Peer reviewed papers on climate, the real numbers by the year

[IanC]

I took a Reader's Digest quiz in the '70s that said I was a good candidate for Mensa. does that count?

any actual Mensa member could easily provide proof simply by pasting sequestered info from the website, like the initials above and below their own on the index.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's 20 degrees cooler here than it was 2 days ago. Since the record high was evidence of "ManMade Global Warming", clearly we're in a Global Cooling Phase. At this rate, in a few weeks we will be colder than Pluto. I can take Michael Mann charts and turn them upside down for effect.

 

[IanC]

peer review is a funny entity. scientists seldom choose to get ahead by trashing their fellow scientists and they are just as prone to fads as anyone else.

I find it very enlightening thatin recent years talented outsiders have been writing papers that point out obvious flaws in some famous artcles on climate science and the difference in peer review methodology is obvious. a crap rehash sails through peer review even if it contains tainted data that has been previously questioned. a paper discrediting the popular view of AGW is fought tooth and nail and held to much higher standards if not simply rejected out of hand by biased editors. simply counting up how many papers are published on each side is a meaningless effort to twist public opinion on what is really happening in climate science. just by removing papers using bristlecone pines and bizarre concoctions like the upsidedown Tiljander cores would reduce the paleo papers by a significant fraction.

 

[gslack]

A History of Climate Science

The entire site and its contents are ignorant to the core. It has NOTHING to do with science and by carefully reading what it says about their categorization of papers on AGW tells the tale..

The sites says...

Skeptical Science takes a different approach to Naomi Oreskes' Science paper who sorted her papers into "explicit endorsement of the consensus position", "rejection of the consensus position" and everything else (neutral). In this case, the backbone of our site is our list of climate myths. Whenever a climate link is added to our database, it is matched to any relevant climate myths. Therefore, each link is assigned "skeptic", "neutral" or "proAGW" whether it confirms or refutes the climate myth.

Yes they tell you in plain english they do not classify papers as being pro or con AGW theory based on their explicit endorsement of either side. Explicit endorsement as in if the paper doesn't say it directly opposed AGW theory.

Whats worse is they use their own made up yardstick to measure whats skeptical based on THEIR OWN LIST OF CLIMATE MYTHS THEY MAINTAIN... So if it supports what they claim to be a climate myth, its a skeptic paper. Now remember that it must do this explicitly. So if it doesn't outright say it diametrically opposes this or that theory it is not a skeptic paper.

WOW! LOL, oldsocks you claim science and pull this POS site out of your ass and act all proud of it....

MENSA MAN!

 

[asterism]

Another rehash of the Oreskes study which was not peer-reviewed nor was it conducted by a statistician (she's not a climatologist either).

 

[skookerasbil]

Why is it the "real scientists" are always manipulating the data? Is that not a classic oxymoron?