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

[Marley23]

To reiterate an earlier post, Poptech:

@tomndebb

Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?

I am also shortening the list of journals in your last post. I’ve told you before about trying to win arguments by posting ridiculously long lists.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

You typed all that in 7 minutes? Or do you have it laying around somewhere ready to copy and paste? Presumably the latter, as it essentially ignores what I said in my last post.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Really? What does “AGW theory” mean? Why don’t you put some figures together to show us how few endorse “AGW theory”?

There are only 101 results (all may not be peer-reviewed, I checked there are books and editorials in there) in Google Scholar for 2010 that even mention “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. That is an average of only 16-17 a month that even mention the word, which does not mean “explicitly endorses”. Your assumption has been disproven.

[njtt]

@Quartz

Consensus doesn’t mean squat; proof is all.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as incontrovertible proof in matters of science (in math and logic, maybe, but even that is arguable). Informed consensus is what determines scientific “truth.” (It may not be ideal, but it is by far the best we have got, or are ever likely to get.) An alleged proof is worth noting, unless it is accepted by the relevant scientific community.

ETA: I see Capt Ridley’s party beat me me to it.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

You typed all that in 7 minutes? Or do you have it laying around somewhere ready to copy and paste? Presumably the latter, as it essentially ignores what I said in my last post.

It is at the bottom of the list in the notes (which you apparently did not read).

[Poptech]

@tomndebb

Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?

I helped compile the list, you do not allow long posts of papers so I assumed a link was more appropriate.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@---NAME REMOVED--- aka Poptech

There are only 101 results (all may not be peer-reviewed, I checked there are books and editorials in there) in Google Scholar for 2010 that even mention “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. That is an average of only 16-17 a month that even mention the word, which does not mean “explicitly endorses”. Your assumption has been disproven.

You used Google Scholar! Deary me.

Are you still regurgitating the Firefox myths list around the Internet? How many discussion boards have you been banned from now?

[Marley23]

Capt. Riddley’s Shooting Party, insults like “shill” aren’t allowed in Great Debates. Using the quote function that way isn’t a good idea either. Please don’t do this again.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

You used Google Scholar! Deary me.

Google Scholar results are inflated due to non-peer-reviewed sources (does not help you) but it more than sufficiently indexes one of the largest if not the largest amount of peer-reviewed journals.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Marley23

Capt. Riddley’s Shooting Party, insults like “shill” aren’t allowed in Great Debates. Using the quote function that way isn’t a good idea either. Please don’t do this again.

In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known “AGW-hoax advocate” (for lack of a better word ;)) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.

He’s also infamous for having compiled a list of “Firefox myths”, setting up multiple blogs under different names, and spreading the list all over the Internet. As a result, he’s banned from multiple discussion boards due to his inability to debate with any sort of integrity. Notice even now how he just keeps repeating the “peer reviewed” line over and over, without actually responding to anything people are saying.

[njtt]

@Poptech

The four papers from the Electricity Journal were peer-reviewed,

The one paper from Iron and Steel Technology is peer-reviewed,

Yeah, peer reviewed by “peers” who have some expertise on electricity and on iron and steel technology respectively, not experts on climate science. The very fact that papers concerned with climate are getting published in journals with a totally different remit is a pretty good indicator that these papers are crap that could not get published in any proper climate science journal.

(It also raises a red flag suggesting that Electricity Journal and Iron and Steel Technology may well be bottom feeding journals even within their own areas. It rather looks as though they may be publishing crappy papers on climate because they can’t get enough decent stuff on electricity and on iron and steel technology to fill up their pages; either that, or else the guy with the otherwise unpublishable paper on climate is the editor’s brother-in-law or something.)

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X). Both editors are from universities and they receive no funding from energy companies.

SourceWatch:

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal’s editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.

@Poptech

Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X).

Yes, but:

In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[5] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium”.[6]. Concerns over the peer review of this paper led to a revolt by the editorial staff of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.

See also Soon and Baliunas controversy.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known “AGW-hoax advocate” (for lack of a better word) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.

This is not true. I do not advocate any “hoax”. I also do not spam any forums, I have replied in criticism to the list where misinformation was stated. An older version of this list was originally posted in these forums by another user (not me), it seemed to generate an interesting debate so I have provided the update for this reason.

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

He’s also infamous for having compiled a list of “Firefox myths”, setting up multiple blogs under different names, and spreading the list all over the Internet.

This is not true.

I am not sure why you have resorted to attacking me and not the list.

[Marley23]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known “AGW-hoax advocate” (for lack of a better word ;)) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.

Then go ahead and attack his posts or discuss his behavior without the name calling. [del]Meanwhile I see that you also posted Poptech’s IRL name. As far as I’m concerned that’s a jerk move, and a punitive and unnecessary thing to do. So I’m escalating my note a formal warning. Don’t do this again.[/del]

EDIT: Poptech says the name that was posted is not his real name, so the warning is rescinded.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Poptech

I am not sure why you have resorted to attacking me and not the list.

The list is a joke. I’ve already explained it to you. Citing climate papers published in journals on iron and electricity reveals your whole argument to be built on a pillar of sand.

[Poptech]

@njtt

Yeah, peer reviewed by “peers” who have some expertise on electricity and on iron and steel technology respectively, not experts on climate science.

That is not how the peer-review process works. When a paper goes out for review in any peer-reviewed journal, standard practice is to send it to appropriate reviewers, thus climate related papers will get reviewed by climate scientists no matter the journal.

@njtt

The very fact that papers concerned with climate are getting published in journals with a totally different remit is a pretty good indicator that these papers are crap that could not get published in any proper climate science journal.

There are an extensive number of climate related journals listed yet all the papers are still peer-reviewed.

@njtt

(It also raises a red flag suggesting that Electricity Journal and Iron and Steel Technology may well be bottom feeding journals even within their own areas. It rather looks as though they may be publishing crappy papers on climate because they can’t get enough decent stuff on electricity and on iron and steel technology to fill up their pages; either that, or else the guy with the otherwise unpublishable paper on climate is the editor’s brother-in-law or something.)

It can also mean that the scientist publishing to them is a regular publisher and felt more comfortable doing so. The paper from Iron and Steel technology was directly addressed to steelmakers as a review paper of the science. There are five papers on the list from these two journals. No need to ignore the rest of the 750+ peer-reviewed papers.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Poptech

That is not how the peer-review process works. When a paper goes out for review in any peer-reviewed journal, standard practice is to send it to appropriate reviewers, thus climate related papers will get reviewed by climate scientists no matter the journal.

It’s how the process works in reputable journals. For journals whose only purpose is to be a home for cranks like E&E, not so much.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

SourceWatch:

Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

• Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities… […]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate – we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” […]

…The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

• Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda”.

In CMD’s view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides “information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists,” characterizes CMD as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.” […]

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center’s Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD’s Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan’s efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of “social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism.”

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: “These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

• Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

@SouceWatch

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal’s editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy & Environment is an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen considers herself a climate change agnostic.

“As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.” - Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen

@SouceWatch

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.

ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

@SouceWatch

Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.

Stephen Schneider is not a “wide” criticism.

@Wiki

In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[5] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium”.[6]. Concerns over the peer review of this paper led to a revolt by the editorial staff of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.

This paper was sent to 5 reviewers as opposed to the standard 3, none of which were skeptics. All were reputable paleoclimatologists. One editor von Storch got in a huff over the paper and even after being offered the job as chief editor of the journal resigned and got his friends on the board to go with him. The conclusions of the paper were later confirmed in a reappraisal,

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (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*

[BrainGlutton]

@Marley23

Meanwhile I see that you also posted Poptech’s IRL name. As far as I’m concerned that’s a jerk move, and a punitive and unnecessary thing to do. So I’m escalating my note a formal warning. Don’t do this again.

Your call, of course; but I formally register dissent on that point. Any Doper doing what Poptech apparently has been doing here and elsewhere deserves to be outed by any means available.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

The list is a joke. I’ve already explained it to you. Citing climate papers published in journals on iron and electricity reveals your whole argument to be built on a pillar of sand.

All the papers listed are peer-reviewed. Your choice to cherry pick the 5 papers on the list from these two journals is meaningless, since even removing them would leave over 750 papers. There is a Journal citation list at the bottom of the page that includes 216 journals.