I held out until the embiggening.
I’m afraid to ask what a socket puppet is.
A misspelling of sockpuppet.
Fair enough.
Regardless my analysis shows this to be 34 or so papers every few (2) months, showing the claim to be false.
No one has provided any evidence to support the claim that 750 AGW papers are published every few month.
I can recommend a better book on Climategate,
Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010)
If you are interested in reading about the corruption of the peer-review process I recommend,
A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)
Caspar and the Jesus paper (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry)
Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
So which is it? Is the peer review process corrupt (what you just argued), or is it a good measure of standing (what you argued with regard to E&E?)
They are now several months out of date (ignoring the latest evidence) and still mistaken.
BTW you did avoided that the contributor at RealClimate did explain properly that there was no corruption.
Morano: Public flogging
Politifact
Cuccinelli
Nature: Climatologists under pressure
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
AP: Climategate not fraud
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400
House of Commons: Nothing to Climategate
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf
Pakistan heat wave:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html…
NASA Heat record
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1498
Record Low Arctic ice
Well obviously, the peer-reviewers that start their own bullshit journal to publish garbage that is turned down by reputable journals will be the most trustworthy group.
:rolleyes:
You know what’s really scandalous? Conspiratorial, almost?
If you put “anthropogenic global warming” site:ipcc.ch into Google, you only get 2 hits! And the same thing if you put agw site:ipcc.ch into Google!!!oneoneone!!111!
I’m confused about the OP. The original claim was that 750 peer-reviewed papers have been published that were skeptical of climate change. Has the OP abandoned that? It now seems to be frustrated that it can’t find someone to support its claim that there are 750 papers furthering theories of climate change. Is the OP a denier? Very hard to tell.
Can the OP maybe link to a nice peer-reviewed and scientifically sound article that debunks this whole greenhouse effect myth? Sure would be nice to have something that started with the basic principles of the science. How 'bout something that accurately describes the greenhouse effect, has some understanding of homeostasis (and relative timescales thereof), and has a reasonable and sound explanation as to where all the extra energy is going/has gone.
It’s absolutely not relevant if the paper is quibbling with a degree here or there, or if the paper is critiquing overall conclusions of what likely scenarios could result. Rather, how about something that understands the roles that GHGs play in the atmosphere and provides a plausible alternate explanation as to where the energy went.
I argued that in certain instances it has been demonstrated to be corrupt not in relation to E&E.
That’s because Your Doing It Wrong:
“anthropogenic global warming” site: 4chan
7,790[sup][/sup] hits!
[sup][/sup]Thanks to Poptech on BIG FONT tip. Things are much more convincing when ya post them that way!
They are not out of date or mistaken. Various reports have been released on it,
‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)
The Climategate Emails (PDF) (168 pgs) (The Lavoisier Group)
His denial is noted but the registrant organization information for the website does not lie. The rest is detailed here, The Truth about RealClimate.org.
As for the so-called “investigations” total whitewashes,
Penn State Probe into Mann’s Wrongdoing a ‘Total Whitewash’ (Fox News, February 5, 2010)
‘Climategate’: what a pointless investigation (Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010)
ClimateGate Whitewash (American Thinker, April 14, 2010)
Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash (Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010)
The Non-Inquiry of Climategate (Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010)
Climategate whitewash (National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010)
None of them are scientific publications, you really need to explain why and in your own words why it is a whitewash. The fact is that the most prestigious science organizations and even the British parliament that had jurisdiction in the CRU scandal did look and reported that your points are not supported by any evidence.
BTW if the points that the RealClimate contributor are noted you should change your rhetoric, you are still showing that you did not paid any attention to his points or to the facts.
Few means “a small amount,” not two. Drop this argument.
So it’s a corrupt system when it’s not in your favour, but just handy when you agree with it? That’s an awfully …convenient… truth. :dubious:
Yet another instance where Wikipedia is a more reliable and relevant source than some RW partisan blog:
Numerically define “few” and please provide a source. What I stated was accurate.
Strawman as the number I provided mentioning the phrase was only for 2010.
There is a paper on the list,
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
*(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner*
There is no numerical definition for “few,” just as there is no numerical definition for “many” or “a lot.” Now drop this tangent. It’s a waste of time a distraction from the other issues in this thread.
From the list,
If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop? An Environmental Scientist Parses Climategate (PDF)
*(Academic Questions, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 54-56, March 2010)
- Stanley W. Trimble*
It was a whitewash because it did not address any of the main points that were submitted. No testimony from any of the skeptics in the emails was done, no proper investigation of the charges. These sort of whitewashes do not work anymore with the internet. The public is not falling for the propaganda anymore.
Gavin the alarmist shill and his Fenton Communication’s sockpuppet site has been exposed.