Please stop with the straw man arguments. I never said they all disagree with AGW theory (which is not a consensus). I said they all support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects.
Please stop moving the goalposts and settle on a definition of "skepticism" in the context of AGW. I suspect you are working on a definition that differs from that commonly accepted here and in the climate science field. When you come up with a concrete definition, I suggest you post it along with your list in order to avoid these types of arguments.
I made no claim it disputes AGW. It supports skepticism of AGW by supporting a solar influence on temperatures. From the paper...
"The long-term data sets suggest that the increase in geomagnetic activity and surface temperatures are related... to longer-term solar variations."
First off, you just misquoted that paper. The sentence does not end there, it continues on to say, "which probably include an increasing trend superposed with a cyclic behavior with a period of about 90 years". What do you think that increasing trend is? Second off, how does this support "skepticism", by your definition?
It has not been damaging but widely disputed.
(snipped link list)
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for moderated thread.
I will repeat
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for moderated thread.
Science is not a popularity contest. All it takes is
one paper to send the whole AGW consensus crashing down. Please tell me how those papers rebut Lockwood and Frohlich and why the arguments in the rebuttals are scientifically sound. I can't be bothered to wade through a bunch of garbage from the
Science & Public Policy Institute. You're the one claiming the paper is "controversial", so explain to me, what's the controversy?
Not true. Most of them do present science, the ones that do not are in relation to the economic issues.
It seems I was a bit hasty with my numbers. Upon further investigation, I identified 97 papers published in non-academic journals like
E&E,
Regulation, and the
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. However, this still leaves all the papers published in extremely obscure journals like
South African Journal of Science and
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. It also leaves out papers published in journals not read by climatologists, like
Public Administration Review and
Social Studies of Science.
Also, you also inflate the numbers by including replies, letters and commentary, which are generally not subject to the same peer review process as full-length papers, if subject to any at all. Furthermore, there are a few papers listed that have not yet been published, and they may not have yet gone through peer review. Your claim that all of the papers are "peer reviewed" is very shaky at best, if not an outright lie.
Less than 4% but the age of a paper has nothing to do with the science. There is an extensive amount of recent papers from reputable journals and they all support skepticism of AGW.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for moderated thread.
Again it is up to you to define "skepticism of AGW" and how these papers support it. Simply listing off hundreds of papers, with no annotations and only a handful of relevant quotations, and expecting everyone else to do the hard work is not going to cut it.
