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

[Darat]

I've gone back a couple of days to try and clean-up this thread, unfortunately that does mean I've had to move some posts to AAH that would have been OK if they were on-topic for this thread however most of the posts removed were clear breaches of the Membership Agreement. I have also set this thread to [Moderated Status], hopefully that can be removed in a day or so.

I will remind all participants that if you cannot post within the constraints of your Membership Agreement then do not post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

A specific earning to BenBurch & Poptech - if you continue your bickering with one another (and your many breaches of the Membership Agreement continue) you will be subject to further action which will mean, at the least, suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Myriad]

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."

That's one.

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

A claim that no papers contend that global warming is not happening is quite different from a claim that no papers contend that "man-made" global warming is not happening.

That's still 1.

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

Quote not found at linked source. In the absence of the original quote, the reference to "they" is ambiguous. Is the writer talking about computer models? No papers suggest who or what is wrong about what, exactly?

That's still 1.

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

This one too talks about global warming in general, not "manmade global warming." Also adds a qualifier "from the past decade" that your strawman "common myth" omits.

That's still 1.

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

Okay, I could quibble here and argue that "please show me" is a request for such a reference to argue over, rather than any claim that no such reference exists. But it looks like I can afford to be generous.

So, that's 2.

"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?"

This question (from an AGW denier and apparent conspiracy theorist) makes the assumption that no papers proposing non-anthropogenic causes for global warming exist. That does not amount to claiming that no papers disputing anthropogenic global warming exist -- just that no such papers propose alternative causes. That's a different "myth." It's still false, but since it's made by an AGW denier torpedoing his own case, who cares?

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

No claim cited.

That's still (generously) 2.

You found two, both random blog comments, one from last August and one from last year.

That, sir, is a monumental fail. (You didn't even try for the requested ten). There are no peer-reviewed studies disputing 'man-made' global warming is supposed to be a "common myth," remember. Which should make it trivially easy to find numerous examples.

You have not supported your "common myth" contention, leading to the conclusion that your OP was a strawman argument, calculated to misrepresent your opponents' position and provide an excuse to spam your list of "papers" whose irrelevance is ably explained by your own subsequent post. This is a shining example of intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe I'll go post that on two blog comment pages somewhere. Then it will be "common knowledge."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes but, if the opinions of scientists who accept AGW doesn't matter, what does it matter how many scientists reject it, then ?

Sauce for the goose.

 

[Pipirr]

Lets say that there really are 390 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of global warming. That sounds like plenty enough to write a good review article.

The papers would have to converge on a similar theme, obviously, say, all 390 papers would provide evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That would be a very important summary of very important, consensus-challenging, research. I'd read that review article.

Of course, if this is in fact 390 documents from trade journals and think tanks with the occasional peer reviewed paper thrown in, which taken together show little to no convergence on any one aspect of AGW, then it is all rather pointless. Isn't it?

No wait, obviously there is a point. The point is that this is one of those "Behold, the jot of skepticism!" lists.

But in terms of its value to climate science, it gets an F.

 

[mhaze]

Yes but, if the opinions of scientists who accept AGW doesn't matter, what does it matter how many scientists reject it, then ?

Sauce for the goose.

Sorry, that doesn't follow, unless explicitly nearly the same questions were asked or answered.

They were not.

 

[Poptech]

The wording is not exact, this is not a semantics argument.

A claim that no papers contend that global warming is not happening is quite different from a claim that no papers contend that "man-made" global warming is not happening.

That's 2 - The argument is the same, people who make these statements don't understand the difference between AGW and global warming. Refuting whether it is happening as all would refute AGW regardless.

Quote not found at linked source. In the absence of the original quote, the reference to "they" is ambiguous. Is the writer talking about computer models? No papers suggest who or what is wrong about what, exactly?

That's 3 - Wrong link.

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

This one too talks about global warming in general, not "manmade global warming." Also adds a qualifier "from the past decade" that your strawman "common myth" omits.

That's 4, the people making these comments did not follow your semantics argument. They do however believe the myth.

Okay, I could quibble here and argue that "please show me" is a request for such a reference to argue over, rather than any claim that no such reference exists. But it looks like I can afford to be generous.

That's 5

This question (from an AGW denier and apparent conspiracy theorist) makes the assumption that no papers proposing non-anthropogenic causes for global warming exist. That does not amount to claiming that no papers disputing anthropogenic global warming exist -- just that no such papers propose alternative causes. That's a different "myth." It's still false, but since it's made by an AGW denier torpedoing his own case, who cares?

That's 6 Same argument

No claim cited.

Cite = An Inconvenient Truth, that is 7.

You found two, both random blog comments, one from last August and one from last year.

No I found 6 in about 5 minutes which proves my point. It is a common myth but frequently worded differently with varying but similar context. If you don't understand this do not reply about this again.

You have not supported your "common myth" contention, leading to the conclusion that your OP was a strawman argument, calculated to misrepresent your opponents' position and provide an excuse to spam your list of "papers" whose irrelevance is ably explained by your own subsequent post. This is a shining example of intellectual dishonesty.

Nope, I proved it is a legitimate myth. What is intellectually dishonest is your semantic argument for something I clearly stated was not an exactly worded how it was. You can pretend this myth is not common but anyone arguing from the skeptics position is well aware of it.

You need to try better next time, I presented sufficient evidence and will not waste anymore time providing anymore regarding this, please do not lie about me or my intentions in the future, thank you.

 

[OMGturt1es]

We already went over this, please read the whole thread before commenting.

No. I'm not reading this entire thread. Why would I? What have I to gain?

The IPCC deals with more than just the science.

And? So?

In the context of the public AGW debate, for which this thread was obviously created, no one cares. The public AGW debate concerns AGW. Economic complications are an after thought, generally used to move a gaol post; AGW isn't true, but even if it were, it's not like it will be that bad for the economy. Such articles are lumped into this list to inflate and obfuscate its inherent straw nature. We all understand the nature of the public debate, and so we all have some expectation that "peer reviewed" articles ought concern the thrust of the public debate. It's not technically dishonest, but it's slimey.

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

[/quote]

You don't understand. As a geologist, I don't go to the CATO Institute for scientitic articles. There's a reason. The CATO Institute is not a scientific institution.

I read the first page of this thread, and it appears that folk really don't understand the importance of the journal in which an article has been published. All journals are not equal. Different journals offer different areas of expertise and peer review. It is folly to consult, for example, an energy engineering journal for climatological articles, because an energy engineering journal does not offer an expert level of peer review for climatological articles.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, that doesn't follow, unless explicitly nearly the same questions were asked or answered.

They were not.

Mhaze, the problem is this:

1- The majority of scientists in the field agree about the reality of AGW.
2- You reject this, citing a smaller number of "dissidents" as evidence.
3- I say that if numbers don't matter for (1), it shouldn't matter for (2)

In other worlds who cares how many scientists there are ? What does the evidence say ?

 

[BenBurch]

Mhaze, the problem is this:

1- The majority of scientists in the field agree about the reality of AGW.
2- You reject this, citing a smaller number of "dissidents" as evidence.
3- I say that if numbers don't matter for (1), it shouldn't matter for (2)

In other worlds who cares how many scientists there are ? What does the evidence say ?

Exactly.

And when you look at what the dissidents have to offer, its a pretty thin soup.

Most of them are economists and politicians who are making arguments they haven't even researched. Those that are scientists, most are out of their field, and it shows; they make elementary errors. Those who are in their field do not appear to make sense to their colleagues on the other side of the issue; they rarely get into mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and when they do, they rarely get cited by anybody else.

 

[Poptech]

No. I'm not reading this entire thread. Why would I? What have I to gain?

Because your points were already addressed.

In the context of the public AGW debate, for which this thread was obviously created, no one cares. The public AGW debate concerns AGW. Economic complications are an after thought, generally used to move a gaol post; AGW isn't true, but even if it were, it's not like it will be that bad for the economy. Such articles are lumped into this list to inflate and obfuscate its inherent straw nature. We all understand the nature of the public debate, and so we all have some expectation that "peer reviewed" articles ought concern the thrust of the public debate. It's not technically dishonest, but it's slimey.

Those in the public debate do not even understand what AGW stands for in many cases. Yes economics are directly involved in this debate which is why some of the papers address this. There is nothing "straw" about it as I have easily proven above. There is nothing "slimey" about a discussion of something the IPCC devotes a section of their report to.

You don't understand. As a geologist, I don't go to the CATO Institute for scientitic articles. There's a reason. The CATO Institute is not a scientific institution.

I never said you should but I clearly stated that these included papers on economic effects. The list is now well over 450 papers (will continue to grow as I have time) and you are still hung up on the 3 Cato peer-reviewed ones.

 

[Poptech]

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!

Um.... so myths are only myths if spread by scientists and politicians? Is that a joke?

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

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero." - Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, 2006

This is debunked by my list.

 

[Poptech]

Of course, if this is in fact 390 documents from trade journals and think tanks with the occasional peer reviewed paper thrown in, which taken together show little to no convergence on any one aspect of AGW, then it is all rather pointless. Isn't it?

All the papers are peer-reviewed and not the "occasional" one like you claim. The ones fitting your "criteria" are less than 18% so even by your subjective standards for peer-reviewed journals you have hundreds of papers. There is no "one" aspect of AGW as it covers just about everything.

 

[Poptech]

1- The majority of scientists in the field agree about the reality of AGW.

Prove it.

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, the problem is this:

1- The majority of scientists in the field agree about the reality of AGW.
2- You reject this, citing a smaller number of "dissidents" as evidence.
3- I say that if numbers don't matter for (1), it shouldn't matter for (2)

In other worlds who cares how many scientists there are ? What does the evidence say ?

I'm not disagreeing with your logic at all, and I really don't care about the numbers of scientists.

Just pointing out the flawed premises. Here is the problem:

scientists group A are asked question X
scientists group B are asked question Y

No conclusion may be drawn on A regarding Y, or B regarding X.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Maybe I should trot out your 77 scientists who 97% agree in a survey!!!! ...which is the best you got.

Actually, the best that I've got is that the preponderance of data supports my view.

Does the "77" come from Pielke's survey? This is a different survey from the one I mentioned earlier in this thread. Do you have any idea what "random sample" means?

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.

I never claimed that they didn't read it or that people randomly sign petitions "just for fun", as everyone else who read my post knows.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

All the papers are peer-reviewed and not the "occasional" one like you claim.

Just like everything published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies is peer-reviewed.

I started looking through your list, and I took a glance at the first couple of papers that Roger Pielke, Jr. was an author of. Could you explain why you think that those papers argue against AGW?

 

[mhaze]

Actually, the best that I've got is that the preponderance of data supports my view. ....

Now that makes sense. In other words, we look at what the data says.

And we disagree on what the preponderance of data shows.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I started looking through your list, and I took a glance at the first couple of papers that Roger Pielke, Jr. was an author of. Could you explain why you think that those papers argue against AGW?

OK, I skimmed fast, so these aren't necessarily the first 2. But the question remains the same
Best practices in prediction for decision-making: Lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences
and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445597a.htmlDangerous Assumptions

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

OK, I skimmed fast, so these aren't necessarily the first 2. But the question remains the same
Best practices in prediction for decision-making: Lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences
and
Dangerous Assumptions

I could also ask the same of question of the other 2 papers in Pielke, Jr.'s first 4:
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf
and
Climate Change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation

Of course, the first one apparently hasn't been published yet, so it probably doesn't qualify for the list anyway.

 

[Poptech]

OK, I skimmed fast, so these aren't necessarily the first 2. But the question remains the same
Best practices in prediction for decision-making: Lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences

It explains in the abstract

Predictions that result from scientific research hold great appeal for decision-makers who are grappling with complex and controversial environmental issues, by promising to enhance their ability to determine a need for and outcomes of alternative decisions. A problem exists in that decision-makers and scientists in the public and private sectors solicit, produce, and use such predictions with little understanding of their accuracy or utility, and often without systematic evaluation or mechanisms of accountability. In order to contribute to a more effective role for ecological science in support of decision-making, this paper discusses three best practices for quantitative ecosystem modeling and prediction gleaned from research on modeling, prediction, and decision-making in the atmospheric and earth sciences. The lessons are distilled from a series of case studies and placed into the specific context of examples from ecological science.

Since the current AGW debate is reliant on predictions, this paper is incredibly relevant as it is clear policy makers have not learned from the past.

I could also ask the same of question of the other 2 papers in Pielke, Jr.'s first 4:
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf
and
Climate Change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation

Of course, the first one apparently hasn't been published yet, so it probably doesn't qualify for the list anyway.

The first shows the problems between surface and satellite measurements which is a common skeptical argument.

The second talks about adaptation rather than government policy intervention, another skeptical argument.