# 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:** 5
**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, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/81 "2010-06-26T03:07:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. My point is what I stated not your strawman argument. I am quite sure you would enjoy debating your strawman argument since apparently it is not possible to debate what I actually said no matter how many times I explicitly repeat it. My failure to change what I actually said to match your made up argument is not failing to follow basic conversation but my ability not to fall for strawman arguments. My statement was that yes many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few **explicitly** endorse AGW theory. Without explicit endorsement it is impossible to say that a paper endorses the theory. I agree that they may use slightly different wording but the paper must mention anthropogenic global warming in some way. Otherwise it is just a paper on the climate and cannot be used as endorsement of AGW theory. What is obvious is that those who believe all these (insert magic number) papers exist endorsing AGW theory have never actually looked for them. I would recommend looking up the definition of the word “explicit” and the phrase “strawman argument”. This should allow you to better follow the actual conversation. ---
**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, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/82 "2010-06-26T03:31:21Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > What is obvious is that those who believe all these (insert magic number) papers exist endorsing AGW theory have never actually looked for them. a) Both I and **Revenant Threshold** pointed out that there are fewer papers endorsing AGW than you seem to think. You have failed to grasp this even though we’ve said it three or four different ways now, and even though _it adds to your argument_ that you think you’re making. b) Why do you think that anyone thinks that there is some magic number of papers that should exist if AGW is popularly endorsed? You’re the only person in the whole thread who seems to think this. Why do you think 101 is low? Why do you think I or anyone else should find it low? If I told you that an auto repair company had 8 orders for bumpers last week, does this tell you anything about bumpers? No. Maybe it’s high, maybe it’s low. I have no idea. I don’t know how big the company is, I don’t know how many things they ordered at all. There are thousands of parts on a car. I suspect that most of them are more things like screws and bolts. I would expect 99% of all orders to be for something other than a bumper. But, I also know nothing about auto repair. Maybe if only 1% of orders were for bumpers, that would be low. With the information you’ve provided, you’ve failed to impart any useful information. What percentage of papers on AGW endorsed it? What percentage argued against it? Why do you think that a high percentage of papers should be written expressly about the topic of AGW? What evidence do you have to support that opinion? Why are you amazed that 101 is the number of papers on Google Scholar? ---
**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, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/83 "2010-06-26T04:30:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > a) Both I and **Revenant Threshold** pointed out that there are fewer papers endorsing AGW than you seem to think. Huh? I thought you and him were arguing that there are more papers endorsing AGW than I believe? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > b) Why do you think that anyone thinks that there is some magic number of papers that should exist if AGW is popularly endorsed? You’re the only person in the whole thread who seems to think this. It is a common misconception that there are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW theory as I demonstrated to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Why do you think 101 is low? Why do you think I or anyone else should find it low? That was for the last six months. It is was in direct response to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party’s [challenge](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617635&postcount=19) when [I rejected](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617607&postcount=18) his [comment](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617536&postcount=17), > [@Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party](#): > > So you can stitch together a list of 750 dubious articles on AGW. So what? About 750 articles on the subject get published on it every few months. It means nothing. The 101 Google Scholar results for the last six months that I presented was to prove that his statement about 750 papers endorsing AGW getting published each month was false. I was responding to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party and since then you two have jumped in apparently without reading the context of which I was using the 101 results. Instead you create a new strawman argument about me expecting you to find that number low or that I find the number low? I made neither statement. I do find the number which averages out to 16-17 a month much lower than the claim of 750 a month as was implied. Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party attempted to make the 750 paper list I presented look insignificant by simply stating misinformation about that many papers endorsing AGW being published each month. His comment has been proven wrong. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > With the information you’ve provided, you’ve failed to impart any useful information. What percentage of papers on AGW endorsed it? What percentage argued against it? Why do you think that a high percentage of papers should be written expressly about the topic of AGW? What evidence do you have to support that opinion? Why are you amazed that 101 is the number of papers on Google Scholar? All irrelevant to my point. Best case scenario is they all endorse AGW theory in which case Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party is proven wrong regardless. Strawman: I made no statement that a high percentage of paper should be written expressly about AGW. Strawman: I was not amazed by the Google Scholar results. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/84 "2010-06-26T07:32:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP? Well, he switches between his PopTech and Andrew personas all over the internet (just not here, thus far), so I’d wager that it’s his site. ---
**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 26, 2010, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/85 "2010-06-26T08:09:00Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > 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. Actually, I’d say it was, de facto, the more relevant standard. It is the one a lot of institutions use for considering standing. And it’s a great basis for comparison. For instance, a fringe journal (40-some libraries? _Fortean_ Times is in more…) would stand out by being in some lists and not others. > [@](#): > > You have no sources to back up your smears of Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen. Her job with Scientific Alliance and that body’s links to the GCMI are all matters of public record. > [@](#): > > I already [explained this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12617851&postcount=38) Tried to, at any rate. Not buying it - nor your attempt to dismiss von Storch as huffy. > [@](#): > > It is provided for accurate identification of the journal. Sure:rolleyes: ---
**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 26, 2010, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/86 "2010-06-26T08:15:14Z")
BTW, don’t think I missed the attempted _ad hom_ attack on ISI. Pathetic response, really. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/87 "2010-06-26T08:59:44Z")
Shorter PopTart: What is this so-called “Science” journal? Why don’t you stick to real journals like David Horowitz’s diary? ---
**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 26, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/88 "2010-06-26T13:28:13Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > **Explicitly** endorsing AGW theory would require mention of those words. No, it would not. Here’s an example; i’m a supporter of the soccer team Arsenal. I can indicate my explicit support for that team by saying “Up the Gunners!” because that’s another name for the same thing. Likewise, a study looking at a facet of the theory - as, honestly, I would tend to imagine would be the case for most climate studies - could explicitly endorse that facet, and so the whole, without reference by name to that whole theory. And as i’ve said, you’re forgetting papers not in English. And even then, using a single method, Google Scholar, to look up papers isn’t a good enough sample to see the entirety of papers on the topic. Hey, i’ll even help you out. Looking up just AGW would also bring up papers that would mention it in order to _disagree_ with it. > [@](#): > > 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. I find that surprising. It seems as though, in order to come up with a reasonable, fairly comprehensive look at how many papers are AGW skeptical, you’ve put in quite a bit of work and time. In order to back up your point, you’ve spent a lot of effort in finding those papers. Whereas in order to find AGW-pro papers, you seem to feel that a simple Google Scholar search is an adequate method to come up with a comprehensive understanding. That doesn’t really strike me as being particularly balanced of you. If a Google Scholar search is acceptable, alone, to sum up one side, why is it not for the side you espouse? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/89 "2010-06-26T14:50:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. > [@Zephyurs](#): > > Shorter PopTart: What is this so-called “Science” journal? Why don’t you stick to real journals like David Horowitz’s diary? Personal insults don’t belong in this forum. Stick to the arguments and leave this stuff out. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/90 "2010-06-26T15:38:11Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > 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. If you read the article, you’ll see that they mentioned these drawbacks. They did validate the top climate researchers. They also only include authors in their study with 20 or more publications which will automatically remove non-climate researchers spouting off on climate research. They also tried a cut-off of 10 and got the same results. Most importantly, Google scholar results were similar to ISI Web of Science which will only give you articles (or meeting abstracts). In fact, made the number of skeptic articles even lower because a lot of them are not in scientific journals. All together, the problems you mention would only support your contention that there is no consensus because it doesn’t filter out the bullshit as much. Nonetheless, it doesn’t change the results because there are very few real skeptic researchers and many of them are pretty old so they don’t publish cutting edge climate research anymore. Also, the author’s results are by no means controversial. Meta results such as these have been generated and published in scientific journals for at least a decade now (some are cited in this paper). There is a huge or at least substantial consensus. Sure, all the scientists could end up being wrong but this notion that there only a few rogue climate researchers who agree with AGW is complete and utter nonsense. Here’s the .pdf file of the paper. It’s not long. [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/91 "2010-06-26T23:44:50Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Don’t confuse the “smallest negative word” with the “Giant Pile of Spam.” > > Go back to post #8: > 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. Some scientist, I forget who, once commented, “The law of gravity would be called into question if a financial interest were involved.” ---
**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 27, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/92 "2010-06-27T00:34:24Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > 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. If you aren’t aware that there is a hierarchy in journals, you don’t know much about publishing. I’d be far more interested in a count of “skeptical” articles in top rank publications than just a count. As I said, I don’t know this area, so I don’t know which publications are good, so my comment is on peer-review in general. I’m also not saying there is anything wrong with second tier journals. New faculty need a place to practice. You just have to give papers there a bit less credence than ones in Science or Nature. ---
**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 27, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/93 "2010-06-27T21:06:35Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Actually, I’d say it was, de facto, the more relevant standard. It is the one a lot of institutions use for considering standing. And it’s a great basis for comparison. Your opinion has nothing to do with this. What certain institutions use for considering standing is merely their subjectivity. > [@MrDibble](#): > > For instance, a fringe journal (40-some libraries? _Fortean_ Times is in more…) would stand out by being in some lists and not others. E&E is actually available in 128 libraries. It is obvious that popular magazines would be in more than many popular journals. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Her job with Scientific Alliance and that body’s links to the GCMI are all matters of public record. Her advisory position with the Scientific Alliance does not demonstrate payment by front groups as was implied. ---
**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 27, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/94 "2010-06-27T21:33:30Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, it would not. Here’s an example; i’m a supporter of the soccer team Arsenal. I can indicate my explicit support for that team by saying “Up the Gunners!” because that’s another name for the same thing. Yes but there are very few terms to show explicit endorsement of AGW theory. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Likewise, a study looking at a facet of the theory - as, honestly, I would tend to imagine would be the case for most climate studies - could explicitly endorse that facet, and so the whole, without reference by name to that whole theory. Not for explicit endorsement that would require mentioning support of the theory in some way. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > And as i’ve said, you’re forgetting papers not in English. And even then, using a single method, Google Scholar, to look up papers isn’t a good enough sample to see the entirety of papers on the topic. Papers not in English are translated by various publishers Google Scholar indexes such as some of the global but European based publishers. Google Scholar is the most comprehensive online resource available to attempt to determine this. No resource is 100% inclusive but Google Scholar may be the best. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Hey, i’ll even help you out. Looking up just AGW would also bring up papers that would mention it in order to _disagree_ with it. This helps my case. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I find that surprising. It seems as though, in order to come up with a reasonable, fairly comprehensive look at how many papers are AGW skeptical, you’ve put in quite a bit of work and time. In order to back up your point, you’ve spent a lot of effort in finding those papers. Whereas in order to find AGW-pro papers, you seem to feel that a simple Google Scholar search is an adequate method to come up with a comprehensive understanding. > > That doesn’t really strike me as being particularly balanced of you. If a Google Scholar search is acceptable, alone, to sum up one side, why is it not for the side you espouse? Strawman: I never claimed my method for finding pro-AGW papers was comprehensive only good enough to disprove the claim that 750 pro-AGW papers are published each month. I am not the one making that claim, yet I am the only one providing any evidence for or against it. Until you have provided evidence to support this claim it is unfounded. ---
**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 27, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/95 "2010-06-27T21:43:03Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > If you read the article, you’ll see that they mentioned these drawbacks. Only in certain situations such as determining full publication lists without the word “climate” not for when they included it. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > They did validate the top climate researchers. They only validated the top 4 publications for their citation analysis not for validation of the total amount of results for the search word “climate” for all 1372 authors. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > They also only include authors in their study with 20 or more publications which will automatically remove non-climate researchers spouting off on climate research. They also tried a cut-off of 10 and got the same results. This is subjective nonsense and they failed to provide evidence that their subjective criteria did not unfairly remove skeptics from consideration. If they got the same results with 10 they should have used 10 but this is still nonsense and does not demonstrate expertise. Volume or papers published or volume of citations does not demonstrate expertise. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Most importantly, Google scholar results were similar to ISI Web of Science which will only give you articles (or meeting abstracts). In fact, made the number of skeptic articles even lower because a lot of them are not in scientific journals. ISI does not index all peer-reviewed journals and uses a subjective inclusion process. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > All together, the problems you mention would only support your contention that there is no consensus because it doesn’t filter out the bullshit as much. Nonetheless, it doesn’t change the results because there are very few real skeptic researchers and many of them are pretty old so they don’t publish cutting edge climate research anymore. The results are worthless because they were not validated and thus no conclusions can be drawn from the study. The age of any scientist is irrelevant. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Also, the author’s results are by no means controversial. Meta results such as these have been generated and published in scientific journals for at least a decade now (some are cited in this paper). Of course they are controversial, rather meaningless for the reasons I described. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > There is a huge or at least substantial consensus. Sure, all the scientists could end up being wrong but this notion that there only a few rogue climate researchers who agree with AGW is complete and utter nonsense. There is no consensus and this paper does not demonstrate one. It demonstrates Google Scholar illiteracy. I’ve read the paper. ---
**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 27, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/96 "2010-06-27T21:48:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you aren’t aware that there is a hierarchy in journals, you don’t know much about publishing. I’d be far more interested in a count of “skeptical” articles in top rank publications than just a count. As I said, I don’t know this area, so I don’t know which publications are good, so my comment is on peer-review in general. > > I’m also not saying there is anything wrong with second tier journals. New faculty need a place to practice. You just have to give papers there a bit less credence than ones in Science or Nature. This “hierarchy” is subjective. There are certain more popular journals but papers published in them are no more valid than other journals. I am sure you would be interested in subjective criteria instead of objective ones were the criteria for inclusion is simply a paper being in a peer-reviewed journal. Whether a publication is “good” or not is subjective nonsense. I can provide evidence that every journal listed is peer-reviewed. Science is science and has nothing to do with where it is published. ---
**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 27, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/97 "2010-06-27T22:14:10Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > This “hierarchy” is subjective. There are certain more popular journals but papers published in them are no more valid than other journals. I am sure you would be interested in subjective criteria instead of objective ones were the criteria for inclusion is simply a paper being in a peer-reviewed journal. Whether a publication is “good” or not is subjective nonsense. I can provide evidence that every journal listed is peer-reviewed. Science is science and has nothing to do with where it is published. I have no doubt at all that every paper listed is peer reviewed. However, I have written hundreds of reviews, and read well over a thousand as a program chair and an editor, and I assure you that not all reviews are created equal. On one hand there are long and thoughtful reviews, showing a deep knowledge of a field and a lot of attention to the paper under review. On the other, well know professors write “interesting,” especially if a paper is in their subfield, a subfield they are trying to build up. I’ve seen reviews that are flat out wrong, and I’ve even instructed authors to ignore review #3, who did not get it. The most fun you have as an author is to get two reviews which directly contradict each other, which lets you do what you damn well please. As for hierarchy, sure there is nothing written saying journal X is better than journal Y, but everyone knows the hierarchy. My daughter is in grad school, and her group just had a letter accepted in the Journal of the AMA where she was second author - and the whole group went out to celebrate. They’ve had plenty of other things accepted. There are some journals in her field (not medicine, actually) where having a few papers published is more or less a guarantee of a good job. I’m curious about your background in academic publishing. I’ve been doing it for 35 years, in nearly every position there is (not editor-in-chief of a journal yet) and I know how it really works. ---
**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 27, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/98 "2010-06-27T22:31:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I have no doubt at all that every paper listed is peer reviewed. However, I have written hundreds of reviews, and read well over a thousand as a program chair and an editor, and I assure you that not all reviews are created equal. On one hand there are long and thoughtful reviews, showing a deep knowledge of a field and a lot of attention to the paper under review. On the other, well know professors write “interesting,” especially if a paper is in their subfield, a subfield they are trying to build up. I’ve seen reviews that are flat out wrong, and I’ve even instructed authors to ignore review #3, who did not get it. The most fun you have as an author is to get two reviews which directly contradict each other, which lets you do what you damn well please. > > As for hierarchy, sure there is nothing written saying journal X is better than journal Y, but everyone knows the hierarchy. My daughter is in grad school, and her group just had a letter accepted in the Journal of the AMA where she was second author - and the whole group went out to celebrate. They’ve had plenty of other things accepted. There are some journals in her field (not medicine, actually) where having a few papers published is more or less a guarantee of a good job. > > I’m curious about your background in academic publishing. I’ve been doing it for 35 years, in nearly every position there is (not editor-in-chief of a journal yet) and I know how it really works. I am well aware that not all reviews are equal but this is not a discussion on the merits or problems of peer-review and these sorts of arguments cannot be settled in dealing with peer-reviewed papers unless all reviewer comments were available which will not happen. I am also aware that in the academic world publishing in certain journals is more “prestigious” and I am sure helps with obtaining academic jobs. All of this fails to be impressive when dealing with scientific truth. I have never claimed to have any personal background in academic publishing as it is largely irrelevant to my field (computer science) but my father has been extensively published. So I am well aware of the process. ---
**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 27, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/99 "2010-06-27T22:51:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve been doing it for 35 years, in nearly every position there is (not editor-in-chief of a journal yet) and I know how it really works. Which is why it is even more surprising to see your ideologically driven response to unfounded charges. If you have no interest in being objective why provide credentials to be used as an appeal to authority? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/100 "2010-06-27T22:51:17Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I am well aware that not all reviews are equal but this is not a discussion on the merits or problems of peer-review . . . Why not? That’s obviously very relevant to the debate as premised in the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=6)