Proponents of government action to regulate CO2 all in the name of preventing a “man-made” global warming “catastrophe” will declare that no peer-reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming alarm. I argue this is not true,
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
The bold font is what convinced me.
Poptech, you embarrassed yourself and the whole of AGW skepticism in this thread, and this one . . . Why do you keep trying?
Not at all, now anything relevant to say to the discussion?
“Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers” do not equal “skepticism”.
Your point? They are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count and are included as references in defense of various papers.
Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?
If I look at the tests for the speed of light and spot an error that prevents them from measuring things quite as they intended to, does this mean that there is skepticism about whether light travels?
What’s “man made global warming alarm” and where can I get some?
Oh, Hastur, Energy and Environment? Do we need to do this again? It’s a paid-for oilrag.
Climate Research? Yeah, they’re famous for their editorial impartiality :rolleyes:
All good research papers criticize themselves. It’s part of the process. If they don’t look at the weaknesses in their own research, it likely wouldn’t pass peer review.
Simply criticizing research about X doesn’t mean the findings are wrong.
Example: I do a study on the addictive effects of smoking on children, and I point out that I only used non-menthol cigarettes. I should mention that menthol cigarettes may have a different results, but this criticism doesn’t necessarily mean that my findings (cigarettes are addictive to children) is wrong.
Peer review means fuck all, and I wish people would shut up about it. Every time some global warming skeptic harps up about “peer reviewed papers” it makes me cringe. It’s just there to stop stupid errors, ensure a basic level of scholarship and make sure everybody is referencing the right papers (usually the referee’s papers, it has to be said). Getting a paper into a reviewed journal isn’t a major feat, and it sure as hell doesn’t make it correct. Getting your paper’s contributions accepted as scientific orthodoxy is the major feat.
What matters is the consensus of the scientific community. That consensus is overwhelmingly in support of the anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy. So, yes, it may be the case that a tiny percentage of peer reviewed papers support AGW skepticism. But, so the fuck what?
Consensus doesn’t mean squat; proof is all.
That’s true, but I suppose for us types who don’t understand the science fully, or the statistics, or whatever, consensus is really one of the only ways of knowing where the proof might lie. It’s certainly not a necessarily good method, but it doesn’t mean squat.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X). Both editors are from universities and they receive no funding from energy companies.
Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X). There is no problem with their editorial policy and have standard peer-review practices. The papers in question actually were sent to 4-5 reviewers as opposed to just 3.
In science, consensus means everything. Science is not mathematics. There is no proof, when it comes to science. Besides, consensus just reflects the body of evidence. So you can stitch together a list of 750 dubious articles on AGW. So what? About 750 articles on the subject get published on it every few months. It means nothing.
There is nothing dubious about them, they are all peer-reviewed contrary to a common misconception that these papers do not exist, as noted by a commenter at RealClimate.org,
So there is your reason.
Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.
Nothing dubious about them? Are you shitting me? The first couple on your list are from a journal called “Energy and the Environment”, apparently an interdisciplinary journal about energy production and usage. Further down, there’s papers appearing in the “Electricity Journal” and some others in the “Journal of Iron and Steel Technology”.
You couldn’t have put together a weaker list if you had tried. Again, the root of this problem are rank amateurs like you latching onto the idea of “peer review”, knowing absolutely fuck all about how science works. It isn’t enough to point to a list with a couple hundred papers of dubious origin.
Really? What does “AGW theory” mean? Why don’t you put some figures together to show us how few endorse “AGW theory”?
All papers from Energy & Environment were peer-reviewed,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
It is an interdisciplinary journal about energy and environmental concerns.
The four papers from the Electricity Journal were peer-reviewed,
The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1040-6190)
Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)
“Iron & Steel Technology readers will find timely peer-reviewed articles”
[[LIST OF JOURNALS REMOVED]]
Journal Count: 216 - All peer-reviewed.