• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Evidence that that is "a common myth?" Who has claimed there are no published peer-reviewed papers disputing human-caused global warming?

Such a myth would have to overlook that:

(1) There was, in the past, a scientific controversy regarding the existence of AGW. Until it was resolved by observations, this generated numerous papers by both sides.

(2) There are valid scientific disagreements at present, regarding the most likely anticipated effects of AGW and their magnitude. Papers addressing these issues can easily be misrepresented as challenges to AGW, when they are not.

(3) There is, in the present, a political controversy generated primarily by interests who find the prospect of having to limit their future damage to the environment, and perhaps even pay to remedy past damage, inconvenient and a transgression of their natural rights as wealthy elitist sociopaths. It is not at all surprising that such interests can generate a few dozen published peer-reviewed papers a year.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Poptech said:
That was debunked along time ago, there is no "consensus". She used the search phrase "global climate change" which ignores some 11,000 papers.
Click to expand...


Wow, that many? 11,000 papers relevant to AGW?

Let's see, then your 390 papers (even assuming all of them actually challenge AGW, which has been shown on other threads not to be the case) would be 3.5% of them.

Oops. Fake controversy fail.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Most of those “papers” were published in the climate equivalent of UFOligy today.

If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how little real science is being done by climate change deniers looking at where those “papers” were published should do the trick.
 
Lets randomly check this list;

OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 22nd, and nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 146, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, on and on and on.

It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose?

Wikipedia says;

"The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549."

and

"The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there."[6]"

In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place.

I think this list is debunked now...
 
You know, PopTech, what might really be convincing (maybe) is a bar graph plotting the numbers of your papers against the year of publication. If the number was growing, that might cause one to wonder.

Better yet, plot them, rather than by count, by percentage of all papers both for and against GW. That would be really useful to you, if it showed the percentage of con papers was increasing over time. You might even classify it as a miracle.
 
BenBurch said:
Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!
Click to expand...

And there certainly is not anything wrong with that.

Not in the least.

Curiously, also, a number of the papers in Energy and Environment have been discussed at great length in various blogs. That is to say, the likes of Lambert, Rabitt, and Soro's operation, RealSmuggieClimate, seem to have thought they needed to discuss them.

Loehle is an example.

Well, what is it?

Are they right, or the self appointed moralistic bastions of scientific far left truthiness of JREF right?
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Thanks. Next time I am looking for a classic example of poisoning the well I will have one readily at hand.
Click to expand...
Sure, glad to uh...contribute...

Who poisoned the well, me, with my ridiculous long insult to the Upholders of Sciency Moral Hygeine, or those here who poisoned the well to whom I took objection to, the Energy and Environment articles being smeared? Just curious....

varwoche said:
A free market advocacy group. What a non surprise. One might be astounded to read something so supremely idiotic if not for the track record.
Click to expand...
I request that you take your well known, well trod, and well exercised loop of neurons which fire this off (otherwise known as neurotic behavior....that is, repeating disfunctional behavior after it is shown not to work) and actually consider the facts. Bolding is mine.

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

Please explain to your audience how the CATO institute is not an excellant source for commentary on this subject.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom