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

[CapelDodger]

Lest we forget, this is from the OP :

Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects.

"Various environmental and economic effects". No wonder PopTech has never found an example of this "common" myth.

 

[Poptech]

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.

Absolute Lies. Ben, you are unable to support any of this.

 

[CapelDodger]

Absolute Lies. Ben, you are unable to support any of this.

You can disprove a negative by giving an example. Give us one. Instead of just calling Ben a liar (which is only what we expect from you) show him to be wrong. It's not much to ask.

Any news on Green's references yet?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolute Lies. Ben, you are unable to support any of this.

The list in OP post #1 is prima facie evidence Ben's assertion is false.

Therefore, not only is there no burden of proof on Poptech to disprove the comment by Ben, but there is no defense possible of Ben's statement.

 

[lomiller]

Need I remind you that we have already established that Poptech’s list falls into 2 categories.

1) papers published in credible journals that do not back up his assertions
2) articles published in non-credible trade publications that has a reputation for printing outlandish and very poorly written papers.


The list therefore constitutes prima-facie evidence that there is little or no opposition to the notion that current warming is anthropogenic in legitimate scientific sources and that opposition to this notion isn’t based on science.

 

[macdoc]

The spectacular failure of the petition directed to members of the American Physical Society undertaken by deniers recently just underscores the mainstream climate science position.

Quote:

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison)

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/only-0-45-of-physicists-sign-denier-petition/

••••••

Moderator - this topic has been done to death and only serves Poptech's goal of sowing controversy through the topic header.

How about we get a real thread about climate science facts in moderated form as has been requested similar to the evolution facts in the sticky section up top.

 

[CapelDodger]

The list in OP post #1 is prima facie evidence Ben's assertion is false.

No it isn't. PopTech may claim that there are recent papers in there to falsify Ben's assertion but that's not evidence. Evidence would be an example.

Therefore, not only is there no burden of proof on Poptech to disprove the comment by Ben, but there is no defense possible of Ben's statement.

Regard it as an easy challenge then. Provide an example which shows Ben wrong. Or persuade PopTech to, if you can.

 

[Meed]

Need I remind you that we have already established that Poptech’s list falls into 2 categories.

1) papers published in credible journals that do not back up his assertions

As Poptech has clarified, any paper that "supports skepticism" counts. And the criteria for "supporting skepticism" are ridiculously low. For example, if a paper discusses the effects of anything other than greenhouse gasses on climate then it is "supporting skepticism" even if it does not dispute AGW and the author agrees with AGW.

Additionally any paper that "supports skepticism" of specific environmental or economic effects resulting from AGW counts.

In conclusion, since none of us deny that there are non-anthropogenic factors affecting global climate or that certain environmental and economic effects are difficult to predict with current data, Poptech's list is meaningless/pointless.

2) articles published in non-credible trade publications that has a reputation for printing outlandish and very poorly written papers.


The list therefore constitutes prima-facie evidence that there is little or no opposition to the notion that current warming is anthropogenic in legitimate scientific sources and that opposition to this notion isn’t based on science.

 

[fsol]

Need I remind you that we have already established that Poptech’s list falls into 2 categories.

1) papers published in credible journals that do not back up his assertions
2) articles published in non-credible trade publications that has a reputation for printing outlandish and very poorly written papers.


The list therefore constitutes prima-facie evidence that there is little or no opposition to the notion that current warming is anthropogenic in legitimate scientific sources and that opposition to this notion isn’t based on science.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/