# 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:** 4
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/61 "2010-06-25T17:01:17Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, it hasn’t. Results from a search of that kind would only turn up examples which literally carry the words “Anthropogenic Global Warming” in, in that order. Lacking those words is far from a guarantee that an example does not touch on the subject, one way or the other. Studies of AGW are generally based on the findings of people who simply study how the climate works. It’s like if you have a giant clock and you had people studying how various subsections of the internals work and then a few people putting that knowledge together at the end to go, “Why…it’s a giant clock!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/62 "2010-06-25T17:23:05Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > You know what sucks? As soon as you criticize or utter the smallest negative word about global warming, a swarm descends to take your words out of context, distort their meaning, blow them way out of proportion, and ascribe all sorts of insidious intents you never intended. It all but crushes open, honest, and much-needed debate on the subject like no other field of study. :dubious: None of which has happened, so far, in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/63 "2010-06-25T17:31:20Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That would violate the laws of thermodynamics. I think this stuff’ll stop when the atmosphere warms up enough to melt the electrons used to display BBS posts. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/64 "2010-06-25T17:32:37Z")
Appropriate for this thread, I think. In this week’s Science > [@](#): > > NEWS OF THE WEEK > CLIMATE CHANGE: > Critics Are Far Less Prominent Than Supporters > Eli Kintisch > > … > > The co-authors examined lists of scientists who have signed statements in support or opposition to the main findings over the years of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely, that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. They categorized the scientists as either “convinced” or “unconvinced” and then analyzed how many papers involving climate they had published. “Unconvinced” scientists comprised only 2% of the top 50 researchers ranked by number of climate publications and 3% of the top 100. Among scientists with 20 or more papers on climate, the so-called convinced group had an average of 172 citations for their top paper compared with 105 for the unconvinced. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1622-b](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1622-b) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/65 "2010-06-25T18:49:08Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > > > You know what sucks? As soon as you criticize or utter the smallest negative word about global warming, a swarm descends to take your words out of context, distort their meaning, blow them way out of proportion, and ascribe all sorts of insidious intents you never intended. It all but crushes open, honest, and much-needed debate on the subject like no other field of study. > > When did a Giant Pile of Spam, cut & pasted from another site, become “the smallest negative word”? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: None of which has happened, so far, in this thread. Don’t confuse the “smallest negative word” with the “Giant Pile of Spam.” Go back to post #8: > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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? So\*\* SR\*\* is putting together a paper (for a journal or otherwise) that explains and explores his criticism. When writing, how carefully does he have to choose his words? Careful enough to fit with the decorum and professionalism of whatever medium is likely to publish his work, but not much more than that. Let’s say he writes “the most recent measurements of the speed of light contain serious flaws, because the methods used inaccurately round up the thousandths place.” Does he have any concern that Fox News or some other marketing programme is going to lead a story with “yet another leading scientist claims that most speed of light measurements are seriously flawed! We’ve put together a panel of experts to discuss his findings and what they mean to the ‘theory’ that light travels.” As for it happening in this thread, it’s the essence and background of the OP—a swarm of energy-funded (and otherwise) deniers waiting to pounce on the slightest word or misstep. ---
**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 25, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/66 "2010-06-25T21:25:04Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > So\*\* SR\*\* is putting together a paper (for a journal or otherwise) that explains and explores his criticism. When writing, how carefully does he have to choose his words? Careful enough to fit with the decorum and professionalism of whatever medium is likely to publish his work, but not much more than that. Let’s say he writes “the most recent measurements of the speed of light contain serious flaws, because the methods used inaccurately round up the thousandths place.” Does he have any concern that Fox News or some other marketing programme is going to lead a story with “yet another leading scientist claims that most speed of light measurements are seriously flawed! We’ve put together a panel of experts to discuss his findings and what they mean to the ‘theory’ that light travels.” Scientists are not very concerned about how careful they choose their words, but many science bloggers and science reporters do point out that mainstream media usually gets \*\*wrong \*\*what they are saying. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/kmECHrOcFlc)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > As for it happening in this thread, it’s the essence and background of the OP—a swarm of energy-funded (and otherwise) deniers waiting to pounce on the slightest word or misstep. Climate change deniers are indeed the ones that do that, but just in case this was missed, climate change deniers also mention missteps that never took place. > **[What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?](https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)** > > \1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.\ > [@](#): > > _The skeptic argument…_ > > \*Ice age predicted in the 70s > > “The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from ‘one of the most important problems’ to a first-place tie for ‘death and misery’. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming.” (Fire and Ice). > \* > What the science says… > > The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/67 "2010-06-25T22:29:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I doubt you’ll find DTN so open to correction; it is, I should think, edited and supplemented only by Horowitz or those Horowitz authorizes to do so. “Ordinary Web users” are, **as a group,** more credible. DTN actually has staff researchers not just anyone who wants to submit unverified nonsense and outright misinformation like SourceWatch allows. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > In what way does this support the validity of DTN? By showing that anyone can post any misinformation to SourceWatch and there is no editorial control, thus making what appears on the page unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/68 "2010-06-25T22:35:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Scientists are not very concerned about how careful they choose their words… And those scientists piss me off. 😛 ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/69 "2010-06-25T22:39:58Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not to ISI, it’s not.HA! Ha! Ha! Like Boehmer-Christiansen isn’t paid by front groups for sitting on their “Advisory Boards” and organising their conferences. The multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation is not an altruistic final arbitrator of scientific “truth”. A journal indexed by one of their commercial products is no more scientifically relevant than one indexed by EBSCO or Scopus. [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) “[_E&E, by the way, is **peer reviewed** _](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)” - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) You have no sources to back up your smears of Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen. I understand your need to desperately try to smear her but just stating misinformation will not work. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Nor is it just the editorial staff - the research is energy-corporate funded too. More smears with no evidence to support them. > [@MrDibble](#): > > _That’s_ why half their editorial staff resigned, including the editor-in-chief, not exactly a climate change alarmist himself. No problems with their review process, no sir. I already [explained this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0), This paper was sent to 5 reviewers as opposed to the standard 3, none of which were skeptics. All were reputable paleoclimatologists. One editor von Storch got in a huff over the paper and even after being offered the job as chief editor of the journal resigned and got his friends on the board to go with him. So no there were no problems with the review process. This just happened to be the paper and journal Mann, Jones and company went after as confirmed in the Climategate emails. > [@MrDibble](#): > > By the way, are you under the impression that ISSN numbers mean anything other than “this is a periodical, not a book?” \*Cosmopolitan \*has an ISSN, for Pete’s sake. It is provided for accurate identification of the journal. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/70 "2010-06-25T22:42:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So responding to the charge of a journal being junk with “it is peer reviewed” is no response at all. Smearing an academic journal as junk is no charge at all. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/71 "2010-06-25T22:45:33Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, it hasn’t. Results from a search of that kind would only turn up examples which literally carry the words “Anthropogenic Global Warming” in, in that order. Lacking those words is far from a guarantee that an example does not touch on the subject, one way or the other. Explicitly endorsing AGW theory would require mention of those words. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > You mention that you helped to compile the list that you posted originally. Did you compile that list by searching for the words “anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming”, or some similar phrase, and that alone? When you went to help compile that list, what measures did you take? The papers are compiled based on them supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/72 "2010-06-25T23:14:47Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Smearing an academic journal as junk is no charge at all. so, you think professors at second rate universities who can’t get their stuff into the top journals are too stupid to figure out that setting up their own journals might be a way of getting publications on their c.v.s? And that there are no academics who will send a paper which got rejected at the good journals there? I’m not an academic, but I do review their papers, books, and sometimes even grant proposals, and if you think “academic” is a synonym for perfect and holy, you really don’t understand how the world works very well. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/73 "2010-06-25T23:27:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > so, you think professors at second rate universities who can’t get their stuff into the top journals are too stupid to figure out that setting up their own journals might be a way of getting publications on their c.v.s? And that there are no academics who will send a paper which got rejected at the good journals there? I’m not an academic, but I do review their papers, books, and sometimes even grant proposals, and if you think “academic” is a synonym for perfect and holy, you really don’t understand how the world works very well. These are all unfounded allegations. You have not demonstrated that any professor is from a second rate university (which is subjective) or that they have set up their own journal. I certainly do not believe the word academic would represent a religious term or be without the chance of error. The reason I use the correct term academic is because journals like E&E are not associated with the energy industry or receive funding from them, the journal comes from academia. FYI the editor is a social democrat and not even ideologically in the camp that those criticizing it are implying. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/74 "2010-06-25T23:31:09Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Explicitly endorsing AGW theory would require mention of those words. No, it wouldn’t. The papers could support merely a section of AGW, making the use of the word not necessarily reasonable, yet supporting the notion. A writer may prefer different words for the same general theory, or assume that a reader understand acronyms without being told. And then there’s papers in different languages. > [@](#): > > The papers are compiled based on them supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. I apologise, my question was poor. I wasn’t asking you your _rationale_ for which papers were selected - I understand the point you are making with them. My question is how did you go about finding and selecting these papers? What was your method? You’re sitting there, at your computer, or in a library. What tools did you use to search? ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/75 "2010-06-25T23:33:14Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Studies of AGW are generally based on the findings of people who simply study how the climate works. It’s like if you have a giant clock and you had people studying how various subsections of the internals work and then a few people putting that knowledge together at the end to go, “Why…it’s a giant clock!” That’s a much better restatement of my point. ---
**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 26, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/76 "2010-06-26T00:48:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, it wouldn’t. **Explicitly** endorsing AGW theory would require mention of those words. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I wasn’t asking you your _rationale_ for which papers were selected - I understand the point you are making with them. My question is how did you go about finding and selecting these papers? What was your method? You’re sitting there, at your computer, or in a library. What tools did you use to search? Research and time starting with various papers frequently mentioned over the years. All done on computer, libraries do not offer anything anymore that you cannot find online. No specific method as nothing like this was ever done before. ---
**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 26, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/77 "2010-06-26T02:15:36Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > **Explicitly** endorsing AGW theory would require mention of those words. Yes, and? Person A: Show me that there isn’t a lot of support for AGW. Person B: There are only 101 papers about the topic – which isn’t a lot. Person C: There’s no reason to think that all of those papers endorse AGW just because they mention the term. Some of them could very well be questioning or arguing against it. All that really shows is that most research isn’t specifically about AGW one way or the other. Person B: Yes, but you _would_ have to mention the term to endorse AGW. Your last statement has nothing to do with the one you were responding to. ---
**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 26, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/78 "2010-06-26T02:27:14Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Yes, and? > > Your last statement has nothing to do with the one you were responding to. **Explicit** endorsement requires mentioning the term. Remember I am the one who made the [original claim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617607&postcount=18), > [@Poptech](#): > > Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few **explicitly** endorse AGW theory. “Explicitly endorse” and “may be used to indirectly support the theory” are two different things. My statement was to the former and have supported it with [results](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) from Google Scholar. I accept that it is likely 750 papers get published each month relating to the climate but I do not accept remotely anywhere near that many are published that **explicitly** 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 26, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/79 "2010-06-26T02:37:20Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Appropriate for this thread, I think. > > In this week’s Science > [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1622-b](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1622-b) PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author’s name in quotes or advanced search operators such as “author:”, Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author “Phil Jones” (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word “climate”, you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word “climate” for all 1372 authors. Searching for Climate Patents? Their “results” were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”. By default Google Scholar is set to search both “articles and patents” yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word “climate” a relevant “climate publication”? Conclusion: the study is worthless due to Google Scholar illiteracy. ---
**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 26, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/80 "2010-06-26T02:47:59Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > **Explicit** endorsement requires mentioning the term. Remember I am the one who made the [original claim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617607&postcount=18), > > “Explicitly endorse” and “may be used to indirectly support the theory” are two different things. My statement was to the former and have supported it with [results](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Anthropogenic+Global+Warming%22&as_sdt=8000000001&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=2010&as_vis=1) from Google Scholar. I accept that it is likely 750 papers get published each month relating to the climate but I do not accept remotely anywhere near that many are published that **explicitly** endorse AGW theory. You’re in a debate thread. One assumes, that with you being in a debate, that you’re trying to make some point. Your point _seemed_ to be that there isn’t a lot of documentation supporting AGW. That would be a point that could be made, argued, and debated. If pointing that out was your intention, I would understand it and I’m sure many people would enjoy debating it with you. But noting that X% of all climate research papers are concerned with the question of AGW is well…factual. But, it is also entirely irrelevant. You may as well point out that the average depth of the ocean is 10 miles. It’s interesting trivia, but it’s not an argument for or against anything in the world. So either I did understand your point and you’re simply failing to follow basic conversation, or you truly are spouting off trivia and thinking that somehow it’s meaningful. It isn’t. But more importantly, regardless of which of the two options it is, neither one makes you look like you have much in the way of processing power up there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=5)