Huh. I decided to see if I had the [del]intellectual stamina[/del] attention span to forge through the list linked to in the OP. My first inclination, when I saw the site, was to say, “Nope. I don’t.” and go do something else with my afternoon.
Seriously, that page is a HUGE data dump. I’m not sure I gleaned anything of importance. But I DID find that 65 of the items listed one Sherwood B. Idso as a contributor. Dr. Idso is on record as supporting the notion that human activity is responsible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (he’s also on record as saying that he thinks increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are a good thing).
Here’s an interesting item from the list. The abstract states (in its entirety)
That underlined part? That’s not the conclusion. It’s merely a part of the first hypothesis (of three which the abstract promises is explored in the paper). Note that the principle author is also on record as vehemently denying the label of AGW skeptic.
Fella named Michael J. Economides appears a couple of times. Both times, it looks like the major thrust of his work is more about how expensive it would be to mitigate anthropogenic climate change than whether there is any doubt that it happens.
That is not what climate scientists are saying and even the term alarmist is improper.
What me and many are saying is that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers that attempt to refute AGW, but they are few and many times new data and research discredits or refutes most of their points, and that goes for the ones from serious skeptic scientists. The ones coming from people that misinterpret the data and have an agenda (like Soon) do not deserve to be in the same column as papers from serious skeptical researchers.
And just in case you still what to disparage that source, you have to be aware that he also has a beef with the ones that you can indeed call alarmists (not the scientists BTW)
Care to explain that then? My main point is that are not capable of explaining away the specific tree points mentioned. And that shows that as a judge of the papers you are not very credible.
BTW the rebuttal by Mann and others was in the same PDF, right after the rebuttal you mentioned.
Yes, by Energy and Environment, the energy industry’s house organ. Not impressed. And it is a tautological point, I already pointed at even skeptical sources that report that Soon was really not doing proper science. The only thing it was found it was that some publications are indeed set up to allow an easier process of publication to then pass trash as science.
Explained is not the same as convincing the people that matters, BTW it is not just us, care to point at the universities and/or scientific organizations that got convinced by those papers?
And as much as you are attempting to avoid it, you need to show us that you even understand **why **it is that many think that Soon and Baliunas failed in science:
Basically, what Soon and L. Baliunas did was:
**1) Mistake tree ring growth due to warmth with tree ring growth due to rainfall.
They assumed that local temperature variations could be applied to global variations.
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.**
Please explain in your own words why these items are not true. I consider that important as you failed before in the previous discussion in even understanding basic statistics, I want to see if at least you do understand the basics of proxy climate research.
Dr. Idso is one of the foremost skeptics who does not support alarm,
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
The paper also rejects the AGW hypothesis as presented by the IPCC. The author also rejects conclusions of alarm. But the list is not about the authors as explicitly stated,
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.
You obviously failed to read the first sentence of the list,
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming.”
This is what you want to present but it is not true. There are many papers as I have provided. Yes of course there are failed attempts to discredit and refute the skeptics work, it usually revolves around repeating your talking points. Who you think deserves to be listed and where is subjective nonsense.
Potholer is an alarmist waste of time who does not understand the science and his videos are full of misinformation.
That is your opinion and I do not agree. Clearly you want to badly discuss this paper, please start a new thread to do so as it has nothing to do with inclusion on the list.
Please provide evidence for your libelous lie about E&E. You have not provided a single skeptical source. Chris Mooney is an alarmist supporter of AGW not a skeptic and so is Potholer. You have found nothing out except your already established confirmation bias.
How do you convince a university? This is irrelevant to the argument as presented.
They have defended their own paper, that is not my job. I have not failed in understanding basic statistics and you obviously do not understand the basics of proxy climate research neither does Mann. Clearly you feel very passionate about this paper, I suggest starting a new topic to discuss it as I have no interest in doing so.
As demonstrated, he is a critic of alarmists/warmists like Al gore, failing to see that demonstrates to all that your preconceptions are getting in the way of interpreting evidence, this is indeed evidence that you are not reliable in looking at the evidence.
Wow he criticizes Al Gore in some desperate attempt to come off as “objective” to those who do not know any better all the while repeating misinformation. You need to do much better than trying to hold up the alarmist Potholer as some source of objectivity. This nonsense usually works with the uneducated but not anyone who has actually been debating this. Your “objectively” apparently includes looking for those who share your confirmation bias on the ultimate source of scientific knowledge - YouTube. The place all those seeking scientific truth turn to! LMAO!
How did you find those quoted bits? Do you have access to the papers?
On reflection, OP, you might have done well to take more pains to explain that your thesis is not about the existence of AGW, so much as whether its existence is something that should be factored into the formation of public policy.
And that shows to all the level of effort that you are giving to your research.
Useless retort with no evidence.
That is not the only item that I mentioned that needed convincing, what I’m trying to say here (and this was also the main item in the past discussion) is that if you are incapable of giving us a quotation or a link that shows your list has influenced the position of any scientific organization out there.
Or to make it easier for you, can you point to a group of renown that is using your list to convince others of the error of their ways?
As it is, it is clear that the makers of the list do not even look carefully or react properly to make a few changes that could engender the usage of the list in more serious settings. When that list fails to convince even the contrarians in the SDMB to come forward to defend you or it, it is evidence to me that even they are aware that that list is not very useful at all. In fact, now many people can see now that even thoroughly debunked or misinterpreted papers will never be taken from the list, that clearly shows how useful it is for the **proponents **of AGW,
:rolleyes: You already got your ass kicked over that particular point in this thread. Can you never learn from your mistakes?
And why is it that I only ever hear that from RWs? There is no obvious reason why a wiki format would produce LW bias in a source. (Unless the facts have a liberal bias.)
Certainly there are valid criticisms of Wikipedia. They have mainly to do with slipshod editing.
In this particular instance, however, the article in question is well-edited and all of the “Position statements,” etc., are cited and linked. Anyone could debunk any one of them by pointing out, e.g., that the link is dead or bogus. Has anyone?
:dubious: “Offtopic”? “No interest”? What else is this thread about?! The existence vel non of any given number peer-reviewed articles skeptical of AGW is relevant only to the extent that it reflects on the existence vel non of a climate change consensus.
My thesis is that an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers exist refuting alarmist claims. The papers include ones that support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW.
As mentioned before, there is a youtube link and then a link to the article the youtuber is referring to, demonstrating to all that you are incapable of noticing the difference. This is yet again evidence to all here that you are unreliable.
The youtube link is there to make it easier to explain the points mentioned, once again you are just doing a pathetic “kill the messenger” act.
kaylasdad99, as you noticed, he deftly avoided touching what the authors thought were the most likely valid hypothesis. The makers of the list are indeed misunderstanding at best what the authors are saying. Not much left to say really.