# 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:** 8
**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, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/141 "2010-06-28T02:00:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that shows to all the level of effort that you are giving to your research. My research is extensive, I just have no interest in wasting my time with this paper with you. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Useless retort with no evidence. Please provide his stance on AGW and if he believes government should take action against man-mage GHGs. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. Strawman as I made no claim to have convinced any scientific organization with my list. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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, All appropriate changes have been made to the list. It is likely the contrarians in the SDMB have no need to defend something I am already doing an excellent job of. There are no thoroughly debunked or misinterpreted papers on the list despite your repetition of this talking point. The list is incredibly useful as it is widely cited and used. ---
**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, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/142 "2010-06-28T02:08:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :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? No I didn’t. Stating this sort of misinformation is not helpful to you. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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.) It helps if you understand what Wikipedia is, “Truth based on who edits last”. My extensive background in computer science allows me to understand this much better than those who try to cite it. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Certainly there are valid criticisms of Wikipedia. They have mainly to do with slipshod editing. No they have to do with the design which is flawed. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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? There is no evidence nor can it ever be determined that a particular page at a particular time is “well edited” on wikipedia. Please provide the complete vote of any of those scientific organizations in support of the position statements released by a majority of a dozen or so council members. Thus position statements do not provide evidence of consensus. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :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. This thread has nothing to do with consensus as neither the title nor the opening post mention the word. The existence of these papers is relevant to the existence of debate of AGW alarm in the peer-reviewed literature. ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/143 "2010-06-28T02:12:17Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > This thread has nothing to do with consensus as neither the title nor the opening post mention the word. The existence of these papers is relevant to the existence of debate of AGW alarm in the peer-reviewed literature. You are saying, in effect, “This thread is not about apples, it is about apples.” ---
**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, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/144 "2010-06-28T02:13:14Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Strawman as I made no claim to have convinced any scientific organization with my list. I never said you said that, I’m \*\*asking \*\*for that to help me and others judge if you made any headway after you guys set up your list. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/145 "2010-06-28T02:13:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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, The propaganda off the Youtube link is to spread misinformation about the subject. Why did Potholer not mention the [rebuttal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) to the article? I thought you claimed he was objective? Why did you present the Mann article without the [rebuttal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)? Clearly this is demonstrating you to be unreliable by not presenting the whole truth and hiding information from those reading this thread. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > …once again you are just doing a pathetic “kill the messenger” act. I thought that is what you are failing at here? ---
**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, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/146 "2010-06-28T02:15:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > **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. I did not avoid anything and am well aware of their conclusions which are not those of the IPCC. ---
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/147 "2010-06-28T02:16:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You are saying, in effect, “This thread is not about apples, it is about apples.” I am saying the thread is not about (insert your strawman argument). What the thread is about is explicitly stated: > [@](#): > > **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, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/148 "2010-06-28T02:19:15Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > All appropriate changes have been made to the list. It is likely the contrarians in the SDMB have no need to defend something I am already doing an excellent job of. Bwahahahahahahaha!!! [removes a tear from the eye] Hah! That list is the best evidence to show how useless denier talking points are becoming. Even evidence that is discrediting to the movement continues to be employed. One only needs to point to the clear misrepresentations to show all in this discussion how off base these deniers are becoming. ---
**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, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/149 "2010-06-28T02:24:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I never said you said that, I’m \*\*asking \*\*for that to help me and others judge if you made any headway after you guys set up your list. I have no idea and I doubt it would change the mind of a majority of the current council members on any of the scientific organizations that released position statement in support of government action relating to AGW. I am more interested in the membership body of these organizations who had no say in the creation or endorsement of those position statements and I can confirm many emails from scientists expressing thanks for creating the list and not a single complaint. ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/150 "2010-06-28T02:28:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That list is the best evidence to show how useless denier talking points are becoming. Even evidence that is discrediting to the movement continues to be employed. One only needs to point to the clear misrepresentations to show all in this discussion how off base these deniers are becoming. This list is overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. It has nothing to do with denying anything. What is clear is the desperation that people like you try and fail to attack the list. If it is of no importance then you should just ignore it. The problem is you are well aware it is not being ignored and has been used as evidence to the U.S. Congress. ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/151 "2010-06-28T02:28:37Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The propaganda off the Youtube link is to spread misinformation about the subject. Why did Potholer not mention the [rebuttal](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Nov4-SoonetalMannetalEos.pdf) to the article? Because that in turn was rebutted. > [@Poptech](#): > > I thought you claimed he was objective? Why did you present the Mann article without the [rebuttal](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Nov4-SoonetalMannetalEos.pdf)? Clearly this is demonstrating you to be unreliable by not presenting the whole truth and hiding information from those reading this thread. Nope, it is clear that the items mentioned in the 3 points were not explained. You really do not know how to scroll down? The response to the rebuttal is still there. > [@Poptech](#): > > I thought that is what you are failing at here? I will let others to judge that, what it is clear is that for a guy with computer experience it is very odd that you do not know how to scroll down on a PDF (or you are assuming that others can’t) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/152 "2010-06-28T02:35:34Z")
**TWEEEET!** Since we do not have a Pissing Contest forum, I am stuck with watching this nonsense. However, EVERYONE will dial back on the _ad hominem_ arguments and the “nyah, nyah, you are not responding” claims or I am going to shut this down. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/153 "2010-06-28T02:37:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because that in turn was rebutted. No, it was not presented intentionally or you failed to properly research and provide the whole truth on this issue. Either way this does not look good for your ability to provide complete and accurate information. Thankfully I have been able to [provide](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) what you failed to do. ---
**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, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/154 "2010-06-28T02:39:27Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I did not avoid anything and am well aware of their conclusions which are not those of the IPCC. Anyone would read the conclusion of that and come out with the idea that they give more weight to the hypothesis that: > [@](#): > > 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. If you conclude from that that they are refuting AGW more than they are supporting it… Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. The fact is that that paper is supporting more the IPCC position (and current consensus) than the position you are trying to assign to it. ---
**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, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/155 "2010-06-28T02:45:30Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > No, it was not presented intentionally or you failed to properly research and provide the whole truth on this issue. Either way this does not look good for your ability to provide complete and accurate information. Thankfully I have been able to [provide](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Nov4-SoonetalMannetalEos.pdf) what you failed to do. It is not my imagination, you are really assuming no one will scroll down, the last words in that citation are the response to the rebuttal. (If you are still missing it, the RESPONSE (in big letters also) is the rebuttal to the rebuttal. > [@](#): > > Response > Soon and his colleagues (‘S03’) fail to address > any of the three specific issues we raised in > our Eos criticism (‘M03’) of their previous > work (‘SB03’).These were the need for critical > evaluation of proxy data to be used; consistent > assimilation of widespread,well-dated,and > resolved records; and the objective, quantitative > calibration of these records [see also > Bradley et al., 2003]. S03, instead, start with the > implausible claim that we agree with their > assertion,“knowledge of past climatic changes > does not have a direct bearing on the climatic > effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide…” > Reconstructions of past temperature histories > do, indeed,have such a bearing.They provide > one of several independent lines of evidence > supporting the consensus scientific conclusion, > expressed in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental > Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), > that anomalous, hemispheric, late-20th-century > warmth cannot be explained by natural factors. > S03 follow with an equally puzzling assertion that > “M03 relies mainly on a northern hemisphere > reconstruction of average annual temperature > by Mann et al. [1999].”Our article, quite to the > contrary,demonstrated that nearly a dozen > PAGE 473 > Eos,Vol. 84, No. 44, 4 November 2003 > different published estimates based on proxy > data and model simulations give the same > picture—anomalous,late-20th-century warmth > that is unprecedented in a millennial or longer > context. > These “straw man”arguments set the tone > for an ensuing list of myths and unsubstantiated > claims. Ironically,many of the criticisms > raised might better be applied to the ill-conceived, > largely subjective approach taken by > SB03. While the claims made by S03 are too > numerous to address in detail, several are so > at variance with the accepted science that they > deserve special attention: > (1) The contention that the conclusions > expressed by M03 for the period prior to AD > 1400 rely mainly “on tree growth from one > region”belies the fact that several of the proxy > estimates shown were based on composites > of estimates from regions across the northern > hemisphere,some based primarily on non-tree > ring proxy information.The claims of S03 > regarding non-climatic impacts on tree growth, > even if valid,would thus be irrelevant.However, > the claims are not valid. Their assertion that > “[20th-century] tree growth indices…show > declining patterns of tree growth,despite rising > temperatures” is misleading.Declines in the > response of tree growth to temperature are > found in certain high-latitude regions only. In > such cases, relatively recent (i.e., post 1950) > data are not used in calibrating temperature > reconstructions. In many other (even highlatitude) > areas, density or ring width records > display no such recent bias. > (2) The statement by S03 that the Mann and > Jones [2003] reconstruction “clearly shows > temperatures in the MWP that are as high as > those in the 20th century” is misleading, if not > false. M03 emphasize that it is the late, and not > the early- or mid-20th-century warmth, that is > outside the range of past variability.Mann and > Jones emphasize conclusions for the northern > hemisphere, noting that those for the southern > hemisphere (and globe) are indeterminate, > due to a paucity of southern hemisphere data. > Consistent with M03, they conclude that late- > 20th-century northern hemisphere mean temperatures > are anomalous in a long-term (nearly > two millennium) context. > (3) SO3 argue that borehole data provide a > conflicting view of past temperature histories. > To the contrary, the borehole estimates for > recent centuries shown in M03 are potentially > consistent with other estimates, provided consideration > is given to statistical uncertainties, > spatial sampling, and possible influences on > the ground surface [e.g., snow cover changes; > Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. For times more > than 500 years ago, uncertainties in the borehole > reconstructions preclude any useful > quantitative comparison [Pollack et al., 1998]. > (4) S03 promote the myth that “urban heat > island” effects lead to significant biases in the > instrumental record of surface temperature > used to calibrate proxy data.A recent case > study of modern urban thermometer > measurements in the U.S. [Peterson, 2003] supports > previous findings that the influence of > urban heat bias on estimates of global surface > temperature change is minimal [Hansen et al., > 1999]. > (5) In contrast to their claims, land use > changes are believed to have led to an overall > cooling—not a warming—of global surface > temperatures during the 19th and 20th century > [Govindasamy et al., 2001]. > Articles in Scientific American and the Chronicle > of Higher Education have quoted numerous > other leading climate scientists as indicating > that SB03 misinterpreted the paleoclimatological > literature.The controversy over the publication > of SB03 has now led,since the publication of M03, > to the resignation of the editor-in-chief and five > other editors at the journal Climate Research. > \*\*It is clear that we are not alone in finding the > work of SB03 seriously flawed. > \*\* ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/156 "2010-06-28T03:00:00Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > This list is overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. It has nothing to do with denying anything. What is clear is the desperation that people like you try and fail to attack the list. If it is of no importance then you should just ignore it. The problem is you are well aware it is not being ignored and has been used as evidence to the U.S. Congress. Senator Inhoffe was the one that brought that “evidence” to congress, as it was pointed many times before Inhofe is the most unscientific guy in congress; as the skeptical article and the video showed, it is very likely that that paper was tailor made to seed doubts when the hearings on the new law regarding CO2 emission controls took place. By the time that paper was shown to be full of errors the hearings had already ended with the result that the bill was not even voted on. Mission accomplished from[the merchants of doubt](http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109). ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/157 "2010-06-28T03:00:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Anyone would read the conclusion of that and come out with the idea that they give more weight to the hypothesis that: > > If you conclude from that that they are refuting AGW more than they are supporting it… > > Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. The fact is that that paper is supporting more the IPCC position… than the position you are trying to assign to it. That paper does not support the IPCC position. It helps if you read the paper as the authors do not support your assertion, > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings in altering regional and global climate and their effects on predictability at the regional scale. It also placed too much emphasis on average global forcing from a limited set of human climate forcings Hardly an endorsement of the IPPC position. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not my imagination, you are really assuming no one will scroll down, Strawman as I have made no claim. I am providing the [balance](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) you failed to objectively provide and thus demonstrated your unreliability in these matters. ---
**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, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/158 "2010-06-28T03:01:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Senator Inhoffe was the one that brought that “evidence” to congress, as it was pointed many times before Inhofe is the most unscientific guy in congress; as the skeptical article and the video showed, it is very likely that that paper was tailor made to seed doubts when the hearings on the new law regarding CO2 emission controls took place. By the time that paper was shown to be full of errors the hearings had already ended with the result that the bill was not even voted on. > > Mission accomplished from the merchants of doubt. So now you are a supporter of conspiracy theories? ---
**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, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/159 "2010-06-28T03:12:47Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > That paper does not support the IPCC position. It helps if you read the paper as the authors do not support your assertion, > > Hardly an endorsement of the IPPC position. The key is “did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings” They are saying that the IPCC was missing even more causes of concern, and they also refer to human based ones, still more in favor of AGW, not much so of the IPCC. > [@Poptech](#): > > Strawman as I have made no claim. I am providing the [balance](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Nov4-SoonetalMannetalEos.pdf) you failed to objectively provide and thus demonstrated your unreliability in these matters. And I just mentioned the final word on the citation, I’m just saying. ---
**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, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420/160 "2010-06-28T03:18:08Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > So now you are a supporter of conspiracy theories? :rolleyes: What is mentioned was/is on the public record. There is no conspiracy, they are in the open: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes\_on\_the\_american\_denial.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php) Long video, but one can look at the highlights pointed in the blog with the evidence that Historian Naomi Oreskes brings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-peer-reviewed-papers-exists-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-alarm/544420.md?page=9)