# Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2010, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118 "2010-03-20T08:31:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/161 "2010-03-21T19:44:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, several dopers already did check a few of the papers and they arrived to the conclusion that you are in reality misrepresenting what they say. Nope I have not misrepresented anything and everything is fully cited for people to read for themselves. Not many people publicly have the ability to deal with your tangental bombardment in support of alarmism so you will not see them comment here - they don’t want to deal with arguing with you. But from the tons of emails I have been receiving many are very appreciative of the list. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/162 "2010-03-21T20:13:27Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > There are more skeptical sites then anything and I have not updated this in some time **Poptech** , listing 120 web sites is not a valid debate tactic. _No one is going to read them all._ So listing a handful of well-chosen links would support your argument just as well unless your aim is to shout your opponents down by deluging them in text. (And I mean ‘handful’ literally: five or fewer.) I already explained this upthread and in a separate thread. Since you have ignored it again, this is a second formal warning. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/163 "2010-03-21T20:54:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Poptech** , listing 120 web sites is not a valid debate tactic. _No one is going to read them all._ So listing a handful of well-chosen links would support your argument just as well unless your aim is to shout your opponents down by deluging them in text. (And I mean ‘handful’ literally: five or fewer.) I already explained this upthread and in a separate thread. Since you have ignored it again, this is a second formal warning. The warning was for calling someone a liar. I have not done so since as you requested. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/164 "2010-03-21T21:30:25Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Wrong, > > **Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal** (ISSN: 0958-305X) > > - Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus SCI says different. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/165 "2010-03-21T23:24:36Z")
**Poptech** , I apologize. I had thought that you did not think global warming was real, or that anthropogenic climate change is real. Now I see that you are just arguing that there are skeptics regarding anthropogenic climate change and global warming, and some of them skeptics are scientists. Meh. I, for one, will give it to you. You win. There are skeptics, thousands of them, including scientists, but that does not change the fact that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change by a large margin. There are also skeptics that US astronauts landed on the moon and I am sure that some of those skeptics are scientists also. Doesn’t make them right. ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/166 "2010-03-22T00:24:43Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The OP is about scientists skeptical of Global Warming, clearly the second paper is. I’ve backed up everything I stated. Anyway I see what your problem is, that should say skeptical of “man-made” global warming. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Meh. I, for one, will give it to you. You win. There are skeptics, thousands of them, including scientists, but that does not change the fact that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change by a large margin. Larger than you may realise. Here’s a handy infographic which puts it in perspective. 31,000 scientists? [pfffth](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/167 "2010-03-22T04:45:01Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The warning was for calling someone a liar. I have not done so since as you requested. Thanks. But I also told you to stop posting these lists. I made the following post in this thread and a separate climate change thread, and you responded to it earlier: > [@Marley23](#): > > _Copying and pasting scores of names is not a valid debate tactic or even a good citation. It’s obnoxious and tiresome. This isn’t a contest to see who can post the biggest wall of text. This goes for everyone: don’t do it again. I don’t want to keep abbreviating these lists. And if you are quoting from another source, keep the quote to a reasonably short length and just link to the full text._ ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/168 "2010-03-22T15:28:45Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > SCI says different. Science Citation Index (SCI) is a commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective inclusion process. Whether a journal appears there or not in no way determines if it is peer-reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/169 "2010-03-22T18:53:33Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Science Citation Index (SCI) is a commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective inclusion process. Whether a journal appears there or not in no way determines if it is peer-reviewed. It determines whether _I_ think it’s a legitimate journal or a hack rag. That you favour Google Scholar over SCI says plenty to me. And the fact that it’s a commercial product is a good thing, for a change. Much better than an open CI, where Hexxxon can pay a bunch of code monkeys to “legitimize” their pet scientists. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/170 "2010-03-22T21:13:05Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > **Please provide the scientific method to determine if someone has expertise in climatology.** It’s pretty much the same as the method to determine if someone has expertise in **any** scientific field. As you know. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/171 "2010-03-22T21:37:21Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It determines whether _I_ think it’s a legitimate journal or a hack rag. That you favour Google Scholar over SCI says plenty to me. Well since we don’t care about your opinion and are dealing with facts. E&E is peer-reviewed, [EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes](http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf) (PDF) As for Google Scholar, if it was up to Google we would have free access to every peer-reviewed journal ever published. Instead of having to pay multi-billion dollar corporations for access to scienctific information but elitists like yourself prefer it that way, I know. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/172 "2010-03-22T21:55:38Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > As for Google Scholar, if it was up to Google we would have free access to every peer-reviewed journal ever published. Instead of having to pay multi-billion dollar corporations for access to scienctific information but elitists like yourself prefer it that way, I know. **Poptech** , you’re new here, so please familiarize yourself with the rules. Insults are not allowed in this forum (and yes, I’m taking that dig about ‘elitists’ as an insult, since it’s an ad hominem.) > [@No direct personal insults or "flaming" in great debates](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-direct-personal-insults-or-flaming-in-great-debates/210240/1): > > **Moderator’s Note:** > > Direct personal insults of other posters and “flaming” are not permitted in Great Debates (or, indeed, in any SDMB forum outside of The BBQ Pit). The general rule is to attack the other poster’s _arguments_, rather than the other poster him- or herself. If you feel you must “flame” someone, please open a thread in [The BBQ Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=5). ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/173 "2010-03-22T22:02:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Poptech** , you’re new here, so please familiarize yourself with the rules. Insults are not allowed in this forum (and yes, I’m taking that dig about ‘elitists’ as an insult, since it’s an ad hominem.) Fair enough but why are no warnings given for when someone calls me a denier? ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/174 "2010-03-22T22:10:39Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > **Poptech** , I apologize. I had thought that you did not think global warming was real, Yes I believe there has been a slight (+0.6 C) warming since the end of the little ice age. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > or that anthropogenic climate change is real. The problem with these statements is that it is not a yes or no answer. There is a large scale of support and disagreement. I believe that it is possible for humans to influence the climate (at least locally - urbad heat island) but hardly that we are a global driver, it is serious or there is any chance of a catastrophe. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > but that does not change the fact that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change by a large margin. This has never been proven and I have yet to be given a scientific method for determining who a climate scientist is. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > There are also skeptics that US astronauts landed on the moon and I am sure that some of those skeptics are scientists also. Doesn’t make them right. This sort of nonsense is a distraction and designed to lump climate skeptics with conspiracy theorists. And no you will not find over 30,000 scientists skeptical of the moon landings. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/175 "2010-03-22T22:12:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s pretty much the same as the method to determine if someone has expertise in **any** scientific field. If you could please provide this method as I would like to know since so many throw this term around like there is some objective way to determine this. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/176 "2010-03-22T22:14:59Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Fair enough but why are no warnings given for when someone calls me a denier? Because it isn’t an insult. I don’t agree with your contention that it is. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/177 "2010-03-22T22:15:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Because it isn’t an insult. I don’t agree with your contention that it is. That is bullshit and intellectually dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/178 "2010-03-22T22:27:28Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > That is bullshit and intellectually dishonest. I disagree, and I found your ‘they’re trying to associate us with Holocaust deniers!’ argument to be incorrect and very cynical. “Denier” is a perfectly accurate word for someone who denies that something exists. You’ve found one columnist who compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, but that’s not how the phrase is generally used and I’m not going to expand the definition of the word insult to help you make your case. If you want to argue about this further, take it to the About This Message Board forum. If not, drop it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/179 "2010-03-22T22:48:43Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > If you could please provide this method as I would like to know since so many throw this term around like there is some objective way to determine this. **That** is intellectually dishonest. If you know enough to meaningfully discuss this subject at all, then you know perfectly well what constitutes expertise in a scientific field, and what credentials may or may not be cited to show it, and that expertise in one scientific field does not automatically translate to another. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/180 "2010-03-23T02:44:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “Denier” is a perfectly accurate word for someone who denies that something exists. Really so what am I denying exists? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=10)