# 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:** 12
**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 29, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/221 "2010-06-29T15:43:53Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > 1. Creationism and all references to it are offtopic and has nothing to do with this thread. It is used to desperately associate climate skeptics with creationists. This is blatantly obvious. Please provide evidence where I have argued for creationism. As mentioned before, the shoe of the tactics being used does fit as the MIT science reported showed. This BTW is a key point in this discussion IMHO. I could also say that proponents of homeopathy use the same tactics but that does not mean that they are creationists. > [@Poptech](#): > > 1. Conspiracies are not being discussed here nor are conspiracy theory tactics. Please provide evidence where I have argued for a conspiracy. > > It is amazing to see this sort of nonsense coming from a moderator. The groups behind virtually all the cites you brought regarding the “whitewash” of the CRU hack scandal have declared or heavily implied that scientists are involved in a conspiracy. ---
**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, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/222 "2010-06-29T15:44:12Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Can you explain the abstract? That is, it states:What about the incoming solar radiation? Isn’t that the source of new energy driving the “heat pump”? Since there is a constant influx of energy, how is the second law being violated? Have the authors never gotten into a car on a sunny day? How do they distinguish between the greenhouse effect in one situation yet not another? Since they are claiming that the entire theory is fictitious, do they have an alternate explanation for how such a vehicular mechanism exists? > > Since you’re providing the cite, can you point to where it conclusively demonstrates that greenhouse gasses are not relatively clear to UV radiation but relatively opaque to infrared radiation? Can you show where in the article it proves that the energy re-emitted by the atmosphere completely exits? I am not here to discuss individual papers, that is what the authors are for. If you have any questions regarding the paper I suggest contacting them. What I have done is provide the peer-reviewed publication requested and then the peer-reviewed rebuttal of the comment on it, successfully refuting the only published criticism. This discussion is not about individual papers but whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-mad” global warming. They overwhelmingly do. ---
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/223 "2010-06-29T15:48:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is that even that rebuttal is not convincing the people that matter. Alarmists at alarmist blogs and forums? Too funny. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > No need to, just pointing out that that makers of the list in the OP have set themselves to be forever marked as misguided absolutists with no desire to make changes thanks to proper criticism is enough to tell everyone that that list needs to be dismissed as just a weak talking point. You have failed to provide a proper criticism and thus no changes have been made based on your “feelings”. Repeating your talking points in a desperate attempt to dismiss list is getting old. ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/224 "2010-06-29T15:50:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW it seems that our own \*\*jshore \*\*was one of the writers of the rebuttal to the original paper being discussed now (For those that did not see it, he also showed to Poptech that he had no clue regarding basic statistics), so as jshore showed in the last discussion, it is clear that the makers of the list in the OP do not care at all if they continue to list discredited or debunked papers. He hasn’t shown me anything. Why you keep repeating these smears I have no idea. None of the papers are discredited or have been debunked outside of your repetition of these talking points. None of the authors of any of the papers on the list have conceded to any comments on their papers and no retraction of any of the papers has been made. ---
**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 29, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/225 "2010-06-29T15:56:23Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I am not here to discuss individual papers, that is what the authors are for. If you have any questions regarding the paper I suggest contacting them. What I have done is provide the peer-reviewed publication requested and then the peer-reviewed rebuttal of the comment on it, successfully refuting the only published criticism. Nope, successful would imply other evidence than just “because I say so” Looking at the discussions among scientists it is clear that the papers mentioned so far are failures. [http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/](http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/) > [@](#): > > But then at the blog Rabbet Run, blogger Eli Rabbet started putting together a rebuttal, and made a good case for why this was worth doing. There was (in my opinion) something very strange about the editorial process of the journal. The publication had excited a fair bit of gleeful attention at quite a few blogs that tend to be critical of the notions of anthropogenic warming. It was being treated as a done deal that having a peer reviewed paper falsifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect was sufficient to overturn the whole field of atmospheric physics. > > Scientifically it was a complete non-issue, but in the public sphere it was another matter; and it was worth having a rebuttal because of the potential distractions that could be caused by a superficially technical falsification of some basic physics underlying our understanding of climate. Eli called for people to join in, and I came on board. > > This rebuttal paper and the way it was produced has been something quite unprecedented. Many people commented on the various drafts that Eli made available, and the end result is something in which all concerned – not only those who ended up as authors – may legitimately take pride. > [@Poptech](#): > > This discussion is not about individual papers but whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-mad” global warming. They overwhelmingly do. Oh well, that does sound like the Nowhere Man from 'Yellow Submarine" always making sure that not check his reviews. ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/226 "2010-06-29T15:56:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As mentioned before, the shoe of the tactics being used does fit as the MIT science reported showed. This BTW is a key point in this discussion IMHO. I could also say that proponents of homeopathy use the same tactics but that does not mean that they are creationists. The alarmist hack who wrote that piece has only demonstrated his knack for propaganda. Bringing up the non-science of creationism is a sign of intellectual dishonesty as I have made no mention of it and have no association with them. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The groups behind virtually all the cites you brought regarding the “whitewash” of the CRU hack scandal have declared or heavily implied that scientists are involved in a conspiracy. Could you provide these groups position statement on this issue to support this unfounded allegation, thanks. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/227 "2010-06-29T15:59:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, successful would imply other evidence than just “because I say so” Extensive evidence is supplied in the reply. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Looking at the discussions among scientists it is clear that the papers mentioned so far are failures. Yes alarmist shill posters at a forum deny the refutation. This has been established and meaningless. ---
**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 29, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/228 "2010-06-29T15:59:30Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > He hasn’t shown me anything. Why you keep repeating these smears I have no idea. None of the papers are discredited or have been debunked outside of your repetition of these talking points. None of the authors of any of the papers on the list have conceded to any comments on their papers and no retraction of any of the papers has been made. AFAIK one could count with ones fingers the number of times a retraction of a paper has been done, scientists are content on doing the usual “science marches on” and just dismiss and forget the errors of the past. The point here is that what you say here is silly as talking point. ---
**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 29, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/229 "2010-06-29T16:02:57Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Extensive evidence is supplied in the reply. > Yes alarmist shill posters at a forum deny the refutation. This has been established and meaningless. That is indeed implying a conspiracy. What is clear here is that **no matter who** is making the criticism, science reporters, scientists, science bloggers or people with good logic ALL remain alarmist shills in your view. That is evidence enough to dismiss you as it is clear that no evidence will be good enough for you ever to request changes to the list. ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/230 "2010-06-29T16:05:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > AFAIK one could count with ones fingers the number of times a retraction of a paper has been done, scientists are content on doing the usual “science marches on” and just dismiss and forget the errors of the past. The point here is that what you say here is silly as talking point. You have failed to provide evidence outside of the existence of a published criticism for a particular paper. Valid criticisms are addressed and corrections released. Those that are not continue to be debated or the original criticism dismissed. All you have said are talking points that are unsubstantiated. ---
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/231 "2010-06-29T16:12:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is indeed implying a conspiracy. No, I made no mention of any conspiracy. You are obsessed with conspiracy because you cannot understand that people can be considered to have similar beliefs that allow then to draw similar conclusions. This has nothing to do with some cabal meeting in dark rooms plotting. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is clear here is that **no matter who** is making the criticism, science reporters, scientists, science bloggers or people with good logic ALL remain alarmist shills in your view. You are not presenting just anyone but well-known alarmists. All of these sources are well known in the debate to support the alarmist position and are not objective sources but you are attempting to use them as propaganda for people who do not know any better. No objective source or anyone who is intellectually honest brings creationism into a debate about climate change. It is a pathetic smear to desperately try and associate credentialed scientists with the scientifically illiterate creationists. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is evidence enough to dismiss you as it is clear that no evidence will be good enough for you ever to request changes to the list. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your repetitive talking points. You not liking a paper is not a reason for removal from the list. If you can find a paper that has been retracted then let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/232 "2010-06-29T16:17:30Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I am not here to discuss individual papers, that is what the authors are for. If you have any questions regarding the paper I suggest contacting them. What I have done is provide the peer-reviewed publication requested and then the peer-reviewed rebuttal of the comment on it, successfully refuting the only published criticism. > > This discussion is not about individual papers but whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-mad” global warming. They overwhelmingly do. Then everything you’ve posted in this thread is rhetorically empty. Kooks and oil-company shills backing each others’ nonsense up does not make the papers “peer-reviewed” in any meaningful way. That an absurd amount of money has been spent by energy concerns isn’t in doubt. That one by-product of this cooperative arrangement is circular support for groundless claims is rhetorically meaningless—it does nothing to bolster the underlying\* subject _of the papers. You were responding to a question about whether or not one of those papers debunked the underlying theory behind the greenhouse effect. You pointed one out. Asked about a glaring mistake and egregious error in the_ abstract\*, you resort to a different subject—utterly failing to answer the question. Again, the paper you are pointing to makes a substantial error in its abstract. This error is extraordinarily obvious—it completely ignores the source of energy and instead misstates a fundamental aspect of the greenhouse effect. If you (or anyone, really; it could just as easily be me that’s mistaken) cannot show why this is not in error, why the entire paper is not founded on a fundamental flaw, than pointing to it as anything more than pure fiction is rhetorically empty. ---
**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 29, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/233 "2010-06-29T16:18:43Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The alarmist hack who wrote that piece has only demonstrated his knack for propaganda. Bringing up the non-science of creationism is a sign of intellectual dishonesty as I have made no mention of it and have no association with them. Once again you have no evidence whatsoever that he is a hack, one can only say that by assuming a conspiracy. > [@Poptech](#): > > Could you provide these groups position statement on this issue to support this unfounded allegation, thanks. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_evidence\_of\_climate\_fraud.html](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html) > [@](#): > > A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly “hacked” from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world’s leading climate alarmists – the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate\_conspiracy\_appendix\_b.html](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_b.html) [http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/513833/200911301905/The-CRUs-Criminal-Conspiracy.aspx](http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/513833/200911301905/The-CRUs-Criminal-Conspiracy.aspx) > [@](#): > > The CRU’s Criminal Conspiracy As for Fox News and others: [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7nnVQ2fROOg/hqdefault.jpg "6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) ---
**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 29, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/234 "2010-06-29T16:22:23Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > You are not presenting just anyone but well-known alarmists. All of these sources are well known in the debate to support the alarmist position and are not objective sources but you are attempting to use them as propaganda for people who do not know any better. That is wrong as many of the posters here do know better. It is still silly to brand all your opposition alarmist, that is indeed a meaningless point. Even in the few cases were I have seen honest to goodness alarmists sounding the alarm it does not mean that they are automatically wrong. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/235 "2010-06-29T16:56:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again you have no evidence whatsoever that he is a hack, one can only say that by assuming a conspiracy. I made no mention of any conspiracy so you can say no such thing. The word hack was used to denote that he has no talent. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_evidence\_of\_climate\_fraud.html](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html) > > [http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/513833/200911301905/The-CRUs-Criminal-Conspiracy.aspx](http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/513833/200911301905/The-CRUs-Criminal-Conspiracy.aspx) Those are not position statements from the organizations but comments from the authors. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As for Fox News and others: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) LOL, back to the Youtubes and potholer. This is sad. ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/236 "2010-06-29T17:01:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is wrong as many of the posters here do know better. It is still silly to brand all your opposition alarmist, that is indeed a meaningless point. Even in the few cases were I have seen honest to goodness alarmists sounding the alarm it does not mean that they are automatically wrong. No actually they do not know better unless they have been involved in the debate as I have. **How to identify an alarmist** - Alarmists can be identified by the use of the word “denier” and/or attempts to associate skeptics with creationists, conspiracy theorists, energy companies, or politically right-wing groups. Intellectually honest inquisitors do not behave like this. ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/237 "2010-06-29T17:06:15Z")
How to identify an alarmist? > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Then everything you’ve posted in this thread is rhetorically empty. Kooks and **oil-company** shills backing each others’ nonsense up does not make the papers “peer-reviewed” in any meaningful way. That an absurd amount of money has been spent by **energy concerns** isn’t in doubt. That one by-product of this cooperative arrangement is circular support for groundless claims is rhetorically meaningless—it does nothing to bolster the underlying\* subject \*of the papers. Works every time. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > You were responding to a question about whether or not one of those papers debunked the underlying theory behind the greenhouse effect. You pointed one out. Asked about a glaring mistake and egregious error _in the_\* abstract\*, you resort to a different subject—utterly failing to answer the question. No I explained that only the author could answer your questions and I suggested contacting them. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Again, the paper you are pointing to makes a substantial error in its abstract. This error is extraordinarily obvious—it completely ignores the source of energy and instead misstates a fundamental aspect of the greenhouse effect. If you (or anyone, really; it could just as easily be me that’s mistaken) cannot show why this is not in error, why the entire paper is not founded on a fundamental flaw, than pointing to it as anything more than pure fiction is rhetorically empty. We await your peer-reviewed rebuttal. When it is published let me know. In the mean time the only published comment has been shot down in flames. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/238 "2010-06-29T17:07:23Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > That an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming alarm? That depends on how you quantify “an extensive amount.” And how you define _peer_. Are the authors recognized scholars in geophysics, climatology or meteorology? Do the reviewers have equivalent (or better) stature in those fields? What is the scientific definition of _skepticism_? “I dunno, seems weird to me” won’t cut it. Why say “man made” (in quotes) when you mean _anthropogenic_? _Alarm_? Really? If you truly wish to represent your viewpoint, why not pick _just one_ of these articles–one of the best. Give us a link. Present a brief summary–or abstract–but in our own words. Then open the discussion, as they do in the journal clubs you’ll find in most academic settings. This scattershot approach isn’t doing your cause any good. ---
**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 29, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/239 "2010-06-29T17:08:50Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Strawman as I did not say in my favour. You didn’t have to - the context in which you advanced it said it for you. Or are you now saying that it doesn’t matter if E&E is peer-reviewd or not? Because you certainly kicked up a fuss about it not being in ISI… > [@](#): > > I said in certain instances as I documented. And \*why \*would you say that if it didn’t advance your argument?:dubious: ---
**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 29, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/240 "2010-06-29T17:11:57Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I made no mention of any conspiracy so you can say no such thing. The word hack was used to denote that he has no talent. So, a fellow from MIT has no talent? Do tell. > [@Poptech](#): > > Those are not position statements from the organizations but comments from the authors. I mentioned as a group, unless you can point at the editors being refuted by their peers, it is indeed what they agree with. > [@Poptech](#): > > LOL, back to the Youtubes and potholer. This is sad. And as mentioned before, that is truly an illogical response. Deal with his points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=13)