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

[DMC]

Dude, four of the “peer reviewed” articles that you claim are from our very own intention, and have already been beaten to a bloody pulp. We know that E&E is crap, and we also know what “Brief Communications Arising” means in the journal Nature. Hell, one of his that you listed is just a response to someone else’s review in E&E. You’re really reaching hard.

Also, feel free to tell us what you think Scientific Alliance is all about. Hell, explain their relationship with the George C. Marshall Institute while you’re at it.

Do you still maintain that it’s not your website that was linked in the OP, and that you only helped compile the list? I’ll happily provide evidence to the contrary if you continue making that claim.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

Why not? That’s obviously very relevant to the debate as premised in the OP.

It is not relevant because the “quality” of peer-review is not only subjective but impossible to determine. What is relevant to the debate is if peer-reviewed papers exist not the subjective argument of “quality”. Much can be said about the peer-review process,

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (Nature, Peer-to-Peer, September 2007)
Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp.16-22, 2007)

[DMC]

Note to mods: In case you’re wondering why I’m about to show evidence that it is his website, it is ad-supported, and I think that our members have a right to decide if they want to line his pockets, or not.

ETA: Self reported, just in case.

[Poptech]

@DMC

Dude, four of the “peer reviewed” articles that you claim are from our very own intention, and have already been beaten to a bloody pulp. We know that E&E is crap, and we also know what “Brief Communications Arising” means in the journal Nature. Hell, one of his that you listed is just a response to someone else’s review in E&E. You’re really reaching hard.

None of the papers have been beaten to a bloody pulp, you know nothing about E&E and it is certainly not crap. Though I am well aware your need to propagandize it as such. Brief Communications are peer-reviewed.

@DMC

Also, feel free to tell us what you think Scientific Alliance is all about. Hell, explain their relationship with the George C. Marshall Institute while you’re at it.

Irrelevant as her advisory position with the Scientific Alliance does not demonstrate payment by front groups as was implied.

[Poptech]

@DMC

Note to mods: In case you’re wondering why I’m about to show evidence that it is his website, it is ad-supported, and I think that our members have a right to decide if they want to line his pockets, or not.

ETA: Self reported, just in case.

LOL I am a contributor to the website but do not receive ad money from it. So unless you have the name of the person on the Google Adsense account (which is not me) your so called “evidence” is meaningless. I understand your desperation as you cannot have this sort of evidence of peer-reviewed papers known to the public and will do anything to have it censored.

As I correctly stated I was not the first one to post this list to this website. I am more than willing to simply list the papers and remove the link but I linked to the list as moderators instructed.

[BrainGlutton]

@DMC

Also, feel free to tell us what you think Scientific Alliance is all about. Hell, explain their relationship with the George C. Marshall Institute while you’re at it.

From Wikipedia:

Scientific Alliance:

The Scientific Alliance is a British industry-friendly organization that promotes biotechnology, genetically modified food, and climate change skepticism.

The group was created in 2001 by quarryman Robert Durward, director of the British Aggregates Association, and political consultant Mark Adams of the public relations firm, Foresight Communications.

The Scotsman newspaper has reported that on contacting the Alliance to ask about Durward’s role, ‘after some uncertainty, the switchboard it shares with a number of other firms denied any knowledge of Mr Durward’s existence. Matthew Drinkwater, the one person responding to calls to its offices, could also be contacted by ringing the offices of Foresight Communications.’

Foresight Communications is a PR firm established by Mark Adams in January 2001. As well as The Scientific Alliance, its client list includes the British Aggregates Association and the New Party (formerly known as the Peoples Alliance (sic)) which was also established by Durward and Adams.

Although the group’s privacy policy prevents it from revealing its funders, critics like Bob May of the Royal Society have alleged that the group is linked to the U.S. oil company, ExxonMobil.[citation needed]

George C. Marshall Institute:

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1990s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1]

More recently, the Institute has focused on disputing mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Funded by ExxonMobil and chaired by a former official of the American Petroleum Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a “clearinghouse for global warming contrarians”,[2] and by Newsweek as a “central cog in the denial machine.”[3] Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[4]

GMI is one of only a few conservative environmental-policy think tanks to have natural scientists on staff.[5] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.
Global warming

Since 1989 GMI has been involved in what it terms “a critical examination of the scientific basis for global climate change policy.” It says “There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real.”[6] The Institute was described as a “central cog in the denial machine” in a Newsweek cover story on global warming.[3]

Noted skeptics Sallie Baliunas and (until his recent death) Frederick Seitz (a past President of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962–1969) are on its Board of Directors. Patrick Michaels is a “visiting scientist” and Stephen McIntyre, Willie Soon and Ross McKitrick are “contributing writers”.[7] Richard Lindzen served on the Institute’s Science Advisory Board.[8]

In 1998 Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of GMI, helped develop the American Petroleum Institute’s strategy of stressing the uncertainty of climate science.[9] In February 2005 GMI co-sponsored a Congressional briefing at which Senator James Inhofe praised Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear and attacked the “hockey stick graph”.[9]

Responding to the GMI’s criticism of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) stated: “General Marshall was a great American. I think he might be very embarrassed to know that his name was being used in this disgraceful fashion.”[9]
Conflict of interest

Matthew B. Crawford, author of Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work, left the GMI as executive director after 5 months when he realized that the institute was “fonder of some facts than others”. He outlined a conflict of interest in the funding of the institute, claiming that his job “consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank.”.[10]

Exxon-Mobil was a funder of the GMI until it pulled funding from it and several similar organizations in 2008.[11] In 2002, the GMI received $80,000 from Exxon-Mobil, up from $60,000 in the previous year.[12] Since 1998, the institute received a total of $715,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil.[13]

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

None of the papers have been beaten to a bloody pulp

Actually there is a very good example(s)

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 89–110, January 2003)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

This science reporter from Australia shows why:

potholer54

And he is referring to this article, among many other bitch slaps made to that flawed paper:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

(1) In drawing inferences regarding past regional temperature changes from proxy records, it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability. Seminal work in the reconstruction of past climate [Lamb,1965] examined a number of different variables, including hydrological indicators,for insights into past climate change, but only in a particular region (Europe) where the synoptic-scale relationship between temperature and hydrological variability was fairly well established and understood.The existence of possible underlying dynamical relationships between temperature and hydrological variability should not be confused with the patently invalid assumption that hydrological influences can literally be equated with temperature influences in assessing past climate (e.g.,during Medieval times). Such a criterion is implicit, for example, in the SB03 approach that defines a global “warm anomaly” as a period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being “warm,”“wet,” or “dry” relative to “20th century” conditions. Such a criterion, ad absurdum, could be used to define any period of climate as “warm”or “cold,” and thus makes no meaningful contribution to discussions of past climate change.

(2) It is essential to distinguish [e.g.,by compositing or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner; e.g., Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Briffa et al., 2001] between regional temperature anomalies and anomalies in hemispheric mean temperature,which must represent an average of temperature estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions [see, for example, Folland et al.,2001;Trenberth and Otto-Bliesner, 2003]. It is well known that weather patterns have a wave-like character to them.This character ensures that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a southerly flow in the northern hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must occur elsewhere). In a similar vein, the specification of a warm period requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be synchronous, and not merely required to occur during any 50-year period within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800–1300, as in SB03. Figure 2 demonstrates the considerable spatial variability in temperature variations of the past millennium, and the false impression one might gain regarding hemispheric-scale temperature changes from the apparent temperature changes in any particular region.The specific notions of the “Little Ice Age”and “Medieval Warm Period”arose,understandably, from the Euro centric origins of historical climatology [e.g.,Lamb, 1965].While relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries,and cool conditions during the 15th to the early 20th century are evident from reconstructions of hemispheric-mean temperature (Figure 1), the specific periods of coldness and warmth differ from region to region (Figure 2) from those for the northern hemisphere as a whole.Rather than indicating inconsistency, the difference between such regional and hemispheric-scale anomalies follows naturally from the physics governing atmospheric variability.

(3) It is essential, in forming a climate reconstruction, to define carefully a base period for modern conditions against which past conditions may be quantitatively compared. It is, furthermore, important to identify and,where possible, quantify uncertainties; and demonstrate, using independent data, the reliability of any reconstructions [Mann et al.,1999; Jones et al., 2001].The conclusions of the most recent IPCC report [Folland et al., 2001] that late-20th century mean warmth likely exceeds that of any time during the past millennium for the northern hemisphere is based on a careful comparison of temperatures during the most recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. As it is only the past few decades during which northern hemisphere temperatures have exceeded the bounds of natural variability, any analysis (SB03) that considers simply “20th century”mean conditions, or interprets past temperatures using the evidence from proxy indicators not capable of resolving decadal timescale trends, can provide only very limited insight into whether or not recent warming is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.

Basically, what Soon and L. Baliunas did was:

**1) Mistake tree ring growth due to warmth with tree ring growth due to rainfall.

2. They assumed that local temperature variations could be applied to global variations.

3. Compared historical proxies with average temperatures for the 20th century as a whole instead of the late 20th century, ignoring the problems with the proxies on the period of anomalous warming.**

On top of that, most researchers quoted by Soon and Baliunas complained that they misinterpreted their research.

As the science reporter mentioned in the video,** if this was an undergraduate paper it would have been returned to the student with an F.**

Of course then most of the work by Willie H. Soon (about 16 pieces in the OP list) is suspect in the books of most researchers, I have to assume that even with this information Poptech or his mentor will not remove that or other papers pointed as flawed as it is clear that he does not have the capacity to understand even **why **is that they are flawed.

And since those papers will never be removed, it is 100% safe to say (again) that the list in the OP will never will be taken seriously even by critics of the majority view…

… after all they have other (still flawed) lists to push forward.

[bonzer]

@Poptech

E&E is actually available in 128 libraries.

So few?

The 129th position on the most recent TES global ranking of universities was the University of Waterloo in Canada, overall hardly a shithole backwater institution.
The big - and even many medium - universities have libraries that will have subscriptions to any vaguely academic journal, regardless of quality. The argument is that someone on the staff may at some point want to consult it, for whatever reason. Which is a horribly low quality threshold - though deliberately so.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

From Wikipedia: Scientific Alliance

You have failed to demonstrate she receives any funding. I understand you dislike the organizations but that is not enough to support the unfounded allegations made.

[DMC]

@Poptech

LOL I am a contributor to the website but do not receive ad money from it.

Excellent, so who gets the money, if not the editor? I’ve switched to using Firefox with Adblock to access the site, so they’re not getting anything from me anyway. We know how much you love Adblock.

So unless you have the name of the person on the Google Adsense account (which is not me) your so called “evidence” is meaningless. I understand your desperation as you cannot have this sort of evidence of peer-reviewed papers known to the public and will do anything to have it censored.

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read all week, and considering some of the threads I’ve read, that’s saying something.

As I correctly stated I was not the first one to post this list to this website. I am more than willing to simply list the papers and remove the link but I linked to the list as moderators instructed.

You had the link in your original OP, in a large bold font, in fact.

[DMC]

@bonzer

So few?

The 129th position on the most recent TES global ranking of universities was the University of Waterloo in Canada, overall hardly a shithole backwater institution.
The big - and even many medium - universities have libraries that will have subscriptions to any vaguely academic journal, regardless of quality. The argument is that someone on the staff may at some point want to consult it, for whatever reason. Which is a horribly low quality threshold - though deliberately so.

Not only that, it is available in print in only 47 of those libraries, and since you can get all of Multi-Science Publishing’s journals in online format as a much cheaper bundle, I’m betting many of those remaining 82 bought it in that manner.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Actually there is a very good example(s)

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 89–110, January 2003)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

This science reporter from Australia shows why:

The Youtube commentator appropriately named “potholer” is not a scientific source or authority.

@GIGObuster

And he is referring to this article, among many other bitch slaps made to that flawed paper:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

That article was refuted,

Comment on “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 44, pp. 473-476, November 2003)

• Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates

@GIGObuster

Of course then most of the work by Willie H. Soon (about 16 pieces in the OP list) is suspect in the books of most researchers,

This is a silly comment and completely unsubstantiated.

@GIGObuster

I have to assume that even with this information Poptech or his mentor will not remove that or other papers pointed as flawed as it is clear that he does not have the capacity to understand even why is that they are flawed.

And since those papers will never be removed, it is 100% safe to say (again) that the list in the OP will never will be taken seriously even by critics of the majority view…

… after all they have other (still flawed) lists to push forward.

No peer-reviewed papers will be removed off the list based on your or others feelings. The only way for a paper to be removed is if the journal that publishes it retracts it. This list is taken serious by critics of the majority who have commented on it. You have failed to demonstrate any of the papers are flawed.

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

It is not relevant because the “quality” of peer-review is not only subjective but impossible to determine.

:dubious: How convenient. If that is true, then what value has peer review at all, and why it is even relevant whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of AGW? Your OP is based on the assumption that it is relevant; you cannot assume or assert that, and still place the relative values of different “peer-reviewed” journals outside the scope of debate.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

The Youtube commentator appropriately named “potholer” is not a scientific source or authority.

And that is why he refers people to the sources, btw going for the killing the messenger fallacy gives you no points.

@Poptech

That article was refuted,

Comment on “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 44, pp. 473-476, November 2003)

• Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates

From the same cite you posted:

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’)

@Poptech

This is a silly comment and completely unsubstantiated.

It is not my problem that you are not paying attention to all the context and information in the citations.

greenman3610

Déjà vu All Over Again | Skeptical Inquirer

This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific viewpoint seek added credibility. They’re sick of being taunted for having few (if any) peer reviewed publications in their favor. Fed up, they decide to do something about it.

These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.

They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has considerable political implications.

Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what’s happening. They shake their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it, questioning the review process and the editor’s ideological leanings. In published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.

Embarrassed, the journal’s publisher backs away from the work. But it’s too late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.

The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done.

…

Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy began.
Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe called it literally paradigm shifting. The Bush administration attempted to edit an Environmental Protection Agency report’s discussion of climate change in order to include reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. None of this should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a key piece of evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences of human-induced climate change.
Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.
Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.

So yep, if not beaten to a pulp then one can choose to say that they did tear the paper to scientific shreds, Hey! I’m easy!

@Poptech

No peer-reviewed papers will be removed off the list based on your or others feelings. The only way for a paper to be removed is if the journal that publishes it retracts it. This list is taken serious by critics of the majority who have commented on it. You have failed to demonstrate any of the papers are flawed.

As it is clear that you avoided to explain away the 3 main points that were mentioned it is clear to all in this discussion that you do not even want to try to explain them away, those and other points still stand over that bloodied paper. (And here you conveniently choose to ignore that most of the reviewers resigned in disgust when the editor refused to ad a correction.) But if you choose to not remove even that paper, it is clear that one just have to point the background to others to effectively discredit that list of the OP as it is crystal clear that no pertinent criticism will influence the views of their creators.

[Poptech]

@bonzer

Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
E&E is actually available in 128 libraries.

So few?

That is more than 40.

@bonzer

The 129th position on the most recent TES global ranking of universities was the University of Waterloo in Canada, overall hardly a shithole backwater institution.
The big - and even many medium - universities have libraries that will have subscriptions to any vaguely academic journal, regardless of quality. The argument is that someone on the staff may at some point want to consult it, for whatever reason. Which is a horribly low quality threshold - though deliberately so.

These “shitty” universities and libraries include,

Cambridge University Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

[BrainGlutton]

Yes, Poptech, there is a climate change consensus:

Climate change consensus describes the public debate over whether there is a scientific consensus on global warming, which is the current climate change.

According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and most of the non-U.S. media[citation needed] agree with the scientific opinion on climate change, which substantiates human-caused global warming.

However, according to a 2009 World Bank report titled Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll, there is high unawareness of the achieved consensus.[6] In addition, some deny there is a scientific consensus,[7] dismiss it altogether,[8] and/or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they claim to be ‘unsettled’ science.[9][10][11] Others maintain that US government scientists have been stifled or driven underground.[12]

<snip>

Scientific community

For more details on this topic, see Scientific opinion on climate change.

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[13] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[14] the American Meteorological Society,[15] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[16] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[17][18] explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

However, consensus is not unanimous, for example: at least one of the scientists asked to review and comment on the IPCC papers does not agree that humans are responsible for climate change [19][20].

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes claimed that “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.” Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes’ work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed[23] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,[24] also commenting that “the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”[23][25]

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. “respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”) agree that human activity is “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”[1] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[26] ”

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion,[27][28][29] to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[30][31] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[32] and miasma.[33]

List of position statements

Several scientific organizations have issued position statements in which they explicitly used the term “consensus”:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: “The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies’ statement.”[34]

• US National Academy of Science: “In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. … On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science…”[35]

• Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2005: “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”[36]

• Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2001: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.”[37]

• American Meteorological Society, 2003: “The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus… IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research… They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions.”[15]

• Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[38]

• International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: “INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”[16]

• Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: “There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases… There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming…”[39]

[Poptech]

@DMC

Excellent, so who gets the money, if not the editor?

The site owner. I do not receive any compensation in anyway, I do this as a hobby.

@DMC

I’ve switched to using Firefox with Adblock to access the site, so they’re not getting anything from me anyway. We know how much you love Adblock.

Good for you and absolutely meaningless outside of your paranoia.

@DMC

You had the link in your original OP, in a large bold font, in fact.

Yes that is correct because I was instructed by moderators prior not to post long lists of links.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: How convenient. If that is true, then what value has peer review at all, and why it is even relevant whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of AGW? Your OP is based on the assumption that it is relevant; you cannot assume or assert that, and still place the relative values of different “peer-reviewed” journals outside the scope of debate.

The value of peer-review is that alarmist like to use it to stifle debate by propagandizing that no peer-reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of AGW or the economic or environmental effects of AGW. My argument is based on them existing and such a thing as peer-review existing. Subjective “valuations” have no bearing on anything outside of some who desperately want to discredit the papers on the list and thus look for anything they can latch onto to try and fail to do this.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

And that is why he refers people to the sources, btw going for the killing the messenger fallacy gives you no points.

So you and your fellow posters have scored no points?

The full rebuttal to the paper you presented I provide. Obviously Mann would deny they addressed his points he has a history of denial.

Comment on “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 44, pp. 473-476, November 2003)

• Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates

@GIGObuster

So yep, if not beaten to a pulp then one can choose to say that they did tear the paper to scientific shreds, Hey! I’m easy!

Neither as the paper was 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

I have also explained the resignations by Storch and his friends in previous posts.

@GIGObuster

But if you choose to not remove even that paper, it is clear that one just have to point the background to others to effectively discredit that list of the OP as it is crystal clear that no pertinent criticism will influence the views of their creators.

That paper will never be removed nor any peer-reviewed paper on the list unless it was retracted by the journal it was published in. You have failed to discredit the list in anyway.

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, Poptech, there is a climate change consensus:

No there is no consensus and I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source. This is offtopic and I would suggest starting a new topic if you wish to discuss this of which I have no interest in.