Peer Reviewed anti agw science papers

[jamesrage]

And that's just a handful. So stop the BS about "Where is the Peer Reviewed" anti-agw science. If you really are serious about understanding the Climate, first off you don't make BULL**** CLAIMS. This is just ONE reason the AGW'ers are dishonest people. They demand evidence, claim it doesn't exist, yet clearly, I have provided but a SMALL list of PEER REVIEWED papers for all to read. Let's see what excuses they make now... if they bother posting here at all.

The man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts are dedicate to their religion,nothing is going to shake them from that belief. Al Gore and every other environmentalist could come out tomorrow and say its all a load of crap and they would still cling to their man made global warming fairy tale religious beliefs.

 

[Renae]

The man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts are dedicate to their religion,nothing is going to shake them from that belief. Al Gore and every other environmentalist could come out tomorrow and say its all a load of crap and they would still cling to their man made global warming fairy tale religious beliefs.

That's kinda why I posted these. I got tired of reading "Show us peer-reviewed" but I also knew it wasn't worth the time or effort.

 

[digsbe]

People will reject things simply because it's against what they want to hear. It is peer reviewed, it's evidence that wouldn't support agw. Therefore, we must downplay the sources, call them irrelevant, and push the whole "consensus" thing. It's not about debate anymore. It's about forcing the burden of proof on those who are skeptics of agw and cleverly denying anti-agw sources while clinging to "consensus" and Al Gore videos.

 

[Deuce]

People will reject things simply because it's against what they want to hear. It is peer reviewed, it's evidence that wouldn't support agw. Therefore, we must downplay the sources, call them irrelevant, and push the whole "consensus" thing. It's not about debate anymore. It's about forcing the burden of proof on those who are skeptics of agw and cleverly denying anti-agw sources while clinging to "consensus" and Al Gore videos.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Nobody ever claimed 100% concensus. Nobody is dismissing these merely because they don't obviously support the concensus. But when MrV himself didn't even seem to read what he pasted, why should I give it much thought myself? Half the papers he posted aren't at all "anti-AGW," and the ones that proclaim to be anti-AGW I can't even read anything beyond the abstract because I'm not subscribed to that journal. What the **** do you want? For me to read one paragraph labeled "ABSTRACT" and suddenly change my opinion on climate change?

 

[bowerbird]

People will reject things simply because it's against what they want to hear. It is peer reviewed, it's evidence that wouldn't support agw. Therefore, we must downplay the sources, call them irrelevant, and push the whole "consensus" thing. It's not about debate anymore. It's about forcing the burden of proof on those who are skeptics of agw and cleverly denying anti-agw sources while clinging to "consensus" and Al Gore videos.

IF they were truly peer reviewed I would accept that but they are NOT. Even the paper you linked to does not debunk AGW.

I have seen this list time and again, which is why I know my way around it - even to the point that "Energy and Environment" as a journal is the climate equivalent of "Old folks monthly" as a medical journal.

Quite a few are not even papers but letters to the editor and a vast number actually support AGW but have been thrown in on the belief that people like myself are all "religious fanatics" who "do not look at evidence that they do not agree with".

Funny thing is - I spend HOURS reading anti-AGW papers and opinions but I have yet to meet a denialist who will truly take time to really read what I link to

 

[ptif219]

IF they were truly peer reviewed I would accept that but they are NOT. Even the paper you linked to does not debunk AGW.

I have seen this list time and again, which is why I know my way around it - even to the point that "Energy and Environment" as a journal is the climate equivalent of "Old folks monthly" as a medical journal.

Quite a few are not even papers but letters to the editor and a vast number actually support AGW but have been thrown in on the belief that people like myself are all "religious fanatics" who "do not look at evidence that they do not agree with".

Funny thing is - I spend HOURS reading anti-AGW papers and opinions but I have yet to meet a denialist who will truly take time to really read what I link to

You mean like the IPCC?

Ross McKitrick: Fix The IPCC Process

IPCC policies, such as the requirement for an “objective, open and transparent” review process, sound impressive, but my experience is that the written policies are not always followed, and there do not appear to be any consequences when they are breached.

For example, one rule states: “Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” Yet no such annexes have been produced. I was involved in numerous areas where there were significant differences of opinion on scientific issues, such as flaws in surface temperature data, improper estimation of trend uncertainties and methodological flaws in paleoclimate research. None of these differences were resolved during the review process, yet no annexes were ever published, creating a false impression of consensus.

After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing. The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts.

 

[drz-400]

That's kinda why I posted these. I got tired of reading "Show us peer-reviewed" but I also knew it wasn't worth the time or effort.

You know why this pisses me off? Because you did not even want to discuss the topic anyways. You just posted a bunch of climate change articles and the first person to actually say anything about them was going to get the,

"See folks, look at the dishonesty..." talk. Wow, do you really think people cannot see through that? I even tried to discuss one of the articles with you, and all you could say was, "I am sorry you come to that conclusion."

It was a waste of time because you never wanted to discuss them anyways, all you wanted to do was to try and lure in a specific response so you could say what you wanted to say. You have presented no argument relevent to the papers you posted. You have no argument, just a bunch of **** talking.

 

[Renae]

You know why this pisses me off? Because you did not even want to discuss the topic anyways. You just posted a bunch of climate change articles and the first person to actually say anything about them was going to get the,

"See folks, look at the dishonesty..." talk. Wow, do you really think people cannot see through that? I even tried to discuss one of the articles with you, and all you could say was, "I am sorry you come to that conclusion."

It was a waste of time because you never wanted to discuss them anyways, all you wanted to do was to try and lure in a specific response so you could say what you wanted to say. You have presented no argument relevent to the papers you posted. You have no argument, just a bunch of **** talking.

HAHAHAHAHA What silly Faux outrage you have sir.

Where is your challenge to discuss AGW links and papers? Oh, that's right, you don't spend this sort of effort.

And for the record, I didn't post these with intent to discuss anything, I posted them to prove what a WASTE OF TIME it is TO POST THEM. Because you, Deuce, Bowerbird and the rest of the AGW Faithful don't care to read them, don't care to accept them. You will cherry pick and make wild claims. Like your first few in this thread. Waste of our time.

Then you finally come in with your opinion:

Personally I would not conclude from that paper that there is no global warming being caused by humans. The paper you cited is focused on reconciling different datasets that measure the change in temperature per decade. The datasets used can conclude that for dec 1978 to nov 2003 the temp. change for lower elevation data is .08 +- .05 C per decade (this was reinforced by an earlier study).

Here is a link to the whole paper:
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/christy_norris_trop_temp_trends_GRL_2004.pdf

To which I stated I was sorry you drew such a conclusion, and thanked you for posting the link so others could read it all.

What did you want, for me to break down the paper? You've made up your mind, if the paper doesn't change it I AIN'T WASTIN MY TIME MAN.

 

[drz-400]

HAHAHAHAHA What silly Faux outrage you have sir.

Where is your challenge to discuss AGW links and papers? Oh, that's right, you don't spend this sort of effort.

And for the record, I didn't post these with intent to discuss anything, I posted them to prove what a WASTE OF TIME it is TO POST THEM. Because you, Deuce, Bowerbird and the rest of the AGW Faithful don't care to read them, don't care to accept them. You will cherry pick and make wild claims. Like your first few in this thread. Waste of our time.

Then you finally come in with your opinion:


To which I stated I was sorry you drew such a conclusion, and thanked you for posting the link so others could read it all.

What did you want, for me to break down the paper? You've made up your mind, if the paper doesn't change it I AIN'T WASTIN MY TIME MAN.

Well my god it sure is easy to prove that it is going to be a waste of time posting something for a discussion if you have no intention of discussing it. I still don't even think you addressed dueces critisism, all you did was bitch about how he apparently thinks they are not good enough.

But lets all laugh at how spot on my first post was. You posted here to prove what? "That it would be a waste of time..." because of people like me and duece. And what duece said was close enough for you to make that conclusion after one post. Yet he actually read them and said most of them do not mention AGW or are not peer reviewed. He never said they were not good enough, he said that they do not fit your criteria in the post or do not address the topic of the thread.

 

[drz-400]

Vicchio, lets be honest here. You personally have not even read all of these papers. I would wager to say you have not read most of these papers. How could I know this?

Lets start by opening our browers to google and typing peer reviewed anti global warming. Notice the first link to Pete's Place. Now Vicchio has randomly gone through this blog and selected from these papers. When I say random I mean scroll down a little, pick a link, paste it into his post, scroll down some more, cut, paste, repeat.

How can I know this? The articles posted are in order, the 2nd to top one Vicchio posted is the first one to show up at Pete's Place, the third one Vicchio posted is the 2nd one that happens to show up, etc.

How do I know he has not read them? Because in his random selections, he managed to pick some links that are broken or not active. Had he actually opened the link before and read these papers he would have known there was no paper there because the link was broken.

Now the final question, the one that is out of order is the first link posted by Vicchio, which is:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

This is because the link at Pete's Place is broken. This is the only one Vicchio actually fixed, which is why it was the only one out of order and the first one in the list of links he posted, and I presume it is the only one that Vicchio bothered to read.

Now for the final note, Duece has already showed that the one paper that Vicchio bothered to read is in fact not peer reviewed, and has credibility issues.

"See folks, look at the dishonesty..."

 

[bowerbird]

You mean like the IPCC?

Ross McKitrick: Fix The IPCC Process

IPCC policies, such as the requirement for an “objective, open and transparent” review process, sound impressive, but my experience is that the written policies are not always followed, and there do not appear to be any consequences when they are breached.

For example, one rule states: “Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” Yet no such annexes have been produced. I was involved in numerous areas where there were significant differences of opinion on scientific issues, such as flaws in surface temperature data, improper estimation of trend uncertainties and methodological flaws in paleoclimate research. None of these differences were resolved during the review process, yet no annexes were ever published, creating a false impression of consensus.

After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing. The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts.

ou know it is always a wise thing to check out your sources. Otherwise you find yourself doing things like believing in fairy tales or worse Prison Planet

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered, educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[1][2

Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for the director of that site

Peiser is also director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the founder and editor of the Cambridge Conference Network, and co-editor of Energy and Environment. He is a regular contributor to Canada's National Post.[1]

Benny Peiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there is a difference between peer reviewed research and someone's personal opinion posted on a website. Somthing I am not sure your director of that website is acquanited with since he is a co-editor of the infamous "Energy and Environment" a journal whose peer review process is so poor it would pass used toilet paper and publish it.

Oh! And while you are at it please check on your qualifications of your author as far as climate science goes - and how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject

 

[bowerbird]

HAHAHAHAHA What silly Faux outrage you have sir.

Where is your challenge to discuss AGW links and papers? Oh, that's right, you don't spend this sort of effort.

And for the record, I didn't post these with intent to discuss anything, I posted them to prove what a WASTE OF TIME it is TO POST THEM. Because you, Deuce, Bowerbird and the rest of the AGW Faithful don't care to read them, don't care to accept them. You will cherry pick and make wild claims. Like your first few in this thread. Waste of our time.

Then you finally come in with your opinion:


To which I stated I was sorry you drew such a conclusion, and thanked you for posting the link so others could read it all.

What did you want, for me to break down the paper? You've made up your mind, if the paper doesn't change it I AIN'T WASTIN MY TIME MAN.

I not only read them I critiqued them - please do not post inaccuracies about fellow members

 

[Technocratic]

So, is Mr. Vicchio trying to say he as no problem with a survey of scientists, many of whom were literally fictional people, like Donald Duck

How does a peer reviewed source have Donald Duck as a signatory? :lol:

He seems to have fallen off the clue truck.

 

[ptif219]

ou know it is always a wise thing to check out your sources. Otherwise you find yourself doing things like believing in fairy tales or worse Prison Planet



Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for the director of that site


Benny Peiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there is a difference between peer reviewed research and someone's personal opinion posted on a website. Somthing I am not sure your director of that website is acquanited with since he is a co-editor of the infamous "Energy and Environment" a journal whose peer review process is so poor it would pass used toilet paper and publish it.

Oh! And while you are at it please check on your qualifications of your author as far as climate science goes - and how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject

When you have no answer for the facts you attack the source

 

[Deuce]

When you have no answer for the facts you attack the source

The irony of this post is staggering.

 

[bowerbird]

When you have no answer for the facts you attack the source

Is the source a valid repository of information?

 

[ptif219]

Is the source a valid repository of information?

dispute the facts not the source. Are the facts correct?

 

[bowerbird]

dispute the facts not the source. Are the facts correct?

No they are not - this is WHY they do not end up in accredited peer review papers.

 

[ptif219]

No they are not - this is WHY they do not end up in accredited peer review papers.

Explanation

 

[bowerbird]

Explanation

Before I get into what is peer review - ask yourself this

How can I tell **** from diamonds on the internet?

Let us say you want to look up the latest information on a vaccine - who would you go to for this? Would you accept a post on a blog written by an anonymous person railing about how all vaccines are methods of mind control or would you read the CDC report?

Peer review is, thus, originally a term in academia that relates to establishing a scholarly standard for a discipline. Thus:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of money for research. Publishers and agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions. At the same time, the process assists authors in meeting the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are liable to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. (Free definition, 2004)



The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2002) in Post Notes is concerned with peer review in the refereeing sense:

Peer review is a system whereby research — or a research proposal — is scrutinised by (largely unpaid) independent experts (peers). In general, the process serves a technical (ensuring that the science is sound) and a subjective function (is the science interesting, important and/or groundbreaking?).

Peer Review

Peer review is a PROCESS whereby the research is vetted by others in the discipline (usually people holding masters degrees or higher) and it is tested for validity. In other words - YOU CANNOT MAKE RUBBISH UP AND HAVE IT PUBLISHED!

Unlike the average website on the net where there are NO constraints as to what people write.

I Know I have found the most amazingly ignorant websites touting everything from "living on light" (eating is a choice you can live without it) through to people denying established scientific principles because "they don't make sense"

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No they are not - this is WHY they do not end up in accredited peer review papers.

Climategate proved that the hoaxers were fudging matters by selecting their own peers, ergo, peer-reviewed pro-agw-hoaxing papers are automatically suspect.

 

[Deuce]

Climategate proved that the hoaxers were fudging matters by selecting their own peers, ergo, peer-reviewed pro-agw-hoaxing papers are automatically suspect.

It did not prove that at all. A couple out of context sentences mined from more than a decade's worth of research is not proof that any large-scale "fudging" occured. Multiple independent investigations have cleared the CRU of any charge of falsification or manipulation. Besides, you seem to have no concept of the scope of the CRU's work. "Climategate," at absolute best, would apply to a single dataset of a single method of proxy temperature reconstruction, (where they reconstruct temperatures for periods before we had thermometers) which is not at all important to the big picture.

In fact, most of the things the denialist crowd accused the CRU of hiding were already published in peer-reviewed journals. Trenberth, who had the quote about how they "couldn't account for the lack of warming," published that very concern. Several papers have been published discussing the "decline" being referred to: a period where the tree-ring temperature reconstruction in recent decades shows a decrease in temperature, whereas we know from the instrumental record that the temperature obviously increased in that period. The tree-ring issue has been well discussed, the present theory is that ozone depletion exposed trees to more UV radiation, stunting their growth. (tree rings are thicker when its warm and trees grow faster, thinner when its cold and trees grow slower) The reason for this theory is that the "bad data" only occurs in recent decades and only occurs in the high northern latitudes.

That's it. One part of one dataset of one type of historical temperature reconstruction. If scientists are trying so desperately to hide this, why are they publishing these concerns?

 

[Renae]

Climategate proved that the hoaxers were fudging matters by selecting their own peers, ergo, peer-reviewed pro-agw-hoaxing papers are automatically suspect.

It did, but don't expect them to listen to such. Them's fighting words sir, fighting words.

 

[bowerbird]

Climategate proved that the hoaxers were fudging matters by selecting their own peers, ergo, peer-reviewed pro-agw-hoaxing papers are automatically suspect.

There was no "climategate" because the principles who were accused were proven innocent by not one but four separate investigations

 

[Manc Skipper]

It did, but don't expect them to listen to such. Them's fighting words sir, fighting words.

It did no such thing and your claims to the contrary merely demonstrate the depth of denial engendered by the anti-intellectualists belief system.