Do Peer-Reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm?

[Czarcasm]

From now on, when he attempts to start over with his nonsense on another board, people will Google this and see exactly what he is. I doubt very much he will last long wherever he goes, but there will be much laughing at his expense for the short period he is there.

[Der_Trihs]

@Czarcasm

From now on, when he attempts to start over with his nonsense on another board, people will Google this and see exactly what he is. I doubt very much he will last long wherever he goes, but there will be much laughing at his expense for the short period he is there.

He’ll probably show it to his friends,to boast about how he was martyred for the cause by the brutal and tyrannical SDMB mods.

[Czarcasm]

@Der_Trihs

He’ll probably show it to his friends,to boast about how he was martyred for the cause by the brutal and tyrannical SDMB mods.

I’m betting the few friends he has left will tire of the story the 12th or 13th time he tells it.

[Idle_Thoughts]

Rare threads like this one where literally everyone is in agreement (other than the OP) always bring a tear to my eye.

[Miller]

@Poptech

Massive google hits suckers!

You might want to revisit your earlier posts in this thread. I don’t think this is going to work out quite as well as you expected.

[GIGObuster]

Can I call them or what?

Suicide by mod it was, the only sad thing was that my report to **Colibri **regarding Poptech reprehensible behavior in other science blogs was not needed.

But one example will be enough here:

This Discovery Magazine blog reported on the just published PNAS list that has 1000% more value than the one from Poptech

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverBlogs+(Discover+Blogs)

Courtesy of Rick Piltz, I learn of a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that powerfully demonstrates just how convinced scientists are that global warming is real and human caused. Indeed, this paper, entitled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” looks at the relationship between scientific prominence, amount of work published in the field, and acceptance of the scientific consensus. Findings:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and

(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Those of us who follow this issue closely won’t be surprised–but the results mean that journalists who have given a lot of weight to climate “skeptics” have some ’splaining to do. Essentially, this paper seems to be suggesting that they got the wrong “experts.”

Incidentally, given how closely this study hits home, I would expect it to be attacked–just as Naomi Oreskes’ famous paper “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” was.

Of course Poptech would not stand for that, he was the first to post in the comments! And unless you are a huge sadist, you do not need to see the whole thing as Poptech was just Poptech again.

[SevenOfTeemingMillions]

@Der_Trihs

WE ARE THE BOARD. PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR RHETORICAL AND SYNTACTICAL DISTINCTIVENESS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE OURS. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Stupid auto-uncapping…

Hey! Borg jokes are mine to make! :mad: And these Borg jokes made by the Unassimilated are so racist! Erm, I mean specist!

(Seriously, though, that was an awesome joke, Der Trihs. Don’t mind me. I’m just jealous that I will never be able to come up with that joke even if the Borg Queen threatened to exile me to fluidic space.)

[Smeghead]

@Czarcasm

I’m betting the few friends he has left will tire of the story the 12th or 13th time he tells it.

Nah. Cats and cockroaches are remarkably patient.

[cosmosdan]

I guess it’s just some pathetic ego game I don’t get. From the other thread

Originally Posted by **Poptech **

You suckers are leaving a spammed thread up. I played you like a fiddle.

You almost expect him to reappear under some new name so he can do the “See , I’m smarter”, victory dance. Ah well, Part of the experience of having a discussion board.

[Michael_Ellis]

Aww shoot, I missed all the fun.

[Smeghead]

I’ve never understood the psychology of the “Ha ha! I’m smarter than you because I pretended to be stupid and you believed me!” school of thought.

[cosmosdan]

@GIGObuster

Can I call them or what?

Suicide by mod it was, the only sad thing was that my report to **Colibri **regarding Poptech reprehensible behavior in other science blogs was not needed.

But one example will be enough here:

This Discovery Magazine blog reported on the just published PNAS list that has 1000% more value than the one from Poptech

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverBlogs+(Discover+Blogs)

Of course Poptech would not stand for that, he was the first to post in the comments! And unless you are a huge sadist, you do not need to see the whole thing as Poptech was just Poptech again.

I found the comments section pretty interesting and amusing. I reveals that one of the authors on his list even stated clearly that 21 papers by himself and his father do not belong on the list, as well as other debunking of PTs bullshit. Evidently PT does not differentiate between those who agree GW is man made but disagree on the projected results , and those who deny GW is man made.
His basic method is to trash opposing articles and studies as useless and improperly done, and defend his own crap regardless of how many times it’s debunked. What a gem.

I got a particular lick out of someone comparing him to creationists since he objected to that so strongly here.

[Oakminster]

@Oakminster

<checks forum–The Pit. OK, then.>

**Poptech **, without wading through the seven layers of bullshit you’ve spread here, allow me to observe that you, sir, are fucking insane.

I’ll be traveling for the next day or so, but when i return, I look forward to reading your cosmic meltdown. Also guessing you probably won’t be able to post by the time I get back, so…bye.

@Oakminster

Well damn. I’m back from my trip, and** Poptech** hasn’t been banned. Can’t win em all.

Heh. Missed it by a few hours.

[cosmosdan]

@Smeghead

I’ve never understood the psychology of the “Ha ha! I’m smarter than you because I pretended to be stupid and you believed me!” school of thought.

Occasionally it’s fun to let somebody assume they’re smarter and allow them to ramble on. Later when you shoot them down it can be satisfying. It’s usually not a matter of pretending to be stupid but just allowing someone to believe thier incorrect assumption.

[PlainJain]

Nevermind.

[cosmosdan]

Question.

When someone is banned does that mean they can neither read threads or post , or are they just denied posting privileges?

[user_hostile]

I kept having flashbacks to “Requiem for a Dream” and and kept hearing “Lux Aeterna” throughout this thread. You knew what was coming–the delusions, the demands, the tantrums, the struggle to fight off reality.

I had a prophetic dream early this week. I was came down the stairs and as looked across the room, there was Poptech sitting at his computer. Mortally wounded, guzzling can after can of Red Bull. His breathing was labored, but slowly diminishing as his typing became faster and more fanatic…mumbling:

“I saw the best red fonts of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked Dopers, dragging themselves through the keyboards at dawn looking for the Pit; Angel-headed moderators burning for me because of the ancient heavenly connection to Unca Cecil in the starry dynamo in the Deux ex machina of knowledge and fighting ignorance.”

But it alas, it was too, late. The monitor transmogrified into Moloch and informed Poptech he was found wanting and was banned. Poptech breathed his last and I remember Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton (hey, it’s a dream) spoke and broke the silence with the following words:

    **"Now, he belongs to the crazies"**

I believe all of us felt this one way or another.

And segueing to the point of the thread from OP, I took a random pick of your papers and then looked for rebuttals. Conclusion? IMHO, AGW is for real. Why? Because I said so. Remind you of someone? Enjoy your stay in שאול !

• Apologies to Allan Ginsberg, but I’ll bet you a Hamilton he would have approved.

[tomndebb]

@cosmosdan

Question.

When someone is banned does that mean they can neither read threads or post , or are they just denied posting privileges?

They can read them in the same way that any unregistered random internet surfer may see them.

So Poptech may read this thread at any time, carefully noting where his masterful links lead. (He may not be quite as happy regarding his “successful” spamming of the board and his visions of CT glory, but such is the life of the loon.)

[tomndebb]

@Smeghead

I’ve never understood the psychology of the “Ha ha! I’m smarter than you because I pretended to be stupid and you believed me!” school of thought.

Well, you need to remember that they are, in fact, not pretending to be stupid, even when they think they are.

[SteveG1]

@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.

The list is shit and the supposed “peer review” is shit. That’s all I am going to add to this thread and it isn’t even worth this much,