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

[paximperium]

Of course it is subjective as it is merely people's opinion.

So even if the entire world has a high regard for a journal, it's reputation is somehow invalid? Wow. Talk about making crap up.

No I believe "prestige" has no bearing on science.

Except for the impact of the science and to the scientific community. Yeah, sure.

 

[Poptech]

May I point out, that "after the fact" through neat little things called "applications" it is NO LONGER SUBJECTIVE!
I think that is what I am trying to get across here.

Nature has earned it's rep from past performance. A.K.A "Track record." Surely you don't think a track record is "subjective"

Reputations are opinions and thus subjective. I consider publishing fraudulent science to be a bad track record.

 

[Poptech]

So even if the entire world has a high regard for a journal, it's reputation is somehow invalid? Wow. Talk about making crap up.

Total nonsense as this statement cannot be proven. I said reputations are subjective.

Except for the impact of the science and to the scientific community. Yeah, sure.

So you believe in science told to you by someone you consider to have prestige or science that is reproducible? Interesting and it explains a lot.

 

[paximperium]

Reputation is always subjective and there is no evidence "all" scientists read it.

Wow, what an about face strawman with a set up for a moving goalpost. Bravo.

A papers impact is always subjective as it is merely the popularity of a paper determined by other's opinions.

Really? I'd say objectively that Einstein's papers have extremely high impact since just about every physics grad student has read them while your blogs, opinions, posts are irrelevant.

Actually that is not true and that papers have had a significant "impact" on the actual science, since most of them have to do with other scientists not actually doing the science.

Really? I though you said impact was subjective? How do you know they have had any impact at all? Is anyone reading them?

So I ask again. Who is citing and using the papers you presented?

 

[zerospeaks]

Reputations are opinions and thus subjective. I consider publishing fraudulent science to be a bad track record.

But a track record of success is DATA. Sure you can say the data is interpreted subjectively. But we are looking at interpreting the data "after the fact" look at applications gained, fraudulent science exposed etc.... this is DATA, if you say confirmation of accuracy of application is subjective then we get into a whole knew ball of wax. Then 2+2 is subjective. And I wouldn't mind having that conversation sometime.

I hope I am still making sense guys.

 

[SezMe]

Popularity is not science.

Indeed. But citations is not synonymous with popularity. Fail. Again.

 

[zerospeaks]

So you believe in science told to you by someone you consider to have prestige or science that is reproducible? Interesting and it explains a lot.

Are you not doing that right now?

 

[paximperium]

Total nonsense as this statement cannot be proven.

Really? Subscriptions and citations prove you wrong.

I said reputations are subjective.

Yes you did. So? Does that magic that into reality?

So you believe in science told to you by someone you consider to have prestige or science that is reproducible? Interesting and it explains a lot.

Why are you talking to yourself?..oh nevermind, I didn't see that little strawman you were playing with.

It seems you can't even honestly consider the honest questions about the impact of papers and reputation of journals. A lowly irrelevant journal can easily have a paper that some interesting data and I've read some great little gems in smaller journals that were ignored by bigger journals.

But then, you can't even be honest with the fact that your little minority papers have no impact to the scientific community at large.

Have fun talking to your little figurine.

 

[zerospeaks]

Why are you talking to yourself?..oh nevermind, I didn't see that little strawman you were playing with.

I heard a debate once where Dr. Pigliucci allowed Kent hovind his straw mans, and then he walked them back through them and turned them on him. It worked.

Only time I ever heard Hovind stutturing. And *gasp silent.

 

[BenBurch]

What a huge load of steaming custard, PT. Pitiful.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I proved your point by showing that fraudulent science got published in Nature? Is that a joke?

Ah, the classic: Using the self correcting mechanism of science (its greatest strength) as an argument of its weakness.

 

[Poptech]

Wow, what an about face strawman with a set up for a moving goalpost. Bravo.

That is not a strawman. You made unsubstantiated statements. Reputation is subjective.

Reputation (defined) - "the opinion that people in general have about someone or something"

Subjective (defined) - "influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts"

Reputation = Opinion = Subjective

Really? I'd say objectively that Einstein's papers have extremely high impact since just about every physics grad student has read them while your blogs, opinions, posts are irrelevant.

That is still subjective and I am not talking about blogs, never have been.

Really? I though you said impact was subjective? How do you know they have had any impact at all? Is anyone reading them?

Impact is subjective and it is impossible to know how many people read something. I was responding to the objective argument for impact being based on citations.

So I ask again. Who is citing and using the papers you presented?

Why does it matter? Is impact now determined by your subjective criteria of whom is citing them?

Really? Subscriptions and citations prove you wrong.

What does subscriptions and citations prove other then popularity?

Why are you talking to yourself?..oh nevermind, I didn't see that little strawman you were playing with.

Again do you believe in science that is cited frequently or science that is reproducible?

It seems you can't even honestly consider the honest questions about the impact of papers and reputation of journals. A lowly irrelevant journal can easily have a paper that some interesting data and I've read some great little gems in smaller journals that were ignored by bigger journals.

But then, you can't even be honest with the fact that your little minority papers have no impact to the scientific community at large.

It seems you don't understand the definition of words and what is subjective or not. What is "irrelevant" or not is subjective. All you have are emotional arguments.

 

[BenBurch]

Ah, the classic: Using the self correcting mechanism of science (its greatest strength) as an argument of its weakness.

Funny, huh?

Point is, he is smart enough to know this, which makes it doubly dishonest.

Also, I spent some time reading some of those cites last night, he clearly hasn't, and so I know he has cited papers that make the opposite case from the one he thinks they do, or don't fall on either side of the issue.

For example. he has cited papers on paleoclimate that show, unsurprisingly, that CO2 sometimes trails the beginning of warming in a natural climate cycle. And this is what you would expect as the changes in the earth's orbit and other factors like vulcanism are what get us out of ancient ice ages, not the imposition of fossil CO2 by man. In a natural cycle the ball gets rolling by one of those other methods, and as the ice recedes, CO2 increases and helps it along. He is either too dishonest to admit, or too stupid to understand that, and he also denies that CO2 has any warming effect on the planet. In his world, if all the CO2 disappeared tomorrow, the planet would stay in the temperature range it is in now.

 

[Poptech]

But a track record of success is DATA. Sure you can say the data is interpreted subjectively. But we are looking at interpreting the data "after the fact" look at applications gained, fraudulent science exposed etc.... this is DATA, if you say confirmation of accuracy of application is subjective then we get into a whole knew ball of wax. Then 2+2 is subjective. And I wouldn't mind having that conversation sometime.

This is a separate argument and not what I am talking about. My point is that the validity of science has nothing to do with what journal it was published in. The mere fact that they published fraudulent science proves that publishing in nature as opposed to another journal does not make the science any more valid. So you declaration that only science published in "nature" matters has no merit.

Are you not doing that right now?

No, I am presenting overwhelming evidence that peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental and economic effects. It is a common misconception that no such papers exist.

 

[Poptech]

Indeed. But citations is not synonymous with popularity. Fail. Again.

So what is citations other than someone else choosing to reference another paper based on their opinion?

 

[Poptech]

Ah, the classic: Using the self correcting mechanism of science (its greatest strength) as an argument of its weakness.

More like the classic evidence that publishing something in the journal nature is irrelevant to it being valid science.

 

[BenBurch]

So what is citations other than someone else choosing to reference another paper based on their opinion?

Based on it relevance to their work, most usually. When you use other's work you reference it. Science is a field where we stand on the shoulders of giants, and as a field progresses it is not uncommon to see the papers at the foundation of an idea cited many hundreds of times. You also cite when you criticize other's work, so you can cite things the opposite of what you believe is the truth. An un-cited paper was not EVEN good enough to bother criticizing.

 

[mhaze]

Commentary? Uh, the OP is about peer-reviewed papers. (Or at least that's the topic it fails at.)

I suggest you contemplate this brief movie scene:

Hahaha! Movie scenes, now?

Yes, indeed the OP is about peer-reviewed papers.

So you have no rebuttal. Of course CATO is a prestigious and well recognized source. And many who go there have a long career in science or economics, and many, many published papers - before and after they affiliate with CATO.

So really, you have NO argument against CATO, do you?

No problem, it is only a minor point here that I have corrected you on.

 

[mhaze]

But a track record of success is DATA. Sure you can say the data is interpreted subjectively. But we are looking at interpreting the data "after the fact" look at applications gained, fraudulent science exposed etc.... this is DATA, if you say confirmation of accuracy of application is subjective then we get into a whole knew ball of wax. Then 2+2 is subjective. And I wouldn't mind having that conversation sometime.

I hope I am still making sense guys.

Indeed, DATA is what matters. And it is in the arena of DATA that "climate science" has been a dismal, abject failure.

However, if you look at the SKEPTICAL papers in climate science, you will find the data is clearly and honestly presented - available in an archive in full, immdediately downloadable from the internet. Yes, these are the papers in Poptech's list.

Now, if you go to the OTHER papers, those "mainstream climate science" papers, or to put it bluntly, the papers that JREF WARMERS FAVOR, we find curiously, that there oftentimes is a BIG PROBLEM with data availability or integrity.

Only one of dozens of such examples...

Yamal and the Divergence Problem




hahaha...LIKE those CAPITAL letters?

 

[Poptech]

Based on it relevance to their work, most usually.

The choice to cite or not to cite is purely based on opinion and irrelevant to the science.

For example. he has cited papers on paleoclimate that show, unsurprisingly, that CO2 sometimes trails the beginning of warming in a natural climate cycle. And this is what you would expect as the changes in the earth's orbit and other factors like vulcanism are what get us out of ancient ice ages, not the imposition of fossil CO2 by man. In a natural cycle the ball gets rolling by one of those other methods, and as the ice recedes, CO2 increases and helps it along. He is either too dishonest to admit, or too stupid to understand that, and he also denies that CO2 has any warming effect on the planet. In his world, if all the CO2 disappeared tomorrow, the planet would stay in the temperature range it is in now.

Yes of course something else causes the climate to heat up and then CO2 makes it worse and then something else of course stops it. The argument is not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether it is a climate driver, it is not.