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.
They have always been in the same place. The problem is alarmists want to lump those who believe CO2 can contribute (in some way - however minor) to temperatures with their alarmist fantasy of doomsday and required, immediate government intervention. AGW skeptics either reject that CO2 can cause or contribute to climate change or is not worth worrying about.
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 clearly says ", which
probably include an increasing trend
superposed..." which is an assumption. The conclusion of the paper is clear...
", both geomagnetic activity and global surface temperature anomaly can be linked to cyclic changes in the solar activity. The interlinked variations in the solar magnetic activity and in the solar irradiance cause effects that can be observed both in the Earth's biosphere and in the electromagnetic environment."
Solar activity directly affects the earth's climate and temperatures.
Please tell me how those papers rebut Lockwood and Frohlich and why the arguments in the rebuttals are scientifically sound.
I provided the papers refuting Lockwood and Frohlich, you are welcome to read or ignore them. If you do not feel like reading them, that is your choice.
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,
E&E is an
academic journal.
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.
Yes, you are very good at cherry picking in an attempt to discredit the list.
Regulation = 4 papers
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics = 1 paper
South African Journal of Science = 1 paper
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences = 1 paper
Public Administration Review = 1 paper (excellent paper BTW)
Social Studies of Science = 1 paper
The handful of economic journals cover the the economic effects of man-made climate change in regards to political action. I clearly stated this at the beginning and in no way implied they were making an argument against the science. These are mostly arguments against positions in the IPCC's WGIII section of the AR4 report or similar alarmist economic positions.
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.
Replies are not included in the paper count and are provided because alarmist consistently leave them out when disputing a paper. "Letters" are just the wording some journals use for research papers. Commentary in most journals is peer-reviewed as well.
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.
Prove it - which papers are not yet published? I've already covered the one that was brought up before and it was not included in the paper count but listed as it is likely to be published and is currently undergoing peer-review. I will make an annotation to clear that one up.
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.
I've done the hard work. So far no one has been able to disprove my original position. Unsupported claims have been made but nothing substantiated.
The relevance of a paper's age is relative to the discipline. In mathematics, a 15 year old paper would be considered recent. But mathematics is a truly ancient discipline, and the foundations of modern mathematics have been in place for hundreds of years. Compare this to climatology, a fledgling discipline which is still too small to get its own department at most institutions. 15 years represents a significant chunk of the very existence of the field. When I did literature critiques in undergrad climate science courses, I was told not to review papers over ten years old because they are likely obsolete. So you see, the age of a paper is very important in climate science.
Someone's opinion on what is obsolete is irrelevant to whether something really is or not. In science the age of a paper is irrelevant, what matters is the science.
