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

[Poptech]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]
Pure propaganda...
[/FONT]
The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 "specialists" out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]

There are extensive reports refuting the rest...
[/FONT]
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (NIPCC)
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (NIPCC)

 

[Poptech]

So do you have any proof that this is even any way similar to the petition project or are you just clueless as to the difference in being in charge of an organization as opposed to trying to pass yourself off as a false authority.

So do you support Industrial Engineers as authorities on climate change?

 

[Poptech]

The scientific consensus that you are pretending doesn't exist pertains to the science, not economics.

Yes but refuting the flawed mitigation strategies is just as important to the debate. The IPCC considered it important enough to dedicate an 850 page section on the subject.

 

[technoextreme]

No kidding? So it follows that economists, sociologists and experts from other fields relating to the social/economic/cultural aspects of climate change and mitigation strategies are certainly qualified to sign a petition. Where is the complication in that?

So they are qualified to sign the Oregon Petition.And this brings us to the question of:

No they aren't you RULE 10. The petition is worded exactly in a manner that it makes it an appeal to authority. The petition specifically says:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Try again.

I have yet to lie about anything. Ben you know my list is so "laughable" that anyone reading it would never believe the skeptical position so clearly there is no reason for your rabid responses in this thread.

Or maybe he just hates idiots.

 

[Poptech]

Try again

There is nothing to try as economists did not sign it.

Or maybe he just hates idiots.

You have elevated your argument!

So how about it are industrial engineers now considered experts by you on global warming? Take you time not to answer the question.

 

[varwoche]

Yes but refuting the flawed mitigation strategies is just as important to the debate. The IPCC considered it important enough to dedicate an 850 page section on the subject.

I agree that mitigation strategies are important to a different debate than the one you flailed at in the OP.

 

[macdoc]

Exactly - mitigation/coping strategies ARE firm ground for discussion of approach.

Unlike the hilariously overdone turkey of denial.

 

[Poptech]

I agree that mitigation strategies are important to a different debate than the one you flailed at in the OP.

What I originally posted was quite clear..

Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects.

 

[Leviath]

Really? The Oregon Petition is still being discussed? It's a piece of junk. Look at how it is phrased:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

My bolding. I could have signed that (I got the credentials in order as a "chemistry scientist", lol). I don't think there is any convincing evidence that emission of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic heating in the forseeable future. And I bet a lot of the "believers" in this thread agree with me (and the text in the petition).
However, I'm pretty sure our greenhouse gas emmisions will and does have an effect on the climate. I'm just not sure about how much of an effect it has.

 

[Myriad]

Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects.

In Post 2 of this thread I asked for a cite for this alleged "common myth." Surely if it's common you can find someone making that claim somewhere. I mean, you went to all the trouble to find 390 pap -- um, pieces of writing -- that refute this common myth. Why not show us a few that demonstrate that the "common myth" itself actually exists?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Poptech]

It was actually mentioned on this forum before too.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

Thanks for all the info there Mac Doc...I'll be doing a bit of research for sure. Since my science is about as good as Rush Limbaughs ebonics, It'll take me a while to wrap my head around...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

So only people with degrees in climatology or meteorology are relevant?

Did I say that? I was pointing out how small the percentage of all people with meteorology/atmospheric science degrees were signers of the petition and how likely it is that the overwhelming majority have had no work experience or coursework in climatology/meteorology. Here's a few more facts for you (courtesy of the NSF http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/#tab1 ):
* More than 2 million Americans have degrees in math or computer science.
* Around half a million Americans have degrees in biology or agricultural sciences.
* About a third of a million Americans have degrees in physical sciences.

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics

Gavin Schmidt has spent his career working in the atmospheric sciences.

Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)

Robert Watson has spent his career working in atmospheric chemistry.

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)

Hansen has spent his career working in the atmospheric sciences.

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)

Working Group 2 studies the social and economic effects of climate change. Your point is?

You are free to show the work and publication histories of the non-meteorologists who signed the petition. I'm completely confident that you won't find more than a handful of people on that list who actually have worked in the atmospheric sciences. Even if I allow that there are as many people with other degrees who work in the field, that only gives 1,000.

It is therefore expected there would be skeptical papers opposing these "mitigation strategies" by skeptical social scientists.

Agreed. And there are people who believe in AGW but oppose the Kyoto Treaty. It's also irrelevant as far as the Oregon Petition goes, unless you are willing to concede that it was intended to oppose the Kyoto Treaty rather than the concept of AGW.

 

[seycyrus]

...
However, I'm pretty sure our greenhouse gas emmisions will and does have an effect on the climate. I'm just not sure about how much of an effect it has.

This interpretations places you soundly in AGW critics camp.

The IPCC statement does not allow such wiggle room on the side if atmospheric contribution and environmental impact. It categorically defines the terms in its statement in such a way as to emphasize that the human contribution is of paramount importance and the consequences of said contribution lie closer to the Al Gore farce, than a minimilistic interpretation.

Oh, and I LOVE the "Opinions of <insert field of study here> only count when they support AGW, not when they criticize it."

Guffaw!

 

[Myriad]

In Post 2 of this thread I asked for a cite for this alleged "common myth." Surely if it's common you can find someone making that claim somewhere. I mean, you went to all the trouble to find 390 pap -- um, pieces of writing -- that refute this common myth. Why not show us a few that demonstrate that the "common myth" itself actually exists?

It was actually mentioned on this forum before too.

Then you should have no difficulty pointing out examples of people making the claim that no published peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW exist, to show that what you're calling a "common myth" is not actually just a straw man of your own invention.

You seem to be fond of making lists of links. How about a list of, oh, say, ten links to people making, in public discourse, the claim that no published peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW exist? That should be very easy if it's a "common myth."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Is you say so...

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)

Are you aware that Dr. Pachauri was the Bush Administration's candidate, after they succeeded in getting rid of Robert Watson at the behest of ExxonMobil?

 

[Belz...]

That is not a strawman. You made unsubstantiated statements. Reputation is subjective.

Reputation (defined) - "the opinion that people in general have about someone or something"

Subjective (defined) - "influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts"

Reputation = Opinion = Subjective

Therefore all of science is subjective and we can say whatever we want ? Was that the end point of your argument ?

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

Who cares ? Their conclusions are opinions and therefore subjective.

 

[varwoche]

What I originally posted was quite clear..

Clearly inane.

Turn down the AM radio and try to get this through the block of cement otherwise known as your head: There is a consensus regarding the science of global warming. When you add economics to the mix, you are full of straw.

You might stop dodging Myriad's question while you're at it.

 

[Poptech]

Did I say that? I was pointing out how small the percentage of all people with meteorology/atmospheric science degrees...

Why were you pointing out something that contradicts what you say later...

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Gavin Schmidt has spent his career working in the atmospheric sciences.

Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Robert Watson has spent his career working in atmospheric chemistry.

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Hansen has spent his career working in the atmospheric sciences.

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Working Group 2 studies the social and economic effects of climate change. Your point is?

What is the exact amount of time one must be "working" in atmospheric science to make them valid? Please define the parameters and explain who defines these.

You are free to show the work and publication histories of the non-meteorologists who signed the petition. I'm completely confident that you won't find more than a handful of people on that list who actually have worked in the atmospheric sciences. Even if I allow that there are as many people with other degrees who work in the field, that only gives 1,000.

What is the publication history that makes someone valid? Please define the parameters and explain who defines these.

greed. And there are people who believe in AGW but oppose the Kyoto Treaty. It's also irrelevant as far as the Oregon Petition goes, unless you are willing to concede that it was intended to oppose the Kyoto Treaty rather than the concept of AGW.

If it was just about the Kyoto treaty it would not have said.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Signing the petition you agree to this statement which disputes AGW alarmism.

Are you aware that Dr. Pachauri was the Bush Administration's candidate, after they succeeded in getting rid of Robert Watson at the behest of ExxonMobil?

Are you now seriously using a political appointment by Bush as validity of someone's scientific credentials! ROFLMAO!!!

 

[Poptech]

Then you should have no difficulty pointing out examples of people making the claim that no published peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW exist, to show that what you're calling a "common myth" is not actually just a straw man of your own invention.

You seem to be fond of making lists of links. How about a list of, oh, say, ten links to people making, in public discourse, the claim that no published peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW exist? That should be very easy if it's a "common myth."

Actually I would since this is something more common in comments and can be worded differently each time. Here are some examples...

"There are NO peer reviewed papers that dispute man made climate change."

"There are 'no' peer-reviewed papers published that support Bruce’s belief that global warming is not happening. None."

"They are not perfect, but there are no peer reviewed papers to suggest they are completely wrong or even mostly wrong."

"Kindly point me to a single peer-reviewed paper from the past decade that so much as suggests that global warming does not exist."

"please show me ONE peer reviewed study that contradicts global warming as caused by human activity."

"Is anyone considering the idea that maybe no peer-reviewed papers with a proposed non-anthropogenic cause for global warming exists because no one would publish such a thing?"

The most well known claim was made by Oreskes and then of course Al Gore.