# 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:** 13
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/241 "2010-06-29T17:20:59Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > And how you define _peer_. Are the authors recognized scholars in geophysics, climatology or meteorology? Subjective and irrelevant. > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Do the reviewers have equivalent (or better) stature in those fields? Stature is subjective and irrelevant. > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > What is the scientific definition of _skepticism_? “I dunno, seems weird to me” won’t cut it. Try a dictionary. > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Why say “man made” (in quotes) when you mean _anthropogenic_? Obviously. > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > 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. That has nothing to do with the thread or the debate. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/242 "2010-06-29T17:24:19Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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 You do not define the context of what I say, I do. **Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal** (_ISSN: 0958-305X_) - [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) **ISI** (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal. > [@MrDibble](#): > > …And \*why \*would you say that if it didn’t advance your argument?:dubious: It does in relation to the argument I was responding to. ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/243 "2010-06-29T17:26:22Z")
Like I said, rhetorically empty. If anyone else has an objection or critique (of which there are many), have at it. Otherwise, I’m done with this Turing test. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/244 "2010-06-29T17:32:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, a fellow from MIT has no talent? Do tell. This hack clearly does not. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I mentioned as a group, unless you can point at the editors being refuted by their peers, it is indeed what they agree with. That is not what you [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12631080&postcount=221), > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The groups behind virtually all the cites you brought… None of which has anything to do with what I said as I made no mention of any conspiracy. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And as mentioned before, that is truly an illogical response. Deal with his points. He has no points outside of alarmist propaganda. Don’t you have a real source that is not some alarmist hack, blog, forum or Youtuber spouting lies? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/245 "2010-06-29T17:37:52Z")
> [@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. > > 2. 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. Go back and read the post that set you off. It pointed out specific tactics that different people use to attack ideas. Creationists use those tactics. Conspiracy Theorists use those tactics. As nearly as several of us can tell, you have been using the same tactics. Creationism and CT are not part of this thread, but your particular approach to the topic and the direct analogue between your behavior and the behavior of those other groups is very much pertinent to this discussion. I will not try to claim you have argued for Creationism because you have not. However, for at least the second time in this thread, you have (deliberately?) misconstrued a point that has been made in an attempt to attack your opponents with a straw man argument. Whatever your initial point in starting this thread–a point that was obscure at best, since from the OP you have been attacking positions without ever demonstrating that anyone held them–you are doing nothing to persuade anyone to your position, whatever that might be. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/246 "2010-06-29T18:24:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Go back and read the post that set you off. > > It pointed out specific tactics that different people use to attack ideas. Creationists use those tactics. Conspiracy Theorists use those tactics. As nearly as several of us can tell, you have been using the same tactics. Creationism and CT are not part of this thread, but your particular approach to the topic and the direct analogue between your behavior and the behavior of those other groups is very much pertinent to this discussion. I did and it is nothing but propaganda as I have not used any such “tactics” despite you claiming I have. I am disappointed to see this same juvenile level of debate here and the desperate need to attempt to associate skeptics with creationists and conspiracy theorists. I was hoping for some level of intellectual honesty, I guess I asked for to much. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/247 "2010-06-29T18:30:33Z")
too, it’s spelled too. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/248 "2010-06-29T18:34:26Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I did and it is nothing but propaganda as I have not used any such “tactics” despite you claiming I have. > > I am disappointed to see this same juvenile level of debate here and the desperate need to attempt to associate skeptics with creationists and conspiracy theorists. I was hoping for some level of intellectual honesty, I guess I asked for to much. Then open your blog (“Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology”) to debate. Allow Anonymous comments. Yes, you “registered” here. But that’s just a dummy ID, not linked to Blogger or Google. And don’t Moderate the Comments _before_ they appear. Let any moderation occur as needed–just like SDMB. If you were trying to win new recruits for your Mutual Admiration Society, you have failed. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/249 "2010-06-29T18:41:54Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Then open your blog (“Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology”) to debate. Allow Anonymous comments. Yes, you “registered” here. But that’s just a dummy ID, not linked to Blogger or Google. > > And don’t Moderate the Comments _before_ they appear. Let any moderation occur as needed–just like SDMB. I do not have control over these things all of which is irrelevant to this thread and the lack of intellectual honesty displayed by some posters here. I am sure you and others here would be interested in spamming the posts there anonymously with propaganda so I will not be recommending it. Why have you not suggested these things to RealClimate? ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/250 "2010-06-29T18:56:51Z")
accidental duplicate… ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/251 "2010-06-29T18:57:55Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I do not have control over these things all of which is irrelevant to this thread and the lack of intellectual honesty displayed by some posters here. I am sure you and others here would be interested in spamming the posts there anonymously with propaganda so I will not be recommending it. Why have you not suggested these things to RealClimate? RealClimate is for Climate Scientists. \* Your\* motto is “Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/252 "2010-06-29T19:04:41Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I did and it is nothing but propaganda as I have not used any such “tactics” despite you claiming I have. > > I am disappointed to see this same juvenile level of debate here and the desperate need to attempt to associate skeptics with creationists and conspiracy theorists. I was hoping for some level of intellectual honesty, I guess I asked for to much. Sure you have. Your OP was a straw man claiming (without actually providing evidence) that there was a movement afoot to pretend that no peer-reviewed papers chalenged the major thrust of the scientific consensus on the topic. You then hijacked your own thread on the straw man attacking your misreading of one poster’s comments. You have since gotten embroiled in this side track whjere you are attempting to make some large point by attacking other posters for “dishonesty” while, here we are, multiple pages into the thread, and you have failed to demonstrate why anyone should care about your straw man in the OP. You appear to be attempting to attack AGW by nibbling at small inconsistencies in the record while denying that that is what you are doing. For you to go off on an “honesty” attack at this point is just silly. As to “juvenile,” that is exactly how I would characterize your initial self-hijack as well as this one. On the other hand, since you now seem to be more interested in hurling insults and _ad hominem_s than actually making whatever vague point you thought you were going to express in the OP, I am going to have to consider whether this thread is in the correct forum, (or whether it deserves to be in any forum). Stop with the personal attacks, lay out your exact point in a way that makes sense, and I will consider allowing this thread to continue. [/Modding] ---
**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 30, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/253 "2010-06-30T00:27:40Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > RealClimate is for Climate Scientists. \* Your\* motto is “Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology.” RealClimate is for Alarmist shills in the pockets of eco-activist groups like Fenton Communications and EMS. Gavin never saw an activists dick he would not suck for cash. ---
**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 30, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/254 "2010-06-30T00:48:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Sure you have. Your OP was a straw man claiming (without actually providing evidence) that there was a movement afoot to pretend that no peer-reviewed papers chalenged the major thrust of the scientific consensus on the topic. Untrue, I don’t have to demonstrate the existence of any “movement” just that there is a belief that no peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming alarm. This is childs play, [Must-see video of Sen. Kerry grilling AEI’s Kenneth Green: “You just can’t just throw that stuff out there.”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) > [@](#): > > Senator Kerry: You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed? It does not get any better than the U.S. Senate! > [@tomndebb](#): > > You then hijacked your own thread on the straw man attacking your misreading of one poster’s comments. “Hijacking” my own thread doesn’t even make any sense. I simply misread a commentator’s argument which I have since corrected my response to and demonstrated their’s to be absolutely worthless. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You have since gotten embroiled in this side track whjere you are attempting to make some large point by attacking other posters for “dishonesty” while, I just reply to the weak arguments that are presented to me. You seem to have a problem when I respond to other people’s arguments. I have noticed that when they start to lose badly you interject, interesting. > [@tomndebb](#): > > here we are, multiple pages into the thread, and you have failed to demonstrate why anyone should care about your straw man in the OP. Please explain how I am supposed to control your or anyone else’s emotions (caring). Stating that my post is a strawman has been disproven with the evidence I provided above. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You appear to be attempting to attack AGW by nibbling at small inconsistencies in the record while denying that that is what you are doing. Then you need glasses. > [@tomndebb](#): > > For you to go off on an “honesty” attack at this point is just silly. As to “juvenile,” that is exactly how I would characterize your initial self-hijack as well as this one. I went off on honesty because you are not being intellectually honest making assumptions based on things I have never stated and allowing those who confirm to your bias to say what they will but only go after me (who does not side with your bias). > [@tomndebb](#): > > On the other hand, since you now seem to be more interested in hurling insults and _ad hominem_s than actually making whatever vague point you thought you were going to express in the OP, I am going to have to consider whether this thread is in the correct forum, (or whether it deserves to be in any forum). Please continue to ignore the insults that the other posters make because they side with your bias. Please continue to threaten posters who’s arguments you do not agree with. It makes a very objective way to moderate being the bully. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Stop with the personal attacks, Who did I personally attack? > [@tomndebb](#): > > lay out your exact point in a way that makes sense, and I will consider allowing this thread to continue. Everything I have stated has made sense. Thank you for confirming I am winning the argument, as soon as moderators have to argue using the threat of censoring or banning I’ve already won. The reason is you cannot debate the facts. Awesome. ---
**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 30, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/255 "2010-06-30T00:49:59Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > RealClimate is for Climate Scientists. \* Your\* motto is “Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology.” Oh so admit RealClimate is not impartial? At least you state the obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/256 "2010-06-30T01:48:59Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Everything I have stated has made sense. Perhaps to you, but that’s utterly useless if it doesn’t make sense to others, such as **tomndebb**. You’ll not convince anyone by merely claiming to be sensible. You have to _prove_ your position to others. The bar for that on anthropogenic climate change is pretty high these days, and it does not look like you’ve much chance of clearing it. Many of us have seen enough of these threads to view them as just some new dude’s libertarian-manifesto-magnum-opus-type-dealy; decidedly _not_ a big deal. ---
**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 30, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/257 "2010-06-30T02:24:35Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Thank you for confirming I am winning the argument, as soon as moderators have to argue using the threat of censoring or banning I’ve already won. The reason is you cannot debate the facts. Awesome. Have you any idea how sad it is to see you stumbling away, nose bloodied, declaring victory in this fight? You are advocating a conspiracy theory, and you aren’t even trying to actually debate. You swim around like a tadpole from fact to fact, never for an instant acknowledging when you’ve been shown to be utterly and embarrassingly wrong. Seriously, dude. This is like the Python’s Black Knight, only not funny. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/258 "2010-06-30T03:04:04Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Everything I have stated has made sense. Except the parts where you have responded to things that were never posted and the parts where you got your facts wrong and the parts where you have never even made it clear what you think you are arguing about, “everything” has made sense. > [@Poptech](#): > > Thank you for confirming I am winning the argument, as soon as moderators have to argue using the threat of censoring or banning I’ve already won. The reason is you cannot debate the facts. Awesome. You are hardly “winning” an argument that you cannot even describe. No one has threatened to ban you, (more failure of understanding–or deliberate mischaracterization–on your part), and you have not been threatened with censorship, either. I have only noted that you are not conducting a debate and that if you do not begin to behave in a reasonable fashion, it will not remain open in this forum. AGW threads are more common than gun control threads. I rarely participate and I really have little interest in who “wins” or “loses” such brawls. I do care about having to read pointless threads because they keep getting reported as trolling and, when I open them, I find one or more posters pushing hostility supported by bad logic and a lack of facts. You have been instructed to lay out what you think this debate is supposed to be about (with the implication that you might want to indicate why it is a debate and not a personal rant). If you are unable to do that, I can accommodate you with a more appropriate forum. ---
**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 30, 2010, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/259 "2010-06-30T08:45:10Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > You do not define the context of what I say, I do. Errm, how about … no? No-one “defines” context. It just is. > [@](#): > > **ISI** (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. What’s the point of repeating this? Especially the attempted _ad hom_ of T-R being a “multi-billion dollar[…]corporation” - as if EBSCO and Elsevier _aren’t_? What company involved in citation indexing _isn’t_? > [@](#): > > Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal. _Au contraire_, all citation indexes are not created equal. ISI is the oldest and has the highest standing. A journal’s omission from it is very telling. > [@](#): > > It does in relation to the argument I was responding to. That’s my point!:smack: ---
**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 30, 2010, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/260 "2010-06-30T08:53:11Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Gavin never saw an activists dick he would not suck for cash. How [original](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12618155&postcount=53):rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=14)