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

[Tubbythin]

What is my argument? That peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects. Defending the science of any individual paper is irrelevant to my argument.


In the context of that paper, the author is critically important to defend his theory. Feel free to start a new topic on it and invite the author to participate, I would be more than willing to read the discussion.

If the author presence is "critically important" to defend the theory then the paper should never have passed peer review. Papers that pass peer review should be able to explain themselves without relying on there authors additional input. That's the purpose of a scientific journal, to illustrate to the world your work without the necessity of your presence.

 

[Belz...]

That a paper skeptical of quantum mechanics exists.

That doesn't answer my question. Where does that lead us ? Does that paper being "skeptical" of QM mean QM is false ? Or that we should be skeptical of QM ? Or is it even evidence that QM could be false ?

Same thing with global warming. You have a paper that is skeptical of it. Wonderful. Where does that lead us ?

 

[mhaze]

I see you did mention the environmental and economic effects. The "common myth" that you identify but struggle to find examples of is probably based on a quantitative study of published science questioning the reality of AGW. Nothing to do with the "environmental and economic effect", just the brutal science.

I disagree completely.

If anything, the economic arguments of the skeptic are far stronger because the common myth that "we must take action now" or "of course it's a good idea to mitigate the effects of AGW" are clear myths that do not stand up to any simple analysis.

So there most certainly are myths about AGW economic effects, and they certainly do need to be made note of.

 

[Poptech]

Global Warming Temperature Data Disappears (like magic)

Global Warming ate my data (The Register, UK)
The Dog Ate Global Warming (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" [...]

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language. [...]

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Nothing skeptical to see here!

The thread "Global Warming Temperature Data Disappears (like magic)" has been merged into this one. Do not start any new threads on Global Warming; use those that already exist. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[casebro]

AGW seems to be getting more and more un-falsifiable every day.

 

[Yoink]

Here's a link to the page where CRU explains why they can't share all the data they use. The explanation seems pretty obvious (much of it is proprietary data that national meteorology services charge for; obviously they don't want the agencies they release it to giving it away for free). You can only see something nefarious in this if you are so firmly persuaded that Global Warming is a conspiracy being foisted on the world by unscrupulous scientists (for utterly inexplicable reasons) that Occam's Razor is nothing more than a very ancient grooming tool to you.

 

[Reality Check]

If what Phil Jones states is correct (there is no raw data kept at the CRU) then this is bad science. Raw data should alweys be kept. However not all is lost. There is nothing to prevent a researcher from gathering the information again from the individual countries and constructing their own dataset. Or they could use NASA's GISSTEMP dataset.

The second news article needs better citation, e.g. it states that

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

But there is no citation to these "mainly from Third World countries" agreements. And why is "Third World" relevant?

The first news article states that the agreements are with "Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office".
According to correspondence from Phil Jones:

The NMSs

Germany, Bahrain, Oman, Algeria, Japan, Slovakia and Syria

Scientists/Institutes (data for these countries)

Mali, India, Pakistan, Poland, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of
the Congo (was Zaire),
Sudan and some Caribbean Islands.

These are the only ones I can find evidence for. I'm sure there were a few
others during the 1980s, but we have moved buildings twice since 1980.

It sounds like the CRU are following the politically safe route where if confidentiality agreements exist for some countries then it is safer to assume that they exist for all countries.

 

[CapelDodger]

I disagree completely.

If anything, the economic arguments of the skeptic are far stronger because the common myth that "we must take action now" or "of course it's a good idea to mitigate the effects of AGW" are clear myths that do not stand up to any simple analysis.

So there most certainly are myths about AGW economic effects, and they certainly do need to be made note of.

I was, of course, referring to the specific common myth alleged in the OP. A common myth with precious few examples given, merely PopTech' claim that it exists. For a comon myth it hides itself well.

The clear case for doing something about AGW is demonstated by the Coopenhagen Conference. It has stood up to the closest examination by people who really wish it wasn't so. Hence the Conference.

 

[Poptech]

John Kerry proves that this is a common myth. Like I said.

 

[Prometheus]

John Kerry proves that this is a common myth. Like I said.

So 1 senator's opinion = 'common myth'. Got it.

 

[Reality Check]

John Kerry proves that this is a common myth. Like I said.

John Kerry proves that he has not heard of any peer-reviewed dissenting papers (and he remembers that Al Gore's book says there are no such peer-reviewed papers). This does not support your assertion.

So lets see if this is a "common myth".
Let us say that in order for the myth to be common you need over 50% of people to have heard of it.
The Earth's population is 6.796 billion. Now all you need to do is get 3.398 billion statements that there are "no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects" !

A more practical method would be for you to cite a few of the many surveys that have been done on this question. You know: the surveys you used as evidence for your OP.

 

[CapelDodger]

John Kerry proves that this is a common myth. Like I said.

Has Kenneth Green provided the list yet?

Your "common myth" isn't what Sen Kerry was referring to anyway. Look again. But we'd appreciate Green's list as soon as its available. It shouldn't take long.

 

[Poptech]

So 1 senator's opinion = 'common myth'. Got it.

Yes a highly ranking member of the U.S. Senate and former U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004) repeating the myth is clear evidence it is common.

John Kerry proves that he has not heard of any peer-reviewed dissenting papers (and he remembers that Al Gore's book says there are no such peer-reviewed papers). This does not support your assertion.

Of course it does, it also adds Al Gore's book as more evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course it does, it also adds Al Gore's book as more evidence.

Not it is not.
Your anecdote is evidence that 1 person (John Kerry) believes the myth. He also believes that Al Gore's book states the same myth and so you assume that Al Gore still believes in the myth three years after the publication of his book..
The math is easy: 1 + 1 = 2.
Two people out of a population of 6.796 billion is not common. It is extremely rare.

 

[mhaze]

Not it is not.
Your anecdote is evidence that 1 person (John Kerry) believes the myth. He also believes that Al Gore's book states the same myth and so you assume that Al Gore still believes in the myth three years after the publication of his book..
The math is easy: 1 + 1 = 2.
Two people out of a population of 6.796 billion is not common. It is extremely rare.

Interesting. Let's check google, "myth of global warming".

2.7M results.

Well, it seems that the word "myth" and the phrase "global warming" are connected 2.7M times. More or less. Gee, that was easy.

Assuming that the goal here was to speculate on whether there is or is not a Myth, it would seem there is.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting. Let's check google, "myth of global warming".

2.7M results.

Well, it seems that the word "myth" and the phrase "global warming" are connected 2.7M times. More or less. Gee, that was easy.

Assuming that the goal here was to speculate on whether there is or is not a Myth, it would seem there is.

You may want to read the OP to see what myth is actually being referred to.

Lets check Google for the actual OP text: "Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects"

22,600 results. 78M results for just "global warming"

What does it tell us bout how common the myth is? Nothing. Gee that was easy !

Actually the OP is not about whether there is a myth. There is at least 1 person in the world who thinks that the OP myth is correct (John Kerry). That suggests that the myth exists. Or that John Kerry had been misinformed by his staff. Or that John Kerry meant peer-reviewed in the major journals, e.g. Nature. Or that John Kerry just made a mistake.

The OP asserts that there is a "common myth" (which is not the "myth of global warming"). There is no evidence presented that the "common myth" exists. Until such evdence is presented then this whole thread is akin to a straw man argument.

The problems with the "common myth" as stated by Poptech are:

1. AFAIK: Poptech has not stated what "common" means. It could be:
   • > 50% of the world's population.
   • > 50% of climate scientists.
   • > 50% of Poptech's friends.
   • something else.
2. AFAIK: Poptech has not given any evidence that the myth is common according to any definition of "common".
   • Where is his citaion of a survey of the world population?
   • Where is his citaion of a survey of climate scientists?
   • Where his his citation of any survey of a sample of any population?

What we are getting from Poptech seems to be unsuported assertions and anecdotal evidence. If he wants to list all of the people that believe in the "common myth" then this thread is going to really really long.

Only six billion seven hundred ninety-five million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-eight more people to quote, Poptech !

As an aside: I have not read Al Gore's book. Could someone confirm Kerry's statement about what Al Gore stated, i.e. that when the book was published (2007) there were no published, peer-reviewed papers that dissented from global warming?

 

[BenBurch]

Well, what is certainly true is that there are no recent, VALID papers disputing the A in AGW. None. Papers published by paid energy industry shills in journals of disputable reputation are not even worth considering.

 

[Prometheus]

You may want to read the OP to see what myth is actually being referred to.

<snip>

You mean read and understand something before making a knee-jerk response? Don't you think that would make it difficult to hold up the 'Right' end of the argument?

 

[CapelDodger]

Your anecdote is evidence that 1 person (John Kerry) believes the myth.

It's not even that. PopTech's myth is specified in his OP, but Sen Kerry was referring to something else entirely.

PopeTech's "common" myth is that there is no dissent about the detailed impact of AGW, nor (gawdelpus) the economic implications. Nobody would ever deny that these are very open subjects of discussion.

Sen Kerry was referring to the scientific consensus that 2C rise is the absolute limit without very great risk. Green has his "opinion" that it isn't. What Sen Kerry (and Al Gore before him) have asked for is published scientific argument to support that opinion.

Green said he would povide it. I await it eagerly. It's one thing to kick a PopTech's joke-list around, but the AEI will present us with a professional job. Just as soon as they get around to it. The weekend will obviously have delayed matters.

 

[mhaze]

Well, what is certainly true is that there are no recent, VALID papers disputing the A in AGW. None. Papers published by paid energy industry shills in journals of disputable reputation are not even worth considering.

No, that is obviously false.

As for the curious obsession on this thread with defining "common" so that the OP becomes false, let us look at actual dictionary definitions, instead of make up stuff:

• having no special distinction or quality; widely known or commonly encountered; average or ordinary or usual; "the common man"; "a common sailor"; "the common cold"; "a common nuisance"; "followed common procedure"; "it is common knowledge that she lives alone"; "the common housefly"; "a common ...
• common to or shared by two or more parties; "a common friend"; "the mutual interests of management and labor"
• being or characteristic of or appropriate to everyday language; "common parlance"; "a vernacular term"; "vernacular speakers"; "the vulgar tongue of the masses"; "the technical and vulgar names for an animal species"\

And thus we have "common myth". As can be seen, by any of the actual definitions, there is nothing to nitpik at in the phrase "common myth".

MMM MMM MMM