# 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:** 10
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/181 "2010-06-28T14:24:16Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The bold font is what convinced me. I held out until the embiggening. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/182 "2010-06-28T14:26:12Z")
I’m afraid to ask what a socket puppet is. ---
**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 28, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/183 "2010-06-28T14:54:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m afraid to ask what a socket puppet is. A misspelling of sockpuppet. ---
**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 28, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/184 "2010-06-28T15:01:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Here is the initial exchange. Fair enough. Regardless my [analysis](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) shows this to be 34 or so papers every few (2) months, showing the claim to be false. **No one has provided any evidence to support the claim that 750 AGW papers are published every few month.** ---
**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 28, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/185 "2010-06-28T15:08:41Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I’ve only read the first few chapters in the book [The Climate Files by Fred Pearce](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277709182&sr=1-1), which deals with the “hacked climate science emails” saga known as “Climategate”, and already it seems to indicate that “the peer-review system” is not all it’s cracked up to be. I can recommend a better book on Climategate, **[Climategate: The Crutape Letters](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010) If you are interested in reading about the corruption of the peer-review process I recommend, **[A Climatology Conspiracy?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science) **[Caspar and the Jesus paper](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry) **[Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics) ---
**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 28, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/186 "2010-06-28T15:33:56Z")
So which is it? Is the peer review process corrupt (what you just argued), or is it a good measure of standing (what you argued with regard to _E&E_?) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/187 "2010-06-28T15:36:44Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I can recommend a better book on Climategate, > > **[Climategate: The Crutape Letters](http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437)** (Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010) > > If you are interested in reading about the corruption of the peer-review process I recommend, > > **[A Climatology Conspiracy?](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html)** (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science) > **[Caspar and the Jesus paper](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf)** (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry) > **[Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Circling_the_Bandwagons_Correcting_the_IPCC.pdf)** (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics) They are now several months out of date (ignoring the latest evidence) and still mistaken. BTW you did avoided that the contributor at RealClimate did explain properly that there was no corruption. > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/5WvasALL-hw)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. Morano: Public flogging > **[Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-cyber-bullying/)** > > Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of being a climate scientist [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/denialist-morano-rejoicing/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/denialist-morano-rejoicing/) Politifact > **[Inhofe claims that e-mails 'debunk' science behind climate change](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/dec/11/james-inhofe/inhofe-claims-cru-e-mails-debunk-science-behind-cl/)** > > The newest tool in climate skeptics' arsenal: a series of hacked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit, a branch of th > **[FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/)** > **['Climategate' - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)** > > In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific... Cuccinelli [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050605936.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050605936.html) [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/mceachin\_proposes\_limiting\_att.html](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/mceachin_proposes_limiting_att.html) [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/05/07/washington-post-editorial-page-condemns-cuccinelli/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/05/07/washington-post-editorial-page-condemns-cuccinelli/) Nature: Climatologists under pressure [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html) AP: Climategate not fraud > **[Science not faked, but not pretty](https://phys.org/news/2009-12-science-faked-pretty.html)** > > (AP) -- E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us\_news-environment/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/) [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400) House of Commons: Nothing to Climategate [http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf) > **['Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC...](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/02/02climatewire-climategate-scientist-admits-awful-e-mails-b-66224.html)** > > The head of a British climate research unit under fire after thousands of stolen e-mails were made public last year said yest... Pakistan heat wave: [http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html)… NASA Heat record [http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1498](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1498) > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. [http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/) Record Low Arctic ice > **[Study: Arctic ice at record low point - UPI.com](https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/06/03/Study-Arctic-ice-at-record-low-point/UPI-81911275592353/)** > > A U.S.-led group of international scientists says it has determined less ice now covers the arctic region than at any time in recent geologic history. > **[Sea Ice Today | National Snow and Ice Data Center](https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today)** ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/188 "2010-06-28T15:39:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So which is it? Is the peer review process corrupt (what you just argued), or is it a good measure of standing (what you argued with regard to _E&E_?) Well obviously, the peer-reviewers that start their own bullshit journal to publish garbage that is turned down by reputable journals will be the most trustworthy group. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/189 "2010-06-28T15:39:50Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Fair enough. > No one has provided any evidence to support the claim that 750 AGW papers are published every few month. You know what’s _really_ scandalous? _ **Conspiratorial, almost?** _ If you put _“anthropogenic global warming” site:ipcc.ch_ into Google, you only get _ **2** _ hits! And the same thing if you put _agw site:ipcc.ch_ into Google!!!oneoneone!!111! I’m confused about the OP. The original claim was that 750 peer-reviewed papers have been published that were skeptical of climate change. Has the OP abandoned that? It now seems to be frustrated that it can’t find someone to support its claim that there are 750 papers _furthering_ theories of climate change. Is the OP a denier? Very hard to tell. Can the OP maybe link to a nice peer-reviewed and scientifically sound article that debunks this whole greenhouse effect myth? Sure would be nice to have something that started with the basic principles of the science. How 'bout something that accurately describes the greenhouse effect, has some understanding of homeostasis (and relative timescales thereof), and has a reasonable and sound explanation as to where all the extra energy is going/has gone. It’s absolutely not relevant if the paper is quibbling with a degree here or there, or if the paper is critiquing overall conclusions of what likely scenarios could result. Rather, how about something that understands the roles that GHGs play in the atmosphere and provides a plausible alternate explanation as to where the energy went. ---
**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 28, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/190 "2010-06-28T15:48:35Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So which is it? Is the peer review process corrupt (what you just argued), or is it a good measure of standing (what you argued with regard to _E&E_?) I argued that in certain instances it has been demonstrated to be corrupt not in relation to E&E. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/191 "2010-06-28T15:51:13Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > You know what’s _really_ scandalous? _ **Conspiratorial, almost?** _ > > If you put _“anthropogenic global warming” site:ipcc.ch_ into Google, you only get _ **2** _ hits! That’s because Your Doing It Wrong: [“anthropogenic global warming” site: 4chan](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22anthropogenic+global+warming%22+site%3A+4chan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) **7,790** [sup]_[/sup] hits! [sup]_[/sup]Thanks to **Poptech** on BIG FONT tip. Things are _much_ more convincing when ya post them that way! ---
**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 28, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/192 "2010-06-28T16:04:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > They are now several months out of date (ignoring the latest evidence) and still mistaken. They are not out of date or mistaken. Various reports have been released on it, **[‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (83 pgs) (_United States Senate_) **[The Climategate Emails](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (168 pgs) (_The Lavoisier Group_) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW you did avoided that the contributor at RealClimate did explain properly that there was no corruption. His denial is noted but the [registrant organization](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) information for the website does not lie. The rest is detailed here, [The Truth about RealClimate.org](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0). As for the so-called “investigations” total whitewashes, **[Penn State Probe into Mann’s Wrongdoing a ‘Total Whitewash’](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Fox News, February 5, 2010_) **[‘Climategate’: what a pointless investigation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010_) **[ClimateGate Whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_American Thinker, April 14, 2010_) **[Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010_) **[The Non-Inquiry of Climategate](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010_) **[Climategate whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010_) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/193 "2010-06-28T16:09:22Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > They are not out of date or mistaken. Various reports have been released on it, > > **[‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (83 pgs) (_United States Senate_) > **[The Climategate Emails](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (PDF) (168 pgs) (_The Lavoisier Group_) > His denial is noted but the [information for the website does not lie. The rest is detailed here, [url=URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0]The Truth about RealClimate.org](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0%5B/URL). > > As for the so-called “investigations” total whitewashes, > > **[Penn State Probe into Mann’s Wrongdoing a ‘Total Whitewash’](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Fox News, February 5, 2010_) > **[‘Climategate’: what a pointless investigation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010_) > **[ClimateGate Whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_American Thinker, April 14, 2010_) > **[Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010_) > **[The Non-Inquiry of Climategate](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010_) > **[Climategate whitewash](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** (_National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010_) None of them are scientific publications, you really need to explain why and in your own words why it is a whitewash. The fact is that the most prestigious science organizations and even the British parliament that had jurisdiction in the CRU scandal did look and reported that your points are not supported by any evidence. BTW if the points that the RealClimate contributor are noted you should change your rhetoric, you are still showing that you did not paid any attention to his points or to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/194 "2010-06-28T16:13:38Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > **No one has provided any evidence to support the claim that 750 AGW papers are published every few month.** Few means “a small amount,” not _two_. Drop this argument. ---
**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 28, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/195 "2010-06-28T17:17:01Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I argued that in certain instances it has been demonstrated to be corrupt not in relation to E&E. So it’s a corrupt system when it’s not in your favour, but just handy when you agree with it? That’s an awfully …convenient… truth. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/196 "2010-06-28T20:07:15Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The rest is detailed here, [The Truth about RealClimate.org](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0). Yet another instance where [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate) is a more reliable and relevant source than some RW partisan blog: > [@](#): > > RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology. The site’s contributors are a group of climate scientists whose goal is to provide a quick response to developing stories and providing the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.[1] > > Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, initially provided web hosting for RealClimate although they exercised no control over the content. The site’s domain is now hosted by Science Communications Network.[2] > **Recognition** > > The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the editorial board of the academic journals Science and Nature.[3][4] > > In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award.[5] > > In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.[6][7] > **Members** > > The members of RealClimate are:[8] > > Gavin Schmidt > Michael E. Mann > Eric Steig > Raymond S. Bradley > Stefan Rahmstorf > Rasmus Benestad > Caspar Ammann > Thibault de Garidel > David Archer > Raymond Pierrehumbert > Earlier members: > > William M. Connolley up to 2007.[9][10][11] > > Other climate scientists contribute to RealClimate as guest columnists. ---
**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 29, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/197 "2010-06-29T13:07:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Few means “a small amount,” not _two_. Drop this argument. Numerically define “few” and please provide a source. What I stated was accurate. ---
**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 29, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/198 "2010-06-29T13:15:24Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I’m confused about the OP. The original claim was that 750 peer-reviewed papers have been published that were skeptical of climate change. Has the OP abandoned that? It now seems to be frustrated that it can’t find someone to support its claim that there are 750 papers _furthering_ theories of climate change. Strawman as the number I provided mentioning the phrase was only for 2010. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Can the OP maybe link to a nice peer-reviewed and scientifically sound article that debunks this whole greenhouse effect myth? Sure would be nice to have something that started with the basic principles of the science. There is a paper on the list, [Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) ([PDF](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)) \*(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009) - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner\* ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/199 "2010-06-29T13:19:38Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Numerically define “few” and please provide a source. There is no numerical definition for “few,” just as there is no numerical definition for “many” or “a lot.” Now drop this tangent. It’s a waste of time a distraction from the other issues in this thread. ---
**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 29, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/200 "2010-06-29T13:20:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > None of them are scientific publications, you really need to explain why and in your own words why it is a whitewash. The fact is that the most prestigious science organizations and even the British parliament that had jurisdiction in the CRU scandal did look and reported that your points are not supported by any evidence. From the list, [If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop? An Environmental Scientist Parses Climategate](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) ([PDF](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)) \*(Academic Questions, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 54-56, March 2010) - Stanley W. Trimble\* It was a whitewash because it did not address any of the main points that were submitted. No testimony from any of the skeptics in the emails was done, no proper investigation of the charges. These sort of whitewashes do not work anymore with the internet. The public is not falling for the propaganda anymore. Gavin the alarmist shill and his Fenton Communication’s sockpuppet site has been exposed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=11)