# Do Peer-Reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 24, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420 "2010-06-24T23:25:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/1 "2010-06-24T23:25:44Z")
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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** > [@](#): > > The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/2 "2010-06-24T23:35:51Z")
The bold font is what convinced me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/3 "2010-06-24T23:38:39Z")
**Poptech,** you embarrassed yourself and the whole of AGW skepticism in [this thread,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556528) and [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556553) . . . Why do you keep trying? ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/4 "2010-06-24T23:42:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Poptech,** you embarrassed yourself and the whole of AGW skepticism in … Not at all, now anything relevant to say to the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/5 "2010-06-24T23:57:36Z")
“Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers” do not equal “skepticism”. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/6 "2010-06-25T00:01:03Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > “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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/7 "2010-06-25T04:07:07Z")
Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/8 "2010-06-25T04:18:17Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/9 "2010-06-25T04:27:43Z")
What’s “man made global warming alarm” and where can I get some? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/10 "2010-06-25T07:24:02Z")
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: ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/11 "2010-06-25T07:37:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/12 "2010-06-25T09:56:18Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/13 "2010-06-25T11:14:14Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > What matters is the consensus of the scientific community. Consensus doesn’t mean squat; proof is all. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/14 "2010-06-25T11:51:51Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/15 "2010-06-25T11:52:27Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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: **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. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/16 "2010-06-25T11:55:39Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > What’s “man made global warming alarm” and where can I get some? [Here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/17 "2010-06-25T12:14:18Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Consensus doesn’t mean squat; proof is all. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/18 "2010-06-25T12:44:44Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > So you can stitch together a list of 750 dubious articles on AGW. So what? 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](http://RealClimate.org), > [@](#): > > **“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.”** > > - John H., comment at [RealClimate.org](http://RealClimate.org) So there is your reason. > [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > About 750 articles on the subject get published on it every few months. It means nothing. Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/19 "2010-06-25T12:55:19Z")
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_. > [@Poptech](#): > > Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory. Really? What does “AGW theory” mean? Why don’t you put some figures together to show us how few endorse “AGW theory”? ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/20 "2010-06-25T13:02:30Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > 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 Electicity Journal and some others in the journal of Iron and Steel technology. All papers from Energy & Environment were peer-reviewed, **Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal** (_ISSN: 0958-305X_) - Indexed in [Compendex](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), [EBSCO](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), [Environment Abstracts](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), [Google Scholar](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), [JournalSeek](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), [Scopus](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) and [WorldCat](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) - Found at [47](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional [81](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) in electronic form. - [EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) (PDF) - [Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) (XLS) 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_) - [EBSCO lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed academic journal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) (PDF) - [ProQuest lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) The one paper from Iron and Steel Technology is peer-reviewed, **Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal** (_ISSN: 1547-0423_) “[_Iron & Steel Technology readers will find timely **peer-reviewed** articles_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)” [[LIST OF JOURNALS REMOVED]] Journal Count: 216 - **All peer-reviewed.** [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=2)