• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peer Reviewed anti agw science papers

MrVicchio said:
See folks, even when it's peer reviewed, it's not good enough. Why bother posting anything that counters AGW with certain folks, they don't CARE what you source, what you think, or what you bring up, it's always WRONG. And the reasonings are generally the most flimsy of counters. If you don't post what they want to hear, they won't listen. I listen, I've even agreed with some of the stuff they've posted to a point, but the big point, conclusion I disagree with, that MAN si the source of climatic change/warming.

The dishonesty of the AGW crows astounds.
Click to expand...

The poster took the time to go through each article and comment.

You can't be bothered to even reply, explain why his comments aren't valid. Just a blanket dismissal and then you jettison out of your own thread.

It's not about science for you. It's partisan.

And like we've all pointed out, the first thing on your list is not a peer-reviewed anything. It's a debunked b.s. petition. Why don't you do a little checking on your sources? What are you scared you might find? (Exxon, coal, oil$$$)

You now have less than zero credibility here.
 
bowerbird said:
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

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"
Click to expand...

Now show how tha facts are wrong
 
Deuce said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is in the courts

News Radio 1200 WOAI San Antonio Texas
 
bowerbird said:
There was no "climategate" because the principles who were accused were proven innocent by not one but four separate investigations
Click to expand...

No by loaded panels that support GW it was bias and a farce. The department that these men worked in investigated them for the school. what a scam
 
ptif219 said:
Now show how tha facts are wrong
Click to expand...

You have a knack for posting these non-sequetor statements. Either you don't understand the posts you're replying to, or you just having your own conversation with yourself.
 
hazlnut said:
You have a knack for posting these non-sequetor statements. Either you don't understand the posts you're replying to, or you just having your own conversation with yourself.
Click to expand...

Her/ His generic and vague denial does not address what the article says
 
ptif219 said:
Her/ His generic and vague denial does not address what the article says
Click to expand...

No, her faith that AGW is real, and that only through huge gov't control over our lives can we save, planet earth!!!
 
MrVicchio, stop being dishonest and admit that some of the papers you linked weren't peer reviewed.
 
MrVicchio said:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr -- Viau et al. 30 (5): 455 -- Geology

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/22/c022p187.pdf

SpringerLink - Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/00000002/art00006

ScienceDirect - Quaternary Science Reviews : The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III -- Caillon et al. 299 (5613): 1728 -- Science

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/defreitas.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf

paleng2_4p115abs

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf

Access : Time to ditch Kyoto : Nature

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf

Welcome to MetaPress

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene -- Bond et al. 294 (5549): 2130 -- Science

CSA

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf

SpringerLink - Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?

http://cumberland.samford.edu/images/biotech/Cumb.L.Rev.36.03.04.Christy.pdf

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.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Good stuff.


The problem of course, is that you'll never convince the die-hard Warmers of anything, it is a matter of faith to them.
 
ptif219 said:
Just like the IPCC and melting ice caps in the Himalayas.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you even know what YOU are talking about?

Some of the links MrV posted were not research papers. They were basically memos.
 
Goshin said:
Thank you. Good stuff.


The problem of course, is that you'll never convince the die-hard Warmers of anything, it is a matter of faith to them.
Click to expand...

Hope you actually try to read them - if you do you will be the first of the denialists to do so
 
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
 
Manc Skipper said:
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
Click to expand...

Dude. Don't even read it. It's on a list it must be true. Never mind that what the link actually discusses, as Duece pointed out, is not what the OP stated. While Mr. V has a long history of posting things that either don't support or directly refute his arguments, many others simply do not even open links.

Someone posted it. Therefore it must be true.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
Click to expand...

I know I get really depressed that people are more willing to accept the word of an anonymous blogger on the internet than some painstaking research that someone has spent years of their life ensuring is as comprehensive as possible.
 
Deuce said:
Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you even know what YOU are talking about?

Some of the links MrV posted were not research papers. They were basically memos.
Click to expand...

You want to talk about the IPCC using papers that were false as though they were peer reviewd?
 
GW has lost so much credibility Obama wants to change then name to Global Climate disruption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom