# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/121 "2010-06-28T00:44:22Z")
Huh. I decided to see if I had the [del]intellectual stamina[/del] attention span to forge through the list linked to in the OP. My first inclination, when I saw the site, was to say, “Nope. I don’t.” and go do something else with my afternoon. Seriously, that page is a HUGE data dump. I’m not sure I gleaned anything of importance. But I DID find that 65 of the items listed one Sherwood B. Idso as a contributor. Dr. Idso is on record as supporting the notion that human activity is responsible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (he’s also on record as saying that he thinks increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are a _good_ thing). [Here’s](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO450008.shtml) an interesting item from the list. The abstract states (in its entirety) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > Humans are recognized as having a major role in influencing environmental variability and change, including their influence on the climate system. To advance scientists’ understanding of the role of humans within the climate system, there remains a need to resolve which of the following three hypotheses is correct: **Hypothesis 1: Human influence on climate variability and change is of minimal importance, and natural causes dominate climate variations and changes on all time scales. In coming decades, the human influence will continue to be minimal.** That underlined part? That’s not the conclusion. It’s merely a part of the first hypothesis (of three which the abstract promises is explored in the paper). Note that the principle author is also on record as vehemently denying the label of AGW skeptic. Fella named Michael J. Economides appears a couple of times. Both times, it looks like the major thrust of his work is more about how expensive it would be to mitigate anthropogenic climate change than whether there is any doubt that it happens. Cleraly, this is a waste of my time. [Please read this abstract (from the OP’s list), and give me a plausible reason to believe that it is a scholarly work that provides a hypothesis that explains available data better than the one commonly known as AGW.](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282000%29081%3C0437%3AHFETIL%3E2.3.CO%3B2) Also, why is your handle basically an abbreviation of the name of the website that you link to? Are you the editor? Lastly, what is this deal people are talking about with Firefox? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/122 "2010-06-28T00:46:39Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The value of peer-review is that alarmist like to use it to stifle debate by propagandizing that no peer-reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of AGW or the economic or environmental effects of AGW. My argument is based on them existing and such a thing as peer-review existing. Subjective “valuations” have no bearing on anything outside of some who desperately want to discredit the papers on the list and thus look for anything they can latch onto to try and fail to do this. Now \*\*that \*\*it is a straw man. That is not what climate scientists are saying and even the term alarmist is improper. What me and many are saying is that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers that attempt to refute AGW, but they are few and many times new data and research discredits or refutes most of their points, and that goes for the ones from serious skeptic scientists. The ones coming from people that misinterpret the data and have an agenda (like Soon) do not deserve to be in the same column as papers from serious skeptical researchers. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/21/PoSVoxwYrKI)** > > 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)... > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/7/w5hs4KVeiAU)** > > 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)... And just in case you still what to disparage that source, you have to be aware that he also has a beef with the ones that you can indeed call alarmists (not the scientists BTW) > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/8/N2B34sO7HPM)** > > 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)... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/123 "2010-06-28T00:56:30Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The full rebuttal to the paper you presented I provide. Obviously Mann would deny they addressed his points he has a history of denial. Care to explain that then? My main point is that are not capable of explaining away the specific tree points mentioned. And that shows that as a judge of the papers you are not very credible. BTW the rebuttal by Mann and others was in the same PDF, right after the rebuttal you mentioned. > [@Poptech](#): > > Neither as the paper was later confirmed in a reappraisal, > > [Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Energy+EnvironmentSoonetal2003.pdf) (PDF) > (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003) > > - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates Yes, by Energy and Environment, the energy industry’s house organ. Not impressed. And it is a tautological point, I already pointed at even skeptical sources that report that Soon was really not doing proper science. The only thing it was found it was that some publications are indeed set up to allow an easier process of publication to then pass trash as science. > [@Poptech](#): > > I have also explained the resignations by Storch and his friends in previous posts. > > That paper will never be removed nor any peer-reviewed paper on the list unless it was retracted by the journal it was published in. You have failed to discredit the list in anyway. Explained is not the same as convincing the people that matters, BTW it is not just us, care to point at the universities and/or scientific organizations that got convinced by those papers? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/124 "2010-06-28T01:08:34Z")
And as much as you are attempting to avoid it, you need to show us that you even understand \*\*why \*\*it is that many think that Soon and Baliunas failed in science: Basically, what Soon and L. Baliunas did was: \*\*1) Mistake tree ring growth due to warmth with tree ring growth due to rainfall. 1. They assumed that local temperature variations could be applied to global variations. 2. Compared historical proxies with average temperatures for the 20th century as a whole instead of the late 20th century, ignoring the problems with the proxies on the period of anomalous warming.\*\* Please explain in your own words why these items are not true. I consider that important as you failed before in the previous discussion in even understanding basic statistics, I want to see if at least you do understand the basics of proxy climate research. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/125 "2010-06-28T01:11:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Seriously, that page is a HUGE data dump. I’m not sure I gleaned anything of importance. But I DID find that 65 of the items listed one Sherwood B. Idso as a contributor. Dr. Idso is one of the foremost skeptics who does not support alarm, Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present) > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO450008.shtml) an interesting item from the list. The abstract states (in its entirety)That underlined part? That’s not the conclusion. It’s merely a part of the first hypothesis (of three which the abstract promises is explored in the paper). Note that the principle author is also on record as vehemently denying the label of AGW skeptic. The paper also rejects the AGW hypothesis as presented by the IPCC. The author also rejects conclusions of alarm. But the list is not about the authors as explicitly stated, **Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.** > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Fella named Michael J. Economides appears a couple of times. Both times, it looks like the major thrust of his work is more about how expensive it would be to mitigate anthropogenic climate change than whether there is any doubt that it happens. You obviously failed to read the first sentence of the list, **“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global 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 28, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/126 "2010-06-28T01:16:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What me and many are saying is that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers that attempt to refute AGW, but they are few and many times new data and research discredits or refutes most of their points, and that goes for the ones from serious skeptic scientists. The ones coming from people that misinterpret the data and have an agenda (like Soon) do not deserve to be in the same column as papers from serious skeptical researchers. This is what you want to present but it is not true. There are many papers as I have provided. Yes of course there are failed attempts to discredit and refute the skeptics work, it usually revolves around repeating your talking points. Who you think deserves to be listed and where is subjective nonsense. Potholer is an alarmist waste of time who does not understand the science and his videos are full of misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/127 "2010-06-28T01:22:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Care to explain that then? My main point is that are not capable of explaining away the specific tree points mentioned. And that shows that as a judge of the papers you are not very credible. That is your opinion and I do not agree. Clearly you want to badly discuss this paper, please start a new thread to do so as it has nothing to do with inclusion on the list. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, by Energy and Environment, the energy industry’s house organ. Not impressed. And it is a tautological point, I already pointed at even skeptical sources that report that Soon was really not doing proper science. The only thing it was found it was that some publications are indeed set up to allow an easier process of publication to then pass trash as science. Please provide evidence for your libelous lie about E&E. You have not provided a single skeptical source. Chris Mooney is an alarmist supporter of AGW not a skeptic and so is Potholer. You have found nothing out except your already established confirmation bias. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Explained is not the same as convincing the people that matters, BTW it is not just us, care to point at the universities and/or scientific organizations that got convinced by those papers? How do you convince a university? This is irrelevant to the argument as presented. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/128 "2010-06-28T01:23:53Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The paper also rejects the AGW hypothesis as presented by the IPCC. The author also rejects conclusions of alarm. But the list is not about the authors as explicitly stated, > > **Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.** > You obviously failed to read the first sentence of the list, > > **“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming.”** The abstract refers to just Hypothesis 1. What where the others? > [@](#): > > Hypothesis 2a: Although the natural > causes of climate variations and changes > are undoubtedly important, the human influences > are significant and involve a diverse > range of first- order climate forcings, including, > but not limited to, the human input of > carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of > these human influences on regional and > global climate will continue to be of concern > during the coming decades. > > Hypothesis 2b: Although the natural > causes of climate variations and changes are > undoubtedly important, the human influences > are significant and are dominated by the emissions > into the atmosphere of greenhouse > gases, **the most important of which is CO2**. The > adverse impact of these gases on regional and > global climate constitutes the primary climate > issue for the coming decades. So what was the conclusion? > [@](#): > > We therefore conclude that hypothesis 2a > is better supported than hypothesis 2b, > which is a policy that focuses on modulating > carbon emissions. Hypothesis 2b as a framework > to mitigate climate change will neglect > the diversity of other, important first- order > human climate forcings that also can have > adverse effects on the climate system. We > urge that these other climate forcings (like black carbon) should > also be considered with respect to mitigation > and adaptation policies. I will leave others to judge if the paper \*\*also \*\*rejects the AGW hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/129 "2010-06-28T01:25:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Please explain in your own words why these items are not true. I consider that important as you failed before in the previous discussion in even understanding basic statistics, I want to see if at least you do understand the basics of proxy climate research. They have defended their own paper, that is not my job. I have not failed in understanding basic statistics and you obviously do not understand the basics of proxy climate research neither does Mann. Clearly you feel very passionate about this paper, I suggest starting a new topic to discuss it as I have no interest in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/130 "2010-06-28T01:26:53Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > That is your opinion and I do not agree. Clearly you want to badly discuss this paper, please start a new thread to do so as it has nothing to do with inclusion on the list. Translation: I have no clue. > [@Poptech](#): > > Please provide evidence for your libelous lie about E&E. You have not provided a single skeptical source. Chris Mooney is an alarmist supporter of AGW not a skeptic and so is Potholer. You have found nothing out except your already established confirmation bias. Chris Mooney is a fellow at MIT, one of the universities you reported that deserves to be taken seriously. > [@Poptech](#): > > How do you convince a university? This is irrelevant to the argument as presented. That was not the only choice, you are still making very pathetic replies. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/131 "2010-06-28T01:30:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I will leave others to judge if the paper \*\*also \*\*rejects the AGW hypothesis. Strawman as “rejecting” AGW is not mentioned anywhere on the page. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/132 "2010-06-28T01:32:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Translation: I have no clue. Correct translation: I have no interest. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Chris Mooney is a fellow at MIT, one of the universities you reported that deserves to be taken seriously. He is also an alarmist supporter of AGW theory. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was not the only choice, you are still making very pathetic replies. You are the one making ridiculous statements. How do you convince a university? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/133 "2010-06-28T01:33:56Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > This is what you want to present but it is not true. There are many papers as I have provided. Yes of course there are failed attempts to discredit and refute the skeptics work, it usually revolves around repeating your talking points. Who you think deserves to be listed and where is subjective nonsense. > > Potholer is an alarmist waste of time who does not understand the science and his videos are full of misinformation. As demonstrated, he is a critic of alarmists/warmists like Al gore, failing to see that demonstrates to all that your preconceptions are getting in the way of interpreting evidence, this is indeed evidence that you are not reliable in looking at the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/134 "2010-06-28T01:39:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As demonstrated, he is a critic of alarmists/warmists like Al gore, failing to see that demonstrates to all that your preconceptions are getting in the way of interpreting evidence, this is indeed evidence that you are not reliable in looking at the evidence. Wow he criticizes Al Gore in some desperate attempt to come off as “objective” to those who do not know any better all the while repeating misinformation. You need to do much better than trying to hold up the alarmist Potholer as some source of objectivity. This nonsense usually works with the uneducated but not anyone who has actually been debating this. Your “objectively” apparently includes looking for those who share your confirmation bias on the ultimate source of scientific knowledge - YouTube. The place all those seeking scientific truth turn to! LMAO! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/135 "2010-06-28T01:40:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The abstract refers to just Hypothesis 1. What where the others? > > > [@](#): > > > > Hypothesis 2a: Although the natural > > causes of climate variations and changes > > are undoubtedly important, the human influences > > are significant and involve a diverse > > range of first- order climate forcings, including, > > but not limited to, the human input of > > carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of > > these human influences on regional and > > global climate will continue to be of concern > > during the coming decades. > > > > Hypothesis 2b: Although the natural > > causes of climate variations and changes are > > undoubtedly important, the human influences > > are significant and are dominated by the emissions > > into the atmosphere of greenhouse > > gases, the most important of which is CO2. The > > adverse impact of these gases on regional and > > global climate constitutes the primary climate > > issue for the coming decades. > > So what was the conclusion? > > > [@](#): > > > > We therefore conclude that hypothesis 2a > > is better supported than hypothesis 2b, > > which is a policy that focuses on modulating > > carbon emissions. Hypothesis 2b as a framework > > to mitigate climate change will neglect > > the diversity of other, important first- order > > human climate forcings that also can have > > adverse effects on the climate system. We > > urge that these other climate forcings (like black carbon) should > > also be considered with respect to mitigation > > and adaptation policies. > > I will leave others to judge if the paper \*\*also \*\*rejects the AGW hypothesis. How did you find those quoted bits? Do you have access to the papers? On reflection, OP, you might have done well to take more pains to explain that your thesis is not about the existence of AGW, so much as whether its existence is something that should be factored into the formation of public policy. It would have saved _my_ afternoon, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/136 "2010-06-28T01:45:23Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Correct translation: I have no interest. And that shows to all the level of effort that you are giving to your research. > [@Poptech](#): > > He is also an alarmist supporter of AGW theory. Useless retort with no evidence. > [@Poptech](#): > > You are the one making ridiculous statements. How do you convince a university? That is not the only item that I mentioned that needed convincing, what I’m trying to say here (and this was also the main item in the past discussion) is that if you are incapable of giving us a quotation or a link that shows your list has influenced the position of any scientific organization out there. Or to make it easier for you, can you point to a group of renown that is using your list to convince others of the error of their ways? As it is, it is clear that the makers of the list do not even look carefully or react properly to make a few changes that could engender the usage of the list in more serious settings. When that list fails to convince even the contrarians in the SDMB to come forward to defend you or it, it is evidence to me that even they are aware that that list is not very useful at all. In fact, now many people can see now that even thoroughly debunked or misinterpreted papers will never be taken from the list, that clearly shows how useful it is for the \*\*proponents \*\*of AGW, ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/137 "2010-06-28T01:48:48Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > No there is no consensus and I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source. :rolleyes: You already got your ass kicked over that particular point in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556553) thread. Can you never learn from your mistakes? And why is it that I only ever hear that from RWs? There is no obvious reason why a wiki format would produce LW bias in a source. (Unless the facts have a liberal bias.) Certainly there are valid criticisms of Wikipedia. They have mainly to do with slipshod editing. In this particular instance, however, the article in question is well-edited and all of the “Position statements,” etc., are cited and linked. Anyone could debunk any one of them by pointing out, e.g., that the link is dead or bogus. Has anyone? > [@Poptech](#): > > This is offtopic and I would suggest starting a new topic if you wish to discuss this of which I have no interest in. :dubious: “Offtopic”? “No interest”? What **else** is this thread about?! The existence _vel non_ of any given number peer-reviewed articles skeptical of AGW is relevant **only** to the extent that it reflects on the existence _vel non_ of a climate change consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/138 "2010-06-28T01:52:19Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > On reflection, OP, you might have done well to take more pains to explain that your thesis is not about the existence of AGW, so much as whether its existence is something that should be factored into the formation of public policy. > > It would have saved _my_ afternoon, anyway. My thesis is that an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers exist refuting alarmist claims. The papers include ones that support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW. The title explicitly says, > [@](#): > > Do Peer-Reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming **alarm?** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/139 "2010-06-28T01:53:12Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Wow he criticizes Al Gore in some desperate attempt to come off as “objective” to those who do not know any better all the while repeating misinformation. You need to do much better than trying to hold up the alarmist Potholer as some source of objectivity. This nonsense usually works with the uneducated but not anyone who has actually been debating this. Your “objectively” apparently includes looking for those who share your confirmation bias on the ultimate source of scientific knowledge - YouTube. The place all those seeking scientific truth turn to! LMAO! As mentioned before, there is a youtube link and then a link to the article the youtuber is referring to, demonstrating to all that you are incapable of noticing the difference. This is yet again evidence to all here that you are unreliable. The youtube link is there to make it easier to explain the points mentioned, once again you are just doing a pathetic “kill the messenger” act. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/140 "2010-06-28T01:58:18Z")
**kaylasdad99** , as you noticed, he deftly avoided touching what the authors thought were the most likely valid hypothesis. The makers of the list are indeed misunderstanding at best what the authors are saying. Not much left to say really. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=8)