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

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Just keep repeating that line about the papers being peer reviewed, Poptech.

[Poptech]

@Marley23

Then go ahead and attack his posts or discuss his behavior without the name calling. 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.

The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

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.

E&E’s peer-review process uses standard practices and sends climate related papers to climate scientists. This has been confirmed by the publisher, editor and authors of the papers.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.

You didn’t think it was necessary to disclose this to me when I contacted you about your name being posted?

[Poptech]

@Marley23

You didn’t think it was necessary to disclose this to me when I contacted you about your name being posted?

I did not know it would be discussed in the forums, my apologizes.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Poptech

The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.

@Poptech

On Firefox myths.
This is not true.

So which part wasn’t true?

[Poptech]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

So which part wasn’t true?

This,

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

…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.

I have not set up multiple blogs to spread anything all over the Internet (outside of a submission to sites like Digg). I always debate with integrity and do not engage in this sort of witch hunt on a poster.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

I did not know it would be discussed in the forums, my apologizes.

I’ve reversed the warning, then. I hope I don’t have to moderate any more of this ridiculousness.

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

• Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

• Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

:rolleyes: If we’re talking about the relative credibility of sources – and that’s what this whole thread is really about, not any substantive scientific debate – then you will never do your case any good by citing DiscoverTheNetworks. David Horowitz is a pure-D crank, even RWs should know that. As for DiscoverTheNetworks, SourceWatch has it sussed:

DiscoverTheNetworks (DTN) is a database/search website meant to track “the left” and terrorists, with an implicit connection between the two, with some similarities to SourceWatch. It is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. DiscoverTheNetworks was launched on February 15, 2005, but Horowitz claims it was two-years under development. The About Us section explains, DTN:

is a “Guide to the Political Left.” It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left’s (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.

It continues:

By browsing this database, and familiarizing oneself with the agendas of the individuals and organizations it contains, with the scope of their activities and with the tens of millions of dollars available to support them, a user of this base will find ample evidence for the existence of this left and for the fact that it is a major player in the political destinies of the nation. (See in particular the organizations and individuals associated with ANTI-WAR groups and The Shadow Party.)
The movement to protest the war in Iraq reconfigured the presidential campaign of 2004 and has affected American policy not only in Iraq but in the War on Terror generally. It has changed the face of the Democratic Party and of American politics in general. What is the nature of this ‘??anti-war’? movement, who are its leaders, and what are its agendas? The scope and features of this database allow for definitive answers to these questions.
…The database also provides group profiles of the organizations engaged in organizing opposition to the Patriot Act, as well as to frontline homeland security defenses such as border control (GROUPS/IMMIGRATION) and the linkages between them. Following the network of these organizations and individuals through the base reveals that they have agendas and perspectives that range far beyond the legal issues themselves and are rooted in their radical opposition to the American status quo. These agendas are anti-corporate and socialist.[1]

DTN copies the Campus Watch formula, but is applied to the broader political movement, as the About Us section explains:

Other concerns are certain to be raised that we will not regard as legitimate but rather as veiled expressions of distress over the factual information revealed on the site. A cry of such distress has already greeted a perfectly reasonable database called Campus Watch, provided by the Middle East Forum. This site records and analyzes the views of leftwing academics concerning terrorism in the Islamic world, views that can fairly be described as apologetic and even sympathetic to the radical Islamist cause. Critics of Campus Watch, many of them with views identical to those reviewed on the site, have claimed that the very enterprise of posting such critical reviews is ‘??McCarthyism’? and an Internet ‘??witch-hunt’.? Such responses reflect an anti-intellectual attitude that seeks to embargo the political debate before it takes place.[2]

Overall, DTN is a Smear Portal on academics, journalists, and activists on the left. It is a website where all the smears and red baiting that can be found in FrontPageMag, Campus Watch, and similar-ilk-organizations are put under one roof for “research”

<snip>

Smear Portal

The DTN website contains a section on individuals, and states: "This section examines activists for leftwing agendas and causes, radical egalitarians, and opponents of American ‘imperialism’ "[3]. It applies a smearing by association to the well known “leftists”. Namely, DTN provides a list of leftists and intersperses the names/photos of demonized “terrorists” or people the neo-cons love to hate. For example, the first person on the list is “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” (a demonized terrorist) and next to him is Al Sharpton. It continues, Dennis Kucinich, Fidel Castro, George Soros, Harold Ickes, Howard Dean, Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson, Jim McDermott, etc. Guilt by association is implied, but there isn’??t any association between many of the people on the list. The only thing that is attempted here is to smear some of the individuals involved, implying that there is an association with unsavory terrorists - although they forgot to add OBL! NB: DTN considers John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi as leftists, thus its remit is rather wide.

Noam Chomsky’s DTN profile reveals further the bias of the author and director of this website. Most of the smears, misrepresentation and abuse in this section derive from David Horowitz’s The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, Part II: Method and Madness, etc. There is a long list of articles of a similar nature by the likes of Horowitz, Peter Collier, Elliot Jager, Bruce Thornton, Anders G. Lewis, Benjamin Kerstein, Paul Crespo etc.[4]

Just like Campus Watch, DTN has a strong pro-Likud zionist bias. Several of the individuals it targets have been critical of Israel. The Issues section of the website lists The Middle East, and it ports much of the material available on Campus Watch and Middle East Forum.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: If we’re talking about the relative credibility of sources – and that’s what this whole thread is really about, not any substantive scientific debate – then you will never do your case any good by citing DiscoverTheNetworks. David Horowitz is a pure-D crank, even RWs should know that.

Everything stated about SourceWatch by DTN is factual, especially,

"As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users."

SourceWatch is a left wing smear site, exposed by DTN so it is no wonder SourceWatch users would desperately try to discredit DTN. Quoting that it is anti-terrorist or pro-Israel does nothing for your case as what we are discussing has nothing to do with either.

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

Everything stated about SourceWatch by DTN is factual, especially,

"As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users."

:dubious: Exactly. I doubt you’ll find DTN so open to correction; it is, I should think, edited and supplemented only by Horowitz or those Horowitz authorizes to do so. “Ordinary Web users” are, as a group, more credible.

Why is it that RWs seem to have such a problem with “consensus reality”?

[Czarcasm]

@Poptech

Everything stated about SourceWatch by DTN is factual, especially,

"As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users."

SourceWatch is a left wing smear site, exposed by DTN so it is no wonder SourceWatch users would desperately try to discredit DTN. Quoting that it is anti-terrorist or pro-Israel does nothing for your case as what we are discussing has nothing to do with either.

In what way does this support the validity of DTN?

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X).

Not to ISI, it’s not.

Both editors are from universities and they receive no funding from energy companies.

HA! Ha! Ha! Like Boehmer-Christiansen isn’t paid by front groups for sitting on their “Advisory Boards” and organising their conferences.
Nor is it just the editorial staff - the research is energy-corporate funded too. Sallie Baliunas never saw an oilman’s dick she wouldn’t suck for cash.

Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X). There is no problem with their editorial policy

Yep. That’s why half their editorial staff resigned, including the editor-in-chief, not exactly a climate change alarmist himself. No problems with their review process, no sir.

By the way, are you under the impression that ISSN numbers mean anything other than “this is a periodical, not a book?” *Cosmopolitan *has an ISSN, for Pete’s sake.

[Acid_Lamp]

This is fun. It’s like the perpetual motion machine of threads.

[Voyager]

I have no expertise in anything to do with climate, but I do in scientific publishing. To support Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party’s main points, any idiot can set up a peer reviewed journal. Those familiar with a field are also familiar with the hierarchy of journals, and publication in the journal of greatest rigor and highest quality counts for more than five publications in junk journals. I know academics who push for rejecting as many papers as possible submitted to a respected conference in order to have that conference count more for tenure. So responding to the charge of a journal being junk with “it is peer reviewed” is no response at all.

[BrainGlutton]

I have started a new thread on the relative credibility of SourceWatch vs. DiscoverTheNetworks.

[Squink]

@Acid_Lamp

the perpetual motion machine of threads.

That would violate the laws of thermodynamics. I think this stuff’ll stop when the atmosphere warms up enough to melt the electrons used to display BBS posts.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@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.

No, it hasn’t. Results from a search of that kind would only turn up examples which literally carry the words “Anthropogenic Global Warming” in, in that order. Lacking those words is far from a guarantee that an example does not touch on the subject, one way or the other.

You mention that you helped to compile the list that you posted originally. Did you compile that list by searching for the words “anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming”, or some similar phrase, and that alone? When you went to help compile that list, what measures did you take?

[Rhythmdvl]

You know what sucks? As soon as you criticize or utter the smallest negative word about global warming, a swarm descends to take your words out of context, distort their meaning, blow them way out of proportion, and ascribe all sorts of insidious intents you never intended. It all but crushes open, honest, and much-needed debate on the subject like no other field of study.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Rhythmdvl

You know what sucks? As soon as you criticize or utter the smallest negative word about global warming, a swarm descends to take your words out of context, distort their meaning, blow them way out of proportion, and ascribe all sorts of insidious intents you never intended. It all but crushes open, honest, and much-needed debate on the subject like no other field of study.

When did a Giant Pile of Spam, cut & pasted from another site, become “the smallest negative word”?