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

[TellyKNeasuss]

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...

I said later on that the signers DID include a significant percentage of all the Americans with atmospheric science degrees? And/or that a significant percentage of the total number of signers are likely to be have done some work in the atmospheric sciences? Where did I say that?

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

You're the one who's claiming that 31,000 people with knowledge of and/or work experience in climate science signed a petition. I'm asking for proof that these people have more knowledge than the average citizen so that I should care about what they think. Otherwise, it's just a list of 31,000 people with college degrees (actually, fewer, for a number of reasons including the fact that some of these people aren't still alive), and there are more than 20 million Americans who have degrees in science or engineering.

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.

People will sign petitions if they agree with the premise of the petition and ignore ancillary information. In this case, the premise of the petition was that the Kyoto Treaty was not a good idea.

And please define "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!!!

Quite the opposite. I was pointing out the fact that a person who, as you pointed out, doesn't have a degree in the atmospheric sciences, is the chairman of the IPCC because the Bush Administration preferred him to the previous chairman, who was an atmospheric chemist. Incidentally, Dr. Pachauri has worked in the field of energy economics, and I think that it's been mentioned that the IPCC studied economic implications and mitigation strategies.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

All these claims appear to be from comments posted by readers of blogs or in letters-to-the-editor.

 

[Poptech]

I said later...

No you state that only some have degrees in meteorology and atmospheric science as if to imply the the other degrees are irrelevant to a discussion on climate. I proved that is not true. You have contradicted yourself and got called on it.

You're the one who's claiming that 31,000 people with knowledge of and/or work experience in climate science signed a petition.

How can I prove someone is knowledgeable?

I'm asking for proof that these people have more knowledge than the average citizen

Their degree means they are more scientifically knowledgeable but what you are asking for is impossible, I have no way to test their "knowledge".

People will sign petitions if they agree with the premise of the petition and ignore ancillary information. In this case, the premise of the petition was that the Kyoto Treaty was not a good idea.

You are responsible for any document you sign. This one is so brief and to the point, they definitely read all of it. None of the scientists have asked to be removed after all the discussion about the petition.

And please define "AGW alarmism"

That man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere will have a catastrophic effect on the climate and action needs to be taken to stop it's release.

Quite the opposite. I was pointing out the fact that a person who, as you pointed out, doesn't have a degree in the atmospheric sciences, is the chairman of the IPCC because the Bush Administration preferred him to the previous chairman, who was an atmospheric chemist. Incidentally, Dr. Pachauri has worked in the field of energy economics, and I think that it's been mentioned that the IPCC studied economic implications and mitigation strategies.

Bush does not control the appointment, those changes were done by a majority vote of international countries. What Bush preferred does not control the vote of who is elected the IPCC chairman. Pachauri has a degree that technoextreme claims...

"only dumbasses would think... have any relevance to global warming"

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

No you state that only some have degrees in meteorology and atmospheric science as if to imply the the other degrees are irrelevant to a discussion on climate. I proved that is not true. You have contradicted yourself and got called on it.

I think that most everyone else got the point, even if you didn't.

You're the one who's claiming that 31,000 people with knowledge of and/or work experience in climate science signed a petition.

How can I prove someone is knowledgeable?

I'm asking for proof that these people have more knowledge than the average citizen

Their degree means they are more scientifically knowledgeable but what you are asking for is impossible, I have no way to test their "knowledge".

Exactly the point. Other than the less than 2 percent who have degrees in an atmospheric science (and many people with Bachelor's degrees in meteorology really don't understand theoretical meteorology - you can learn that from reading wattsupwiththat), we have no idea whether they know anything more about climate change than the average person.

While it's true that there are people with degrees from other departments who work in the atmospheric sciences, what's the likelihood that this number exceeds the number of people with degrees in the atmospheric sciences? So it's safe to assume that at most 1,000 signers have either any relevant education or work experience. And far fewer have extensive knowledge.

People will sign petitions if they agree with the premise of the petition and ignore ancillary information. In this case, the premise of the petition was that the Kyoto Treaty was not a good idea.

You are responsible for any document you sign. This one is so brief and to the point, they definitely read all of it. None of the scientists have asked to be removed after all the discussion about the petition.

Uh, the petition is hardly a legal document. There are no adverse consequences to having signed it even if you only agreed with part of it. I think that it's reasonable to believe that some people signed it because it was a chance to express their opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, even if they didn't necessarily believe that there is nothing to AGW.

And please define "AGW alarmism"

That man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere will have a catastrophic effect on the climate and action needs to be taken to stop it's release.

Please define "catastrophic".

Quite the opposite. I was pointing out the fact that a person who, as you pointed out, doesn't have a degree in the atmospheric sciences, is the chairman of the IPCC because the Bush Administration preferred him to the previous chairman, who was an atmospheric chemist. Incidentally, Dr. Pachauri has worked in the field of energy economics, and I think that it's been mentioned that the IPCC studied economic implications and mitigation strategies.

Bush does not control the appointment, those changes were done by a majority vote of international countries. What Bush preferred does not control the vote of who is elected the IPCC chairman. Pachauri has a degree that technoextreme claims...

Yes, but the US has considerable influence on who gets chosen to head internation committees. And I guess that I need to repeat this a third time: the IPCC doesn't just report on the state of climate science but also on the potential social and economic problems and mitigation strategies, which makes a person who has a background in energy economics relevant.

 

[Poptech]

I think that most everyone else got the point, even if you didn't.

What point? That you were attempting to discredit any signer who does not have a climatology or meteorology degree?

Your great list of AGW skeptics includes fewer than 500 who have any sort of degree in climatology/meteorology???

You just discredited the following with your knee-jerk comments, good job!

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)

Exactly the point. Other than the less than 2 percent who have degrees in an atmospheric science (and many people with Bachelor's degrees in meteorology really don't understand theoretical meteorology - you can learn that from reading wattsupwiththat), we have no idea whether they know anything more about climate change than the average person.

You have no way to prove they do not understand it. As I have just proven above there are many scientists involved with climate science who have degrees not directly in the field.

While it's true that there are people with degrees from other departments who work in the atmospheric sciences, what's the likelihood that this number exceeds the number of people with degrees in the atmospheric sciences? So it's safe to assume that at most 1,000 signers have either any relevant education or work experience. And far fewer have extensive knowledge.

Just about every single scientist you consider "valid" has a degree outside the field. You cannot assume anything. Your opinions on this are worthless.

Uh, the petition is hardly a legal document. There are no adverse consequences to having signed it even if you only agreed with part of it. I think that it's reasonable to believe that some people signed it because it was a chance to express their opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, even if they didn't necessarily believe that there is nothing to AGW.

Prove the signers do not support the full statement.

Please define "catastrophic".

Go look it up.

Yes, but the US has considerable influence on who gets chosen to head internation committees. And I guess that I need to repeat this a third time: the IPCC doesn't just report on the state of climate science but also on the potential social and economic problems and mitigation strategies, which makes a person who has a background in energy economics relevant.

So then how is the IPCC chairman elected?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What point? That you were attempting to discredit any signer who does not have a climatology or meteorology degree?

I've twice clarified what I meant. I don't care whether you understand it or not.

You just discredited the following with your knee-jerk comments, good job!

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)

I've conceded several times that there are people working in climate science whose degrees are from other departments (though in many cases their actual thesis research was related to climate). You can keep making this claim, but most of the people who follow these threads aren't stupid.

You have no way to prove they do not undrstand it. As I have just proven above there are many scientists involved with climate science who have degrees not directly in the field.

So you admit that you have no way of knowing whether any of these people know anything they're talking about? OK. It's not up to me to prove anything. The petition was your evidence. The majority of the people who do research in the atmospheric sciences have degrees in those fields, so on what grounds should we assume that there would be many more people on this list who work in the atmospheric sciences but don't have degrees in those fields than do? It would take 5 times the number than that have relevant degrees for even 10 percent of your list to have work experience in the atmospheric sciences.

Just about every single scientist you consider "valid" has a degree outside the field. You cannot assume anything. Your opinions on this are worthless.

You can't prove this pathetic claim, either. Which scientists do I consider to be "valid? You have no idea. In fact, you have no idea how or where I get my information.

Prove the signers do not support the full statement.

Prove that they do. The petition is your evidence, not mine. I don't back up my beliefs by citing a list of people who believe similarly.

 

[Poptech]

So you admit that you have no way of knowing whether any of these people know anything they're talking about? OK. It's not up to me to prove anything. The petition was your evidence. The majority of the people who do research in the atmospheric sciences have degrees in those fields, so on what grounds should we assume that there would be many more people on this list who work in the atmospheric sciences but don't have degrees in those fields than do? It would take 5 times the number than that have relevant degrees for even 10 percent of your list to have work experience in the atmospheric sciences.

You can say that about anyone. How do I prove someone is "knowledgeable"? What is proven is that real scientists signed a petition disputing alarmist claims. The argument was not all directly working in the field but were knowledgeable about the field. Maybe I should trot out your 77 scientists who 97% agree in a survey!!!! ...which is the best you got.

Prove that they do. The petition is your evidence, not mine. I don't back up my beliefs by citing a list of people who believe similarly.

They signed it! We can pretend they didn't read it and just for fun sign random petitions and mail them to people or we can deal with reality. This is the most pathetic argument yet.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!

And there certainly is not anything wrong with that.

Um, except that this is a scientific issue, and the Cato Institute isn't a scientific establishment. But aside from that small detail, sure.

 

[Poptech]

Um, except that this is a scientific issue, and the Cato Institute isn't a scientific establishment. But aside from that small detail, sure.

We already went over this, please read the whole thread before commenting. The IPCC deals with more than just the science. But all three articles from that journal do deal with the science:

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

 

[fishbob]

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

Ok - I read this one.
They made no measurements, they made models and made suppositions.
In particular:

Therefore, as the paint on a thermometer shelter begins to darken with age, the temperature inside the shelter will read
higher. Would regular painting of weather stations be a high
priority in a poor country?

Does white paint darken with age? They didn't bother to check.
Are thermometer shelters painted? They didn't bother to check.
Do temperatures rise inside the shelters over time? They didn't bother to check.
Would regular painting be a high priority in a poor country? They didn't bother to check.

This is typical of the 'scientific' articles put out by the Discovery Institute - Creationist twaddle.
Is this is typical of what Cato publishes?
I will check before I publish an opinion about it.

 

[fishbob]

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

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

The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide.

No explanation, no reasoning. Just an argument from incredulity.
And no references. No sources for any of the claims. This is not a 'scientific' article. This is an opinion piece. My previous comparison stands.

 

[fishbob]

I read the 3rd. More of the same, and now my brain hurts.

Creationist "science" articles often go like this:
"and what about this? . . . and what about this? . . . and what about this? . .
. . . then they criticized me . . . and what about this? . . . and what about this? . . .
. . . and then they rejected my article. . . . and what about this? . . . . proves my case."

Check out the Stanley Trimble article, then look up "Gish Gallop". See what I mean?

 

[Poptech]

Creationist "science" articles often go like this:

This is getting old, the creationist, 911 Truther, conspiracy claims are sooooo tiring. I support evolution and do not support conspiracies. Why do you have to use the same smear tactics? At least be original.

 

[Belz...]

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

So.... assuming that you're correct about the petition in the first place... where does that lead us ?

 

[Belz...]

You have no way to prove they do not understand it.

And you have no way to prove that there isn't an invisible, miniature, pink flying magical elephant under my bed.

Fortunately that's not how science works.

 

[fishbob]

This is getting old, the creationist, 911 Truther, conspiracy claims are sooooo tiring. I support evolution and do not support conspiracies. Why do you have to use the same smear tactics? At least be original.

Didn't critically read the articles you linked, did you?
Thought not.

 

[BenBurch]

Didn't critically read the articles you linked, did you?
Thought not.

Some are actually against his position, but he couldn't be bothered to understand them.

 

[mhaze]

So.... assuming that you're correct about the petition in the first place... where does that lead us ?

It would lead those of us with half a brain to go look at what the petition was, and what assertions were in fact supported by the signers.

Any other route is professed ignorance, and yes, many prefer that.

Here is what they signed to affirm:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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. [/FONT]
​

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

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

No explanation, no reasoning. Just an argument from incredulity.
And no references. No sources for any of the claims. This is not a 'scientific' article. This is an opinion piece. My previous comparison stands.

No explanation?

No reasoning?

Just an argument from incredulity?


Quoting a snippet from the paper:

It is worth noting that about 1.7 trillion dollars have been spent on the environment over the past decade. The environment, itself, qualifies as one of our major industries.

If Wildaysky's scenario is correct, the major losers would be ordinary people. Wealth that could have been used to raise living standards in much of the world would be squandered.
​

Now please support your assertions, by pointing to the lack of reasoning, the lack of explanation, the arguments from incredulity, and the lack of sources.

As for your question of references, the article is not written and presented in a style that requires (or which likely would have been published by the editor with) a reference list at the tail end.

Show that your assertions are not outright intellectually dishonest.

 

[AlBell]

... most of the people who follow these threads aren't stupid. ...

As a long-time lurker, I've come to the opposite conclusion.

The rhetoric used by the staunchest "warmers" sounds like every other snake-oil salesman who ever lived.

You couldn't successfully sell 1$ bills for 50cts.

YMMV.

 

[varwoche]

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

Do these statements come from expert scientists? No. From politicians? No. From otherwise influential people? No. From forum members? No. From random bozos who wrote letters to the editor of their local newspaper? Yes! LOL!

The mental contortions necessary to find so much as an iota of significance here is beyond comprehension.

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

And yet you didn't include statements from Oreskes or Gore. Hilarious!