Notices
Results 1 to 75 of 75

Thread: Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW

  1. #1 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Several posters here have often remarked that there are few or no research papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW. Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers. Recent events have made it easier to be a skeptic so I suspect this list will be growing at an increased rate in the coming months.

    Edited to make it more clear that the list is of peer-reviewed papers (of several types including research papers).


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    A great many of posted articles either aren't peer-reviewed by atmospheric scientist (e.g. articles in steel making journals), or not peer-reviewed at all (e.g. conference proceedings, editorials etc)

    Perhaps you should change the title to "Written Stuff which supports the skeptical view."


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    The first link:

    Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
    Does not seem at first blush to be skeptical of AGW, but rather provides an alternative temperature structure.

    The second link is a response to the first article.

    The third link is an editorial, not research. Furthermore, the author:

    Between December 1998[1] and September 2001[2] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[3]

    Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]
    Et cetera.
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Yes Lynx the included text that goes along with the links describes the fact that in addition to the peer-reviewed papers there are links to responses and related articles. Try to keep up.

    Do you have a point you are attempting to make? Are you suggesting there are errors, that the list is not 700? You should read the footnotes at the bottom.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The first link:


    Does not seem at first blush to be skeptical of AGW, but rather provides an alternative temperature structure.

    .....

    Et cetera.
    the first supports a key aspect of the debate about the extent of warming. Several of the links are there for context as the article explains but they are not counted in the list of 700 peer-reviewed articles.

    Are you suggesting that these reviewed articles should all be rejected?
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Your information certainly illustrates that skeptical viewpoints can be published - and I am saying that what has been published, as evidenced by your link, is in no way comparable to the bulk of scientific data on climate that is published daily. For example, 3780 articles on anthropogenic climate change this year alone:

    google scholar link
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Do you have a point you are attempting to make? Are you suggesting there are errors, that the list is not 700?
    The suggestion is that you may wish to modify this:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    several posters here have often remarked that there are few or no research papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW. Here is a list of 700.
    to reflect with reasonable accuracy the reality of the situation.

    In the first ten papers listed, reasonably expected to be among the best, exactly one is a peer reviewed research paper that supports a skeptical view of any aspect of the consensus on AGW, and that one just quarrels with some of the modeling of the upper levels of tropical atmosphere.

    Does anyone know why the number 700 has turned up more than once in these things?
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Your information certainly illustrates that skeptical viewpoints can be published - and I am saying that what has been published, as evidenced by your link, is in no way comparable to the bulk of scientific data on climate that is published daily. For example, 3780 articles on anthropogenic climate change this year alone:
    I'm not sure we can equate volume of published papers to quality or quantity of data, evidence or conclusions.

    Furthermore it misses the point which is that several posters here (not you though) have claimed there is little or no published papers supporting the skeptical view. These claims are false. They should be more thorough to check facts before making unsupported claims.
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura

    Does anyone know why the number 700 has turned up more than once in these things?
    I'm curious. "700 club?" Reference to the 700 angels singing their praises to Allah when a Shia travels to Karbella? What?

    Having looked though perhaps a dozen actually peer reviewed (of the first hundred or so), none were clearly support of the skeptical view--in fact many supported the opposite conclusion or were just neutral.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Based on your opinion of the papers' conclusions, we must be closer aligned than I thought. I suspect you had a point to make with your post, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    A great many of posted articles either aren't peer-reviewed by atmospheric scientist
    Irrelevant as many scientists in the "climate" field are not atmospheric scientists,

    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
    James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
    James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
    Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
    John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
    Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics
    Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
    Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
    Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
    Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
    Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
    Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
    Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    (e.g. articles in steel making journals)
    Iron and Steel technology (1 paper) is a peer-reviewed publication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    or not peer-reviewed at all (e.g. conference proceedings, editorials etc)
    Conference proceedings and editorials can be peer-reviewed.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Does not seem at first blush to be skeptical of AGW, but rather provides an alternative temperature structure.
    Since the conclusions show a warmer MWP then today this supports skepticism of the current warming be unusual or caused by man.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The second link is a response to the first article.
    This is explicitly stated,

    "Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The third link is an editorial, not research.
    Strawman. This is not a resource of only peer-reviewed research papers, editorials can be peer-reviewed. Though you will find an extensive amount of research papers.

    Balling...
    Quoted from an unreliable site,

    Sourcewatch

    $$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

    - Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
    These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

    As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

    ...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.
    - Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
    An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

    In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]

    CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

    The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."

    An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
    - Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)
    The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

    Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The suggestion is that you may wish to modify this: to reflect with reasonable accuracy the reality of the situation.
    I see nothing to modify as the original context is accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    In the first ten papers listed, reasonably expected to be among the best,
    Silly to assume as they are merely alphabetical, except for the the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Ray and Solar sections which are chronological.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    ...exactly one is a peer reviewed research paper that supports a skeptical view of any aspect of the consensus on AGW,

    [...]

    Having looked though perhaps a dozen actually peer reviewed (of the first hundred or so), none were clearly support of the skeptical view--in fact many supported the opposite conclusion or were just neutral.
    Untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Does anyone know why the number 700 has turned up more than once in these things?
    I got tired of adding papers and double checking links?
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Furthermore it misses the point which is that several posters here (not you though) have claimed there is little or no published papers supporting the skeptical view. These claims are false. They should be more thorough to check facts before making unsupported claims.
    One of the exact reasons the list was created, well said.
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Are you maintaining that the 700 number is accurate?
    Yes, or no?
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Are you maintaining that the 700 number is accurate?
    Yes, or no?
    Of course. Why else would it say 700?
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    A great many of posted articles either aren't peer-reviewed by atmospheric scientist
    Irrelevant as many scientists in the "climate" field are not atmospheric scientists,

    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
    James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
    James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
    Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
    John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
    Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics
    Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
    Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
    Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
    Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
    Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
    Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
    Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
    Because you are new here, it might be worth a few minutes to describe the context of peer review process. Degrees in atmospheric science include meteorology and climatology. Since atmospheric science includes physics there are many physicist who are practicing atmospheric scientist researches. Other educational paths also sometimes become practicing atmospheric scientist--including some of the above. Even degrees usually isn't enough to become a reviewer in most cases--reviewers almost always have a distinguished record of publication and contribution to their respective fields. Others on the list while noteworthy aren't practicing atmospheric scientist--Lovelock for example has only published one peer-review research paper about atmospheric science; his efforts are mostly on bridging the gap between science research and the public on broad environmental issues --something more scientist should do (a topic probably worthy of another thread).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    (e.g. articles in steel making journals)
    Iron and Steel technology (1 paper) is a peer-reviewed publication.
    The paper wasn't' a research paper (limiting it's qualitative value on the list), and it's quite unlikely the Iron and Steel technology journal had anyone available willing or able to provide a credible full-peer review about climate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    or not peer-reviewed at all (e.g. conference proceedings, editorials etc)
    Conference proceedings and editorials can be peer-reviewed.
    [/quote]
    Conference proceeding in atmospheric sciences seldom go through anything approaching the peer-review process--I believe this is common practice in other fields as well.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Are you maintaining that the 700 number is accurate?
    Yes, or no?
    Of course. Why else would it say 700?
    Here are the possibilities.
    1. Typographical error.
    2. Error of fact.
    3. Attempt at deceit.

    Since others have indicated that some papers have been inappropriately included in the total one is left to ponder which of the three explanations applies here.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Degrees in atmospheric science include meteorology and climatology.
    Yes I am aware of this, which is why none of the listed have either degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Since atmospheric science includes physics there are many physicist who are practicing atmospheric scientist researches.
    Please provide the objective procedure to determine if someone is a "practicing" atmospheric scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The paper wasn't' a research paper (limiting it's qualitative value on the list), and it's quite unlikely the Iron and Steel technology journal had anyone available willing or able to provide a credible full-peer review about climate.
    Where was it stated on the list that it was a research paper?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    and it's quite unlikely the Iron and Steel technology journal had anyone available willing or able to provide a credible full-peer review about climate.
    The peer-review process does not use publication staff members for review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Conference proceeding in atmospheric sciences seldom go through anything approaching the peer-review process--I believe this is common practice in other fields as well.
    Some do and there is exactly one conference paper on the list.

    AIP Conference Proceedings is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0094-243X)
    - EBSCO; AIP Conference Proceedings: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Here are the possibilities.
    1. Typographical error.
    2. Error of fact.
    3. Attempt at deceit.

    Since others have indicated that some papers have been inappropriately included in the total one is left to ponder which of the three explanations applies here.
    Others have made inaccurate statements so the answer is none apply.
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Furthermore it misses the point which is that several posters here (not you though) have claimed there is little or no published papers supporting the skeptical view. These claims are false
    Not "published" - peer reviewed research that supports the public claims of AGW "skeptics".

    The sort you claimed, in the OP, made up this entire list of 700, and upon inspection seem to be very little of it if any.

    The amount of effort and publicity put into these garbage lists (this is the third or fourth in the past couple of years) in apparent attempts to cover an obvious hole in the argument, is much better evidence of a lack of support than a presence of it.

    btw: I knew I'd heard that number before, so I ran a quick Google on the past couple of years:

    700 scientists on global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24116218/7...inority-Report

    700 scientists on Darwin: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021402.html

    700 scientists on biodefense: http://www.naturalnews.com/005522.html

    700 scientists on Canadian pollution: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/sc...w-harming.html

    700 scientists on animal testing: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...ck-animal.html

    Damned if I know what's going on. It's not all fraudulent.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Not "published" - peer reviewed research that supports the public claims of AGW "skeptics".
    Why the strawman? The word "research" is never used by the people making the claim or in the list. Regardless many of the papers are research papers but not all.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The sort you claimed, in the OP, made up this entire list of 700, and upon inspection seem to be very little of it if any.
    Untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The amount of effort and publicity put into these garbage lists (this is the third or fourth in the past couple of years) in apparent attempts to cover an obvious hole in the argument, is much better evidence of a lack of support than a presence of it.
    There is nothing "garbage" about the list. This is actually only the second one that I am aware of and it is much more thorough and extensive. As the OP has demonstrated it is evidence disproving a myth that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing AGW or the environmental or economic effects of it.

    When the list was at 500 papers people were comparing it to other lists of 500 papers. What will you do when it is not 700 anymore?
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The paper wasn't' a research paper (limiting it's qualitative value on the list), and it's quite unlikely the Iron and Steel technology journal had anyone available willing or able to provide a credible full-peer review about climate.
    Where was it stated on the list that it was a research paper?
    That would be my mistake. Poptech. I described the list in my orignial post as research papers. I used this word even though I knew they were not all research papers and should have been more complete in my description. Sorry for the error. This forum is very unforgiving of poor word choice.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    That would be my mistake. Poptech. I described the list in my orignial post as research papers. I used this word even though I knew they were not all research papers and should have been more complete in my description. Sorry for the error. This forum is very unforgiving of poor word choice.
    Ah, fair enough, yes the list is merely of "peer-reviewed papers", while many are research papers not all are, some are review papers but your statement makes no mention that they all are either. You simply are stating they exist and used the 700 as a reference. Your statement is accurate as presented. The semantic argument they are using is for obfuscation.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The amount of effort and publicity put into these garbage lists (this is the third or fourth in the past couple of years) in apparent attempts to cover an obvious hole in the argument, is much better evidence of a lack of support than a presence of it.
    There is nothing "garbage" about the list. This is actually only the second one that I am aware of and it is much more thorough and extensive. As the OP has demonstrated it is evidence disproving a myth that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing AGW or the environmental or economic effects of it.

    When the list was at 500 papers people were comparing it to other lists of 500 papers. What will you do when it is not 700 anymore?
    Don't worry too much about responding to iceaura's critiques. I am quite sure most readers can see them for the rambling straw man and non-sequiters they are. How the name or number diminishes the credibility is beyond me as is the process used to conclude the list is garbage.
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    There is nothing "garbage" about the list. This is actually only the second one that I am aware of and it is much more thorough and extensive. As the OP has demonstrated it is evidence disproving a myth that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing AGW or the environmental or economic effects of it.
    There is no "myth" that papers of the sort listed there do not exist.

    Everybody knows, and says, that lots of garbage editorials and irrelevant publications misrepresented as significant exist, especially in journals funded by corporate fossil fuel interests.

    That's not news, and not surprising. These published items are not "peer reviewed" papers that support the claims of AGW "skeptics", however.

    And the OP description has not been modified to reflect the reality of what's in that list.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    You simply are stating they exist and used the 700 as a reference. Your statement is accurate as presented.
    As far as anyone else can see, the statement is wildly wrong - far from 700, no one has yet found even 7 papers in that list that resemble the OP description.

    If you have found some, perhaps you could point them out?
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Everybody knows, and says, that lots of garbage editorials and irrelevant publications misrepresented as significant exist, especially in journals funded by corporate fossil fuel interests.
    You seem to be confused many of the publications are research papers. I take it all these journals are funded by corporate fossil fuel interests now,

    Advances in Geosciences
    Advances in Global Change Research
    Advances in Space Research
    Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
    Agricultural Water Management
    Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
    AIP Conference Proceedings
    Ambio
    American Journal of Botany
    American Scientist
    Annales Geophysicae
    Annals of Glaciology
    Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
    Applied Energy
    Aquatic Botany
    Arctic and Alpine Research
    Area
    Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
    Astronomical Notes
    Astronomy & Geophysics
    Astrophysics and Space Science
    Astrophysics and Space Science Library
    Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
    Atmospheric Environment
    British Medical Journal (BMJ)
    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
    Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
    Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
    Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
    Central European Journal of Physics
    Chemical Innovation
    Climate Dynamics
    Climate of the Past
    Climate Research
    Climatic Change
    Comptes Rendus Geosciences
    Contemporary South Asia
    Current Opinion in Biotechnology
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters
    Ecological Complexity
    Ecological Modelling
    Ecological Monographs
    Ecology
    Economic Analysis and Policy
    Economics Bulletin
    Emerging Infectious Diseases
    Energy
    Energy & Environment
    Energy Fuels
    Energy Policy
    Energy Sources
    Environmental and Experimental Botany
    Environmental Conservation
    Environmental Geology
    Environmental Geosciences
    Environmental Health Perspectives
    Environmental Politics
    Environmental Research
    Environmental Science & Policy
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research
    Environmental Software
    Environmetrics
    Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
    Futures
    Geografiska Annaler
    Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
    GeoJournal
    Geology
    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
    Geophysical Research Letters
    Geoscience Canada
    Global and Planetary Change
    Global Biogeochemical Cycles
    Global Change Biology
    Global Environmental Change
    GSA Today
    Hydrological Sciences Journal
    Il Nuovo Cimento C
    Interfaces
    International Journal of Biometeorology
    International Journal of Climatology
    International Journal of Environmental Studies
    International Journal of Forecasting
    International Journal of Global Warming
    International Journal of Modern Physics B
    International Journal of Remote Sensing
    International Quarterly for Asian Studies
    International Social Science Journal
    Irish Astronomical Journal
    Irrigation and Drainage
    Iron & Steel Technology
    Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
    Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
    Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
    Journal of Chemical Education
    Journal of Climate
    Journal of Coastal Research
    Journal of Environmental Sciences
    Journal of Environmental Quality
    Journal of Forestry
    Journal of Fusion Energy
    Journal of Geophysical Research
    Journal of Information Ethics
    Journal of Lake Sciences
    Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
    Journal of Paleolimnology
    Journal of Plant Physiology
    Journal of Scientific Exploration
    Journal of the American Water Resources Association
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
    Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
    Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
    La Chimica e l'Industria
    Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
    Leadership and Management in Engineering
    Malaria Journal
    Marine Geology
    Marine Pollution Bulletin
    Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
    Meteorologische Zeitschrift
    Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
    Moscow University Physics Bulletin
    Natural Hazards
    Natural Hazards Review
    Nature
    Nature Biotechnology
    Nature Geoscience
    New Astronomy
    New Concepts In Global Tectonics
    New Literary History
    New Phytologist
    New Zealand Geographer
    New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
    Nordic Hydrology
    Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
    Oceanologica Acta
    Paleoceanography
    Paleontological Journal
    Physical Geography
    Physical Review E
    Physical Review Letters
    Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
    Physics Letters A
    Physics Reports
    Physics Today
    Planetary and Space Science
    Plant, Cell & Environment
    Plant Ecology
    Plant Physiology
    PLoS Biology
    Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
    Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering
    Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
    Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
    Proceedings of the Royal Society A
    Progress in Physical Geography
    Public Administration Review
    Pure and Applied Geophysics
    Quaternary International
    Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
    Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
    Quaternary Research
    Quaternary Science Reviews
    Regulation
    Risk Analysis
    Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
    Science
    Science of the Total Environment
    Science, Technology & Human Values
    Scientia Horticulturae
    Social Studies of Science
    Society
    Soil Science
    Solar Physics
    South African Journal of Science
    Space Science Reviews
    Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
    Surveys in Geophysics
    Technology
    Tellus A
    The Astrophysical Journal
    The Cato Journal
    The Electricity Journal
    The Holocene
    The Independent Review
    The Lancet
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases
    The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
    The Quarterly Review of Biology
    The Review of Economics and Statistics
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology
    Topics in Catalysis
    Waste Management
    Water Resources Research
    Weather
    Weather and Forecasting
    World Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    These published items are not "peer reviewed" papers that support the claims of AGW "skeptics", however.
    Of course they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    And the OP description has not been modified to reflect the reality of what's in that list.
    There is no need as what was stated was accurate. He made no claim that all the papers were research only that they were on the list and they are extensively.
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    You seem to be confused many of the publications are research papers.
    Those apparently don't support the "skeptics" - at least, as far as I can find in a quick scan of a few dozen.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    He made no claim that all the papers were research only that they were on the list and they are extensively.
    He claimed that the list was of lots (he said 700, but we won't hold him to that) of peer reviewed research papers that supported the claims of AGW "skeptics".

    I looked at some of the list, the very first items where one would expect to find the best case for its argument, and didn't see a clear case of even one.

    So if you want to call the difference between "700" and "can't find any" still within the realm of "accurate", what you need to do is find a lot of papers that match the OP description, buried in that list.

    Good luck.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Those apparently don't support the "skeptics" - at least, as far as I can find in a quick scan of a few dozen.
    No they all do. Your "scan" was based on your flawed subjective definition of "support". Based on the comments so far I suspect some semantic based fantasy method was used.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    He claimed that the list was of lots (he said 700, but we won't hold him to that) of peer reviewed research papers that supported the claims of AGW "skeptics".
    He explicity said, "Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers." - no where did he say all 700 were research papers. Please provide a quote of where he made this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    I looked at some of the list, the very first items where one would expect to find the best case for its argument, and didn't see a clear case of even one.
    Are you not able to read my comments? The papers are in alphabetical order.

    Your inability to understand why a paper supports skepticism of AGW or the economic or environmental effects of is not my concern. I've seen absurd arguments but this is a new low.
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    He explicity said, "Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers." - no where did he say all 700 were research papers.
    Here is the OP:
    Several posters here have often remarked that there are few or no research papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW. Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers.
    Now if there was no attempt being made to reply to the "remark" about research papers, then I am happy to rest my case. There are certainly a lot of non-research publications - essays, editorials, overviews, etc, - that support the "skeptics".

    They lack support in fact or reason, but that would not be the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    Are you not able to read my comments? The papers are in alphabetical order.
    - - - -

    Your inability to understand why a paper supports skepticism of AGW or the economic or environmental effects of is not my concern.
    So find lots of peer reviewed research papers that support the claims of the AGW "skeptics", buried in that list, and bail cypress out from his "exaggeration".

    Nothin' but diddly, as far as I can find - just like the last list of 700 papers, and the last petition of 700 scientist "skeptics". But you assert otherwise. Prove it.

    And quote me, not poster Fox, under my name - no big deal for me, but he might be taking things amiss.
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Furthermore it misses the point which is that several posters here (not you though) have claimed there is little or no published papers supporting the skeptical view. These claims are false
    Not "published" - peer reviewed research that supports the public claims of AGW "skeptics".

    The sort you claimed, in the OP, made up this entire list of 700, and upon inspection seem to be very little of it if any.

    The amount of effort and publicity put into these garbage lists (this is the third or fourth in the past couple of years) in apparent attempts to cover an obvious hole in the argument, is much better evidence of a lack of support than a presence of it.

    btw: I knew I'd heard that number before, so I ran a quick Google on the past couple of years:

    700 scientists on global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24116218/7...inority-Report

    700 scientists on Darwin: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021402.html

    700 scientists on biodefense: http://www.naturalnews.com/005522.html

    700 scientists on Canadian pollution: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/sc...w-harming.html

    700 scientists on animal testing: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...ck-animal.html

    Damned if I know what's going on. It's not all fraudulent.
    It's the smallest reasonable number that rounds up to "about 1000." That's my guess.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Poptech, Really don't worry too much about Iceaura. The poster never conceeds any point regardless of how clear. Iceaura insists on proof or evidence and then refuses to accept it. I am certain most other readers can see through the errors as clearly as you and I.

    I accepted responsibility for the unclear prose in the original post. I know better since this group will latch on the weakest of issues in order to delude themselves into thinking one hasn't made as strong a point as one has and in the hope nobody notices the real issue.


    Do yourself a favor and ignore the drivel.
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    And... yet again... cypress attacks the person when his arguments are shown false instead of showing where said challenges fail. Good times.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Here is the OP:
    Several posters here have often remarked that there are few or no research papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW. Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers.
    Now if there was no attempt being made to reply to the "remark" about research papers, then I am happy to rest my case.
    Now you are not even following your own incorrect semantic argument. He properly used the word "research" in his argument but never said there were 700 "research" papers in the list. He said, "Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers." He just implied they were within the list. Seeing how this would be taken out of context he has went out of his way to further clarify this with an update. So either way this is now a moot point. Asking for clarification is one thing, continuing to make it an issue is being desperate.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    There are certainly a lot of non-research publications - essays, editorials, overviews, etc, - that support the "skeptics".
    Which peer-reviewed publication on the list is labeled an editorial or essay? There are reviews and appraisals as well as many research papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    So find lots of peer reviewed research papers that support the claims of the AGW "skeptics", buried in that list, and bail cypress out from his "exaggeration".
    I am not going to list them all but here is a sample with their replies to comments,

    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    - Craig Loehle


    - Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
    - Craig Loehle


    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


    - Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
    (Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
    - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


    - An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
    (Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
    - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
    - Anastasios A. Tsonis et al.


    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


    - Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
    - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


    - A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
    - Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    - David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


    An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
    - Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider


    - Correction to "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere" (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 14, January 2010)
    - Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider


    Analysing Hydrometeorological Time Series for Evidence of Climatic Change (PDF)
    (Nordic Hydrology, Volume 24, Number 2-3, pp. 135–150, 1993)
    - Geoff Kite


    Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
    - Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger


    Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    - David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels


    Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April 2002)
    - Richard S. Lindzen


    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
    - Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


    ect... If you cannot figure this out then maybe you are looking at a different list.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    just like the last list of 700 papers,
    Please provide a link to this last list of 700 papers.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And... yet again... cypress attacks the person when his arguments are shown false instead of showing where said challenges fail. Good times.
    Prove which arguments were demonstrated to be true.

    I can play the game of prove every silly challenge too if you wish.
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Poptech - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're relatively new here, and only have 13 posts under your belt. However, my comment was in response to a much broader issue with cypress and his posts to this site. You can't treat these posts as if they happen in a vacuum.

    If you guys want to pretend that human actions are not resulting in climate change, then be my guest. You can believe in leprechauns, too, for all I care.
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech

    AIP Conference Proceedings is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0094-243X)
    - EBSCO; AIP Conference Proceedings: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)
    That's an excellent link.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    If you guys want to pretend that human actions are not resulting in climate change, then be my guest. You can believe in leprechauns, too, for all I care.
    while I understand your frustration I have to say that I care. The attitudes of the likes of cypress - and it seems poptech - are endangering the futures of my children, grandchildren and generations yet unborn. I take that as a personal threat.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    If you guys want to pretend that human actions are not resulting in climate change, then be my guest. You can believe in leprechauns, too, for all I care.
    This is interesting, we have a thread discussing peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of and you jump to your opinion on climate change and if people don't agree with you they must believe in mystical creatures. Does this sort of silly argument work with the people you usually talk to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    while I understand your frustration I have to say that I care. The attitudes of the likes of cypress - and it seems poptech - are endangering the futures of my children, grandchildren and generations yet unborn. I take that as a personal threat.
    Excuse me while I try to stop laughing. This sort of ridiculous hysteria just encourages me to keep going debunking it.
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    He properly used the word "research" in his argument but never said there were 700 "research" papers in the list. He said, "Here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed papers." He just implied they were within the list.
    The false "implication", if we give him extraordinary benefit of the doubt and quit calling it a claim, was the entire basis of his post, central to his point.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    I am not going to list them all but here is a sample with their replies to comments,
    Never mind the "replies to comments" - we need lots and lots of peer reviewed and published research papers whose findings support the claims of AGW skeptics. That was the claim - that such papers existed in impressive numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    So find lots of peer reviewed research papers that support the claims of the AGW "skeptics", buried in that list, and bail cypress out from his "exaggeration".

    I am not going to list them all but here is a sample with their replies to comments,
    Your refined sample is still, as is the main list, larded with stuff that either isn't peer reviewed research or doesn't support the claims of AGW skeptics. C'mon - it's beginning to look as though you guys don't even know what actual supporting research looks like.

    Let's give this project the benefit of the doubt, and check out item number one of the condensed sample list - the best of the best, sir, to quote MIB - an actual published paper in an apparently scientific journal of some kind:

    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    - Craig Loehle
    The publication:

    http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm A quick scan of its editorial review board reveals no one with visible credentials showing the ability to "peer review" the paper linked.

    It also reveals such members as the disreputable and discredited Fred Singer, Willie Soon, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)"[10]
    - - - - -

    Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

    When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nd_Environment
    The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.
    A social science journal not listed in the ISI, with known industry shills (Singer, Moon) on its editorial board, cryptic and unmentioned funding, and a record of generating complaints from actual scientists who have published in it in the past.

    The paper:

    linked (here: http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025) is a statistical manipulation of paleontological temperature proxies by a single author with only tangential credentials in a related field, based on eighteen sites not well distributed for his argument (mostly dependent on North Atlantic patterns) and even then with results not clearly supporting the claims of AGW skeptics.

    We have him justifying his creation of peaks where others with more experience found noise, for example, by observing that 100 year standard deviations in hypothetical dating efforts over a "geologic" scale were not unusual - without specifically locating these standard deviations in the studies he actually used, and without apparently considering that he was finding multiple peaks in a time span of less than 2000 years - not exactly "geological".

    Calling this a borderline rejection, and rejecting everything equally or less fitting the OP claims, how many papers would be left in the list?
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Your information certainly illustrates that skeptical viewpoints can be published - and I am saying that what has been published, as evidenced by your link, is in no way comparable to the bulk of scientific data on climate that is published daily. For example, 3780 articles on anthropogenic climate change this year alone:

    google scholar link
    Whilst you have been arguing over these 700 publications, presumably because this is seen to be "a large number," the number of returns on the same search string as entered three days ago (anthropogenic climate change) on google scholar now returns 3930, or 250 more articles than were returned 3 days ago.

    google scholar link
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And... yet again... cypress attacks the person when his arguments are shown false instead of showing where said challenges fail. Good times.
    You too are a piece of work. Note that my response had two parts. Part one was a conclusion that iceaura does not accept facts that contradict his opinions. It was based on observations over months of discussions with iceaura.

    Part two addressed the challenge posed by iceaura where he is keying off my choice and use of the word research. I did address his complaint and explained how his challenge was based on a weak complaint of my prose.

    In a later post to poptech you say your comment about me was based on a broader issue you have with my posts but you seem to concede to poptech this comment about this particular post is not defendable. Thanks for that. It was not defendable as I did in fact address his issue.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura

    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    So find lots of peer reviewed research papers that support the claims of the AGW "skeptics", buried in that list, and bail cypress out from his "exaggeration".

    I am not going to list them all but here is a sample with their replies to comments,
    Your refined sample is still, as is the main list, larded with stuff that either isn't peer reviewed research or doesn't support the claims of AGW skeptics. C'mon - it's beginning to look as though you guys don't even know what actual supporting research looks like.
    First off I wouldn't expect one such as you who is drunk from AWG cool-aid to be a good judge of what qualifies as evidence for the alternate view. Second the original post was that many here claim there are few or no peer-reviewed research papers. Now none is zero and a few are 3-6. Here is a list that contains far more than a few. They are peer-reviewed and published. I made no assessment of the quality and therefore do not need to have a pointless argument with you about the quality though I find them to be on par with other peer-reviewed papers.

    The point is those who have made these claims about no or only a few peer-reviewed papers are incorrect. Those here who are interested in using a list like this as a reference, I encourage you to have a look.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The false "implication", if we give him extraordinary benefit of the doubt and quit calling it a claim, was the entire basis of his post, central to his point.
    His point has been made and verified.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Never mind the "replies to comments" - we need lots and lots of peer reviewed and published research papers whose findings support the claims of AGW skeptics. That was the claim - that such papers existed in impressive numbers.
    There are over 700 peer-reviewed papers that support the claims of AGW skeptics. I simply provided a sample of research papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Your refined sample is still, as is the main list, larded with stuff that either isn't peer reviewed research or doesn't support the claims of AGW skeptics. C'mon - it's beginning to look as though you guys don't even know what actual supporting research looks like.
    Wrong, they are all research papers and support the claims of AGW skeptics. It is beginning to look like you just like to make absurd declarations.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Let's give this project the benefit of the doubt, and check out item number one of the condensed sample list - the best of the best, sir, to quote MIB - an actual published paper in an apparently scientific journal of some kind:
    Where was it stated this was the best of the best? You seem obsessed with fabricating strawman arguments. I simply quickly copy and pasted a handful of research papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm A quick scan of its editorial review board reveals no one with visible credentials showing the ability to "peer review" the paper linked.
    You have fully demonstrated you have no remote clue about peer-reviewed publications and thus invalidated any further "analysis" by yourself. So from here on out you opinion on all things peer-reviewed is worthless.

    The simple fact that you do not have the elementary knowledge that the editorial board of journals do not peer-review the papers shows everyone who knows how the process how little you really know. Thank you for discrediting yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    It also reveals such members as the disreputable and discredited Fred Singer, Willie Soon, etc.
    Neither is disreputable or discredited.

    S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, First Director, National Weather Satellite Center, Former Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Willie H. Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)"
    Funny you do not quote the rest of wikipedia and instead looked to cherry pick anything you could to try and discredit the journal. Pielke Jr. does not even consider himself a skeptic and his opinion is just that.

    ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
    Looks like you cherry picked wikipedia again!

    Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen
    My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

    I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

    The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

    I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

    In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

    - Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The paper: ...by a single author with only tangential credentials in a related field,
    Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Calling this a borderline rejection, and rejecting everything equally or less fitting the OP claims, how many papers would be left in the list?
    Sorry you have demonstrated that you do not have the basic knowledge to reject anything.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    First off I wouldn't expect one such as you who is drunk from AWG cool-aid to be a good judge of what qualifies as evidence for the alternate view.
    He has invalidated any credibility he claimed to have by making assumptions that anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the peer-review process would never make. His analysis on peer-reviewed publications is thus worthless. He is a poser bloviating on a forum and has no real knowledge on anything. We can now safely ignore his replies.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    skeptical viewpoints can be published - and I am saying that what has been published, as evidenced by your link, is in no way comparable to the bulk of scientific data on climate that is published daily. For example, 3780 articles on anthropogenic climate change this year alone:

    google scholar link
    And? That just means the word appears somewhere in the article, Google Scholar does not just index peer-reviewed journals however it also includes web pased PDFs, patents, citations, news articles from certain news papers like the Wall Street Journal and non peer-reviewed sites like arxiv among other things.
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    His point has been made and verified.
    Where?

    His list was at least largely garbage, and his argument depended on it being full of peer-reviewed research papers that supported the claims of AGW skeptics.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    There are over 700 peer-reviewed papers that support the claims of AGW skeptics.
    They aren't research papers, as required by the argument, and a good many of them aren't peer reviewed by anyone, let alone some kind of relevant body.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    Wrong, they are all research papers and support the claims of AGW skeptics.
    No, they all aren't and don't. Read them again.

    The one I pointed out as pretty shady was one of the better ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    Where was it stated this was the best of the best?
    You guys keep delivering with your garbage on top? Not my fault. How far down your lists am I supposed to read and check before I get to the one you really meant?
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    The simple fact that you do not have the elementary knowledge that the editorial board of journals do not peer-review the papers shows everyone who knows how the process how little you really know. Thank you for discrediting yourself.
    In a reputable, standard scientific publication of course reviewers are selected from a wide range of experts in the relevant field. But that's not the situation we have here, is it.

    I am not claiming that the editorial board reviews any publications. I am observing that they couldn't - and that casts doubt on their ability to choose reviewers, yes?

    What evidence do you have that Loehle's paper there was reviewed by anyone capable of reviewing it? Don't you notice some odd stuff about the way it's worded, the assertions it makes that are not actually supported by its substance, the lack of involvement of anyone more securely familiar with the field?
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    It also reveals such members as the disreputable and discredited Fred Singer, Willie Soon, etc.

    Neither is disreputable or discredited.
    Oh yes, they are. Singer particularly, form his work with the PR wing of the tobacco lobby on down to his current petrochemical associations.

    But you are welcome to promote such figures as your "support" for the arguments of AGW skeptics.
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    He has invalidated any credibility he claimed to have by making assumptions that anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the peer-review process would never make. His analysis on peer-reviewed publications is thus worthless.
    So what's wrong with it?
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    And?
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    iceaura, you have demonstrated you do not have the basic knowledge of peer-reviewed publications to make any worthwhile analysis. You have thus invalidated all your prior and future statements regarding the validity of peer-reviewed papers. Any future discussion with you on the subject would be a waste of time and effort.

    FYI you comments continue to demonstrate this.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
    Please objectively define "a large number"
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
    Please objectively define "a large number"
    700.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    cypress no wonder you had such a hard time with him, he has no remote idea what he is talking about and simply posing on these forums. He cannot even comprehend what alphabetical means, uses strawman arguments and adjusts goal posts at will. It has been irrefutably demonstrated he does not have the basic knowledge to comment on peer-reviewed publications.
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    It has been irrefutably demonstrated he does not have the basic knowledge to comment on peer-reviewed publications.
    Then it ought to be easy to irrefutably demonstrate that my comments are wrong somehow, in error.

    So far, that would mean finding cypress's list to be full of peer reviewed research papers that clearly support AGW skepticism.

    Let's start with something easier: how about you find one such paper in that list. We can go from there, add a few more comparable, maybe get some idea of how many there are in that list altogether. We haven't seen any yet, so we have nothing to work with.

    Then we can ask whether that number of papers is sufficient to back the argument in the OP,

    that is, show the claim of so many people here - that the research supporting AGW skepticism is very thin and dubious stuff - refuted.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
    Please objectively define "a large number"
    700.
    agreed.
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    cypress no wonder you had such a hard time with him, he has no remote idea what he is talking about and simply posing on these forums. He cannot even comprehend what alphabetical means, uses strawman arguments and adjusts goal posts at will. It has been irrefutably demonstrated he does not have the basic knowledge to comment on peer-reviewed publications.
    Yes, it's sad really.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
    Please objectively define "a large number"
    That would seem to be the implication of the original post.
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    And ... 700 is not "a large number."
    Please objectively define "a large number"
    700.
    agreed.
    Are you familiar with sarcasm?

    Cypress replies: Yes. Are you familiar with irony?
    Ophiolite thinks: Shit! I wish I'd thought of that. This guy's too clever for me.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    That would seem to be the implication of the original post.
    Since what is and is not a "large number" is subjective, cypress and myself consider it a large number, you have failed to demonstrate it is not. These sort of semantic debates are meaningless and demonstrate a desperate refusal to accept the reality that the papers exist.

    I see iceaura continues to pointlessly comment on a subject he has demonstrated he does not understand.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    Since what is and is not a "large number" is subjective, cypress and myself consider it a large number, you have failed to demonstrate it is not.
    Or to put it another way, some people consider it to be a smaller number, and you have failed to demonstrate that it is large.

    I am a dispassionate observer of that debate, in that I consider it to be neither small nor large but narrative or fictional - one of those numbers, like 40 in the Bible, that has to do with the necessities of a story rather than any aspect of physical reality.

    I noted above that it turns up in similar stories quite often - far more than chance would make likely. It's an interesting phenomenon - someone above has suggested that it's the smallest number that sounds close to a thousand. That kind of makes sense.

    I have recently been confronted with the fact that most high school students think "7" is closer to "10" than "5" - not think, exactly, but intuitively feel, when drawing graphs.

    Intuition seems a flawed guide, when evaluating physical fact or matters of data, research, etc. Not useless, necessarily, but not to be trusted when it tells one that a list of 700 papers ought to be persuasive of something.
     

  61. #60 <cough> sockpuppet </cough> 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Anyone want to place a wager that cypress and poptech have the same IP addy tied to their login?
     

  62. #61 Re: <cough> sockpuppet </cough> 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Anyone want to place a wager that cypress and poptech have the same IP addy tied to their login?
    It's entirely possible for a science forum to have more than two shortsighted individuals signed up to it, so I shan't take the bet.
     

  63. #62 Re: <cough> sockpuppet </cough> 
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Anyone want to place a wager that cypress and poptech have the same IP addy tied to their login?
    This sort of nonsense never ceases to amaze me.
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Since what is and is not a "large number" is subjective
    Then it is fortunate that we can objectively agree that 3930 is larger than 700.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Since what is and is not a "large number" is subjective
    Then it is fortunate that we can objectively agree that 3930 is larger than 700.
    And? Those 3930 just means the word appears somewhere in the article and does not mean explicit endorsement. Google Scholar does not just index peer-reviewed journals however it also includes web pased PDFs, patents, citations, news articles from news paper like the Wall Street Journal and non peer-reviewed sites like arxiv among other things.
     

  66. #65 Re: <cough> sockpuppet </cough> 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Anyone want to place a wager that cypress and poptech have the same IP addy tied to their login?
    I'll take that bet. Name the terms.
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech
    Since what is and is not a "large number" is subjective
    Then it is fortunate that we can objectively agree that 3930 is larger than 700.
    And? Those 3930 just means the word appears somewhere in the article and does not mean explicit endorsement. Google Scholar does not just index peer-reviewed journals however it also includes web pased PDFs, patents, citations, news articles from news paper like the Wall Street Journal and non peer-reviewed sites like arxiv among other things.
    In addition, it is stating what everyone here already knows. It is deviod of any new information. What is new information for all those who have claimed that there are few or no peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW is that they are mistaken.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What is new information for all those who have claimed that there are few or no peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical view of AGW is that they are mistaken.
    The key word in the OP was "research" - that was the crux of the argument, because of its implication that there was some body of respectable factual evidence behind the assertions of the AGW "skeptics".

    But even considering only "peer reviewed", how does the list you posted show that? There certainly isn't anything like 700 peer-reviewed papers in it, with the most generous allowances possible that yet maintain relevance for "peer" and "review". The exact percentage would be mildly interesting, but should be supplied by the poster of the list, I think - with evidence and criteria and so forth. No sense anyone else wasting their time.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    But even considering only "peer reviewed", how does the list you posted show that? There certainly isn't anything like 700 peer-reviewed papers in it, with the most generous allowances possible that yet maintain relevance for "peer" and "review".
    There are over 700 peer-reviewed papers in the list despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise.
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    And actually a dozen or so that seem credible enough to be worth reading up on sometime after you seperate the non-reviewed (comments and responses), non-research, and non-atmospheric science reviewed papers.

    Even the valid research papers which remain often don't don't reinforce skeptical arguments at all, for example:


    S. B. Idso1
    (1) U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 East Broadway Road, 85040 Phoenix, Arizona, USA

    Received: 30 May 1985

    "It is shown that current state-of-the-art climate models suggest the same thing and that they yield a comparable value for the maximum warming attainable: 4–5 K."

    So this paper, for example, which completely agreed with the climate models of the time, is supposed to reinforce the skeptical view for example. Huh?

    There are quite a few which do the same and could only be construed as supporting the skeptical view if one only considers the most extreme estimates (e.g we'll suffer a run away like Venus) rather than what's actually in the research.

    After following this field's evolution for nearly 30 years I have no doubt that 1) skeptical papers are able to get published as some of these reflect and 2) the preponderance of evidence and research is weighted heavily towards AGW for at least the last 10-15 years.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    And actually a dozen or so that seem credible enough to be worth reading up on sometime after you seperate the non-reviewed (comments and responses), non-research, and non-atmospheric science reviewed papers.

    Even the valid research papers which remain often don't don't reinforce skeptical arguments at all, for example:


    S. B. Idso1
    (1) U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 East Broadway Road, 85040 Phoenix, Arizona, USA

    Received: 30 May 1985

    "It is shown that current state-of-the-art climate models suggest the same thing and that they yield a comparable value for the maximum warming attainable: 4–5 K."

    So this paper, for example, which completely agreed with the climate models of the time, is supposed to reinforce the skeptical view for example. Huh?
    Yes, the paper in full context shows that even the better current models are insufficient and generate faulty output.

    There are quite a few which do the same and could only be construed as supporting the skeptical view if one only considers the most extreme estimates (e.g we'll suffer a run away like Venus) rather than what's actually in the research.

    After following this field's evolution for nearly 30 years I have no doubt that 1) skeptical papers are able to get published as some of these reflect
    That's quite a concession Lynx-Fox. Thanks.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    There are over 700 peer-reviewed papers in the list despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise.
    A short scan of the first few dozen yields an estimate of approximately 10%, or 70, peer reviewed research papers somewhere in that list, of which approximately 35 offer any support at all for the claims of AGW "skeptics".

    If the percentage improves toward the middle or somewhere, please indicate where that happens.
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    You don't seem to understand, it is 700.
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    A short scan of the first few dozen yields an estimate of approximately 10%, or 70, peer reviewed research papers somewhere in that list, of which approximately 35 offer any support at all for the claims of AGW "skeptics".
    Your numbers are made up nonsense. They all support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of.
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by poptech
    They all support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of.
    The "economic effects" is it, now. Because if it has good economic effects it isn't happening, or what is the argument? Peer reviewed research, of course.

    Do we have to take this crap seriously, any more?
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Thread is going no where.

    Locked
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •