," and "left the [climatologist's] office too politicized."[29]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels#_note-23

impeccable eh....pretty loose use of the term

 

[CapelDodger]

That can't be bad right? I thought they mainly consisted of Libertarians, Skeptics and Pro-nuclear advocates...Isn't that kinda what we've got a lot of on this site?

You won't find sceptics at the Cato Institute. It's for people who are already wedded to an ideology and who will force any subject into that mould. A(nthropogenic)GW is not compatible with their ideology, since it means the existence of external costs to economic transactions. This in turn implies regulation of some sort by society. Since the Cato ideology is that any regulation is wrong then they cannot believe in the reality of AGW. Watch mhaze for an example of such thinking. mhaze believes anything and everything that argues against AGW and is completely closed to any evidence for AGW. It doesn't matter to him how incompatible those beliefs might be since the overriding belief (unregulated free markets have no downside and can solve any problem) remains inviolate.

[quot]By the way...Since I'm still semi-noob status can someone give me a brief summary of where the skeptic community stands on global warming. I can't tell, after jumping into this madness, right in the middle, what side you guys are taking here...[/quote]

The majority are not ideological and take the science and the evidence for what it's worth, when critically examined. We aren't conspiracy theorists. We go by the science as a whole, and are convinced of the reality of AGW.

The minority is mhaze in the main.

 

[Poptech]

Impeccable..... but perhaps not incorruptible
make up your own mind about his "climatology" chops

All lies and propaganda from a worthless source...

Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

- 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.

Apparently the IPCC does not believe your lies either.