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

[FactFinder]

OK Old Rocks,

You always ask for peer reviewed papers..

Now I am giving you your heart's desire. What I want from you is a scientific rebuttal to each.

Is an old millwright up to it?

Popular Technology.net: 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

 

[paperview]

OK Old Rocks,

You always ask for peer reviewed papers..

Now I am giving you your heart's desire. What I want from you is a scientific rebuttal to each.

Is an old millwright up to it?

Popular Technology.net: 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Thanks to Ben for this:

"Lets randomly check this list;

OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 22nd, and nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 146, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, on and on and on.

It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose?

Wikipedia says;

"The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549."

and

"The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] 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 May 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."[6]"

In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place.

I think this list is debunked now... "​

 

[FactFinder]

Well you may have to debunk these and all the rest of the other journals with papers here:

International Journal of Climatology
Geophysical Research Letters
Nature
Climate Research
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Nature Geoscience
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
AAPG Bulletin
.
.
.
.

Surely you can do better than that pitiful attempt at assasination.

 

[FactFinder]

* Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS

 

[paperview]

"Another journal which (quite oddly) also published the Soon et al study, “Energy and Environment”, is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”.

RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

 

[Old Rocks]

* Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS

Energy and Environment ("E&E"), published since 1989, describes itself as "an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use." Its editor since 1996 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. The journal has an editorial advisory board of 20 members, including 11 professors and 5 other PhDs in 2008 and is published by Mulit-Science. The journal can be found at 39 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress.[1]

The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549.

The sources that grade journals at to their scientific credentials have found that one wanting. They list it as a trade journal, not a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I surely don't have time to look at all of the sources that were posted. Discounting over half, as they are not from an accredited peer reviewed journal, those from Energy and Environment, I looked at one that was from a peer reviewed journal.

Guess what, it did not deny AGW at all. In fact, what it stated was that there was another effect superimposed on anthropogenic warming. Another bunch of dips that cannot accurately read a scientific paper.

http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf

Conclusions
[13] The above observational and modeling results suggest
the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous
state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift
after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well you may have to debunk these and all the rest of the other journals with papers here:

International Journal of Climatology
Geophysical Research Letters
Nature
Climate Research
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Nature Geoscience
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
AAPG Bulletin
.
.
.
.

Surely you can do better than that pitiful attempt at assasination.

Surely you can bother to read a few of the papers and see that whomever did the listing of these articles never bothered to read them.

 

[FactFinder]

"Another journal which (quite oddly) also published the Soon et al study, “Energy and Environment”, is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”.

RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

hmmmm....This is not another journal.

Why not actually look at the papers reather than focus on trying to discredit.

You cannot discredit the majority of them and other than opinion have not discredited any others.

 

[FactFinder]

Well, I surely don't have time to look at all of the sources that were posted. Discounting over half, as they are not from an accredited peer reviewed journal, those from Energy and Environment, I looked at one that was from a peer reviewed journal.

Guess what, it did not deny AGW at all. In fact, what it stated was that there was another effect superimposed on anthropogenic warming. Another bunch of dips that cannot accurately read a scientific paper.

http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf

Conclusions
[13] The above observational and modeling results suggest
the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous
state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift
after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s eventin the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

So Rocks..You are telling me that the summation of 450 + 10 papers are included in your itty bitty paragraph. How trite, cheap and typical of you.

You wouldn't by any chance be a political hack, heh? If it smells like donkey shit. Or as another poster so eloquently states. "Just sayin"

 

[mdn2000]

OK Old Rocks,

You always ask for peer reviewed papers..

Now I am giving you your heart's desire. What I want from you is a scientific rebuttal to each.

Is an old millwright up to it?

Popular Technology.net: 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Thanks to Ben for this:

"Lets randomly check this list;

OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 22nd, and nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 146, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, on and on and on.

It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose?

Wikipedia says;

"The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549."

and

"The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] 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 May 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."[6]"

In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place.

I think this list is debunked now... "​

Wikipedia, so funny, watch, I am going to log into my wikipedia account and I will change the page your refer to, yep, anyone can change anything in wikipedia to whatever they like. wikipedia is not a source.

All the models of global warming have been shown as nothing more than a glorified playstation game on a big computer. Go read the other threads, I will post the most relevant theory, the report itself admits to millions of manipulations to acheive the desired result, the actual articles state they must assume and estimate data because its impossible to collect all the data needed.

It is entirely impossible to collect all the data that is needed, the earth is to big, there is so much data to be collected it would take forever and than they will never have the computer large enough to crunch the numbers, all the global warming scientists state this. They may be on the side of global warming but they are still scientists and all their research papers state these basic limitations.

But who cares, you want the proof I will go get it from your own sources, I wont use mine, I dont have any that disprove the THEORY, I dont need a source to disprove the THEORY, all I need know is the name of your scientist, the paper you wish to source, I will simply go to that source and quote the limitations of his or her theory as stated by said scientist.

But I really dont even care to do that, here is the greatest post yet that will make you look really stupid.

There is Global Warming, I concede, you win, no more arguement from me, it is proven, man is warming the earth.

Get ready here comes the best part of letting you win.

You are now the problem, the green nuts are causing global warming to rise at a greater rate. The solutions being implimented by the global warming crowd is the cause of accerated global warming, all the solutions are raping the planet of valuable resources at an increasing rate. The Graph resembles a hockey stick, pollution, C02 have increased over a hundred times due to the Green Energy solutions.

Wind Mills are now the largest source of greenhouse gases, solar panel fabrication is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases, geothermal is using millions of tons of resources and is dumping toxic metals onto the surface of the earth.

You want to discuss global warming, go ahead, but lets concentrate on how the solution destroys what little is left of the earth.

You won the global warming debate, now that you proved how smart you are tell us how much energy and which types it takes to make one ton of fiberglass.

If you do not wish to discuss this, if you cannot answer this, than you know nothing of anything you speak.

Go ahead, your the experts, I concede, one ton of fiberglass, how much energy and which types of energy. A very simple question to those who know so much more than I.

 

[Steerpike]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

 

[mdn2000]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

I agree, as you must agree that as good as wikipedia is, in a critical debate about a serious subject wikipedia is too easily discredited simply due to the ability to change what is posted in wikipedia.

Further if a study is found in wikipedia it is much to easy to go to the original study and source that study directly. Hence it shows laziness to use wikipedia, being lazy does not make a persuasive criticism.

Self evident it is and we are on the same page, I have posted links to the actual studies and I have posted missing portions of the studies. These are my opponents studies, as of yet I have not needed to discredit any portion of a study, the studies have all been accurate, they have all stated green energy is very expensive, they have all stated that green energy is very weak and unreliable.





In wikipedia typically only select portions of a study are posted. Wikipedia is a poor source. Its that simple. When old crock has posted a source I have gone to that source, checked the links in the source, and have gone to the original studies and sources. Hence I have shown how the cherry picking of secondary articles that cherry pick a report do not prove Old Crocks points.

 

[Old Rocks]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

In a peer reviewed journal, if the methodology is wrong, the article is rejected. If the supporting evidence is deemed weak or inadaquete, it gets sent back for a rewrite. Non-peer reviewed journals often publish useful papers. However, they often publish crap that would never see the light of day in a peer reviewed journal.

There are ample scientific subjects where people looking at the same evidence can come up with several reasonable explanations. That is what real scientific debate is about. However, in all too many of the non-peer reviewed papers, the object is denial of evidence. Why should anyone who has not the luxury of unlimited time, waste that time on articles by people like Tim Ball, a known fraud? And if the journal is publishing his idiocy, what other kinds of trash are they pushing?

 

[paperview]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

Unless the point of your argument, in this case, is that these studies are truly peer reviewed (note the title of the thread).

 

[midcan5]

Ted tells it like it is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54]YouTube - Ted Turner; Global Warming Will Create Cannibals[/ame]

 

[FactFinder]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

Unless the point of your argument, in this case, is that these studies are truly peer reviewed (note the title of the thread).

* Energy & Environment is a rigorously peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, IngentaConnect, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
- EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

Energy and Environment is but one of many sources in the 450 +10 peer reviewed articles.
The hype against them is clearly just that.
Now I would hope that the thread would steer from diversionary tactics and actually deal with the content of 450 + 10 peer reviewed articles.

 

[paperview]

I haven't had time to look at all of these either, but ad hominem (or whatever the latin would be for arguments against the reference itself) arguments are not persuasive. Even if an article shows up in something like Energy and Environment, the only persuasive criticism of it is as substantive critique of the study itself, not merely discounting of it because of where it is found. That's should be self-evident I think.

Unless the point of your argument, in this case, is that these studies are truly peer reviewed (note the title of the thread).

* Energy & Environment is a rigorously peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
...

Google

 

[FactFinder]

Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered | The Resilient Earth

Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Fri, 09/11/2009 - 15:18
For decades, the supporters of CO2 driven global warming have discounted changes in solar irradiance as far too small to cause significant climate change. Though the Sun's output varies by less than a tenth of a percent in magnitude during its 11-year sunspot cycle, that small variation produces changes in sea surface temperatures two or three times as large as it should. A new study in Science demonstrates how two previously known mechanisms acting together amplify the Sun's impact in an unsuspected way. Not surprisingly, the new discovery is getting a cool reception from the CO2 climate change clique.
.
.
.
As I have previously reported, scientific evidence from NASA points to changes in the type of solar radiation arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere as a possible trigger for other powerful climate regulating mechanisms. Scientists have discovered, that while total solar irradiance changes by only 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts. According to Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., its possible that long-term patterns—operating over hundreds or thousands of years—could cause even more pronounced swings in solar irradiance (see “Scientists Discover The Sun Does Affect Earth's Climate”). The discovery of the solar heat amplifying effect provides the causal link between historical changes in solar activity and climate change.

 

[editec]

Please remember that a peer reviewed journal published by peers of biased idiots who have a specific agenda isn't worth quite so much as a peer reviewed journal of people dedicated to finding the truth WHEREVER it leads them.