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

[Belz...]

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.

Sounds reasonable enough, but how does it relate to this debate ?

 

[Belz...]

Prove it.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And follow the references at the bottom of the page.

If somehow you can show that this doesn't represent a majority opinion, then fine, we'll discuss alternatives. Otherwise, as laymen, it might be a good idea to at least put some weight on their opinions.

 

[mhaze]

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And follow the references at the bottom of the page.

If somehow you can show that this doesn't represent a majority opinion, then fine, we'll discuss alternatives. Otherwise, as laymen, it might be a good idea to at least put some weight on their opinions.

Sure, that section is moderated by McConnell, who is a fairly rabid Warmer.

He does not allow skeptical articles to be included.

Next argument, please.

 

[Poptech]

If somehow you can show that this doesn't represent a majority opinion, then fine, we'll discuss alternatives. Otherwise, as laymen, it might be a good idea to at least put some weight on their opinions.

Position statements by scientific organizations do not represent their members when no vote by the membership was taken on them. But thanks for the link as I was not aware of all the additional non-committal scientific organizations!

Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Japan Society of Energy and Resources
Russian Academy of Sciences

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

Guess what! Scientists on the AGW side have the same frustration.

0 for 1.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf
and
Climate Change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation

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

This paper hasn't been published in any journal yet. In fact, in apparently hasn't even been accepted for publication. Therefore, it doesn't qualify as a "peer-reviewed" publication.

0 for 2.

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

It doesn't argue against the reality of AGW.

0 for 3.

And no mention of the other paper, which isn't surprising. One of the co-authors was Tom Wigley, who is a leading warmologist.

0 for 4.

Not doing so hot, Poptech.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, that section is moderated by McConnell, who is a fairly rabid Warmer.

He does not allow skeptical articles to be included.

Next argument, please.

Well, that's it, then, eh ? All you had to do was point out who moderates what, speculate on what goes on in his mind, and then you no longer had to check out the references.

That's wonderful skepticism, right there.

Meanwhile, the references don't go away just because you decide to ignore them.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Position statements by scientific organizations do not represent their members when no vote by the membership was taken on them. But thanks for the link as I was not aware of all the additional non-committal scientific organizations!

Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Japan Society of Energy and Resources
Russian Academy of Sciences

The Russian Academy of Sciences signed the 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection
, which states

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.

I guess that I shouldn't take it personally when Poptech mis-represents what I've said.

 

[BenBurch]

Hmmm... Energy (fossil fuel) sector scientific groups not committal?

Tell me again how people lose their jobs if they don't support the boss' point of view? I might start to believe you.

 

[fsol]

Sure, that section is moderated by McConnell, who is a fairly rabid Warmer.

He does not allow skeptical articles to be included.

Next argument, please.

McConnell? Really before you start throwing insults around you should at the very least make sure you have your targets name right.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Position statements by scientific organizations do not represent their members when no vote by the membership was taken on them. But thanks for the link as I was not aware of all the additional non-committal scientific organizations!

Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Japan Society of Energy and Resources
Russian Academy of Sciences

The American Association of State Climatologists no longer has an official position on climate change. Their previous, ambivalent statement expired in 2008.

 

[macdoc]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread

Careful of a black swan...or an entire flock

List of scientific bodies that affirm human-caused global climate change*Academy of Sciences Malaysia
*Academy of Science of South Africa
*American Association for the Advancement of Science
*American Astronomical Society
*American Chemical Society
*American Geophysical Union
*American Institute of Physics
*American Meteorological Society
*American Physical Society
*American Quaternary Association
*Australian Academy of Science
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Brazilian Academy of Sciences
*Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Caribbean Academy of Sciences
*Chinese Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Geosciences Union
*European Science Foundation
*French Academy of Sciences
*German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission
*Indian National Science Academy
*Indonesian Academy of Sciences
*InterAcademy Council
*International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*
*Mexican Academy of Sciences
*
*
*Network of African Science Academies
*Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
*Royal Irish Academy
*
*
*Royal Society of Canada
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Russian Academy of Sciences
*Science Council of Japan
List of scientific bodies that dispute human-caused global climate change None.
Note: In 1999, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists issued a formal policy statement in which they disputed human-caused climate change. That position was retracted in 2007, leaving no remaining scientific body of national or international standing known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate changes.

 

[Poptech]

This paper hasn't been published in any journal yet.

True which is why at the time I said 390 not the 391 that were there.

 

[macdoc]

The Canadian Climate science community has spoken out loudly

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on Climate Change Science


April 18 2006


The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3

Dear Prime Minister:

As climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors across Canada, we wish to convey our views on the current state of knowledge of climate change and to call upon you to provide national leadership in addressing the issue. The scientific views we express are shared by the vast majority of the national and international climate science community.

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which has also been supported by the Royal Society of Canada and the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” and of the 2005 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that “Arctic temperatures have risen at almost twice the rate of those in the rest of the world over the past few decades”.

Climate variability and change is a global issue and the international IPCC process for assessment of climate science, with its rigorous scientific peer review processes, is the appropriate mechanism for assessing what is known and not known about climate science. Many Canadian climate scientists are participating in the preparation of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which will be completed in 2007.

The following points emerge from the assessments and ongoing research by respected Canadian and international researchers:

* There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world.

* There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities.

* Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.

* Canada needs a national climate change strategy with continued investments in research to track the rate and nature of changes, understand what is happening, to refine projections of changes induced by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases and to analyse opportunities and threats presented by these changes.

We have supplied justification and more detail for each of these points in the accompanying documentation.

We urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy to deal with the many important aspects of climate that will affect both Canada and the rest of the world in the near future. We believe that sound policy requires good scientific input.

We would be pleased to provide a scientific briefing and further support, clarification and information at any time.

Yours sincerely:


Signed by 90 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors across the country

Those would be climate scientists......

 

[Poptech]

It is over 450 now and growing.

 

[macdoc]

Quantity has nothing to do with quality and you are still batting zero.

••••

In the real world

Scientists Unite! 18 Scientific Groups Reaffirm Climate Science in Letter to Senators
Submitted by Jay Gulledge on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 09:13

Scientists to Congress: You can argue about the politics all you want, but if you decide not to act on climate change, it won’t be because the science wasn’t strong enough.

continues
http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gull...oups-reaffirm-climate-science-letter-senators

Here is the letter

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

Organizations signing the letter

Organizations signing the letter: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Key items

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

and puts paid to the C02 is good for you nonsense

Notably, eight agricultural, plant, and ecological organizations signed the letter, thoroughly undermining recent attempts by opponents of climate policy to spin manmade CO2 emissions as “plant food” that’s good for the environment. The letter, signed by 18 scientific groups, warns that: "For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country.”
More CO2 is not going to do crops and forests any good if they can’t get enough water or if storms, pests, or wildfires are mowing them down.

http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gull...oups-reaffirm-climate-science-letter-senators

 

[BenBurch]

I think its telling that they need to use Appeal To Authority to support their case, which would be bad enough, but then when you go and examine the claim of authority support, its ashes and rust.

 

[lomiller]

I think its telling that they need to use Appeal To Authority to support their case, which would be bad enough, but then when you go and examine the claim of authority support, its ashes and rust.

Appeal to authority = legitimate argument form
Appeal to false authority is not.

What some people in this thread suffers from is a complete inability to recognize what is/isn't a legitimate authority.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is over 450 now and growing.

You claim that over 31,000 "scientists" signed a skeptical petition and yet you can only find a handful of papers from refereed journals that argue against AGW?

 

[mhaze]

I think its telling that they need to use Appeal To Authority to support their case, which would be bad enough, but then when you go and examine the claim of authority support, its ashes and rust.

Presenting evidence in substnatial amounts against an argument of authority, and thus destroying said argument, is not an argument of authority to the contrary position.

The contrary position is not stated in the presentation of evidence to destroy the initial Argument. Thus, no contrary Argument has needed to be presented.

 

[BenBurch]

Appeal to authority = legitimate argument form
Appeal to false authority is not.

What some people in this thread suffers from is a complete inability to recognize what is/isn't a legitimate authority.

Legitimate, yes, but weak. You should be able with some work to articulate the reasons those authorities think what they do, and those supporting facts and actual science HAVE done so.

False authority, well, that is either wishful thinking or lying, and pretty much loses the argument for those who do it.