Alarmists, how would you explain this?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


Excellent link from Ottawa Mike|||The website is a quantity over quality approach. Find as many papers as possible which seem to disagree with some aspect of the AGW theory. The papers either don't dispute the theory and have been misrepresented, appear in some obscure journal, or were never published at all.





The first specific paper you link was published in Environmental Geosciences, which is the journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). See for yourself - click the 'About the Journal' link here and it takes you to the AAPG website.


http://eg.geoscienceworld.org/





Needless to say one has to question the motives of climate science publications in petroleum journals. But more importantly, the claims in the abstract are factually wrong. The temperature record has been proven accurate, atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to accelerate, etc.





The second paper you link to is to 'New Zealand Geographer'. The abstract is 2 sentences long and contains the word "alarmist". Need I say more?





These are good represenatations of the Popular Technology list. Quantity over quality.





*edit* I can't remember the last Q%26amp;A from Ottawa Mike that wasn't chalk full of psychological projection. He might as well replace his computer monitor with a mirror.





Yes CO2 is to blame. That's what the physics says. That's what the climate scientists all say. If you want us to believe otherwise, you're darn right we expect you to provide a shred of scientific evidence. Instead of complaining, go do a little research. Except you can't, because if you do you risk realizing just how wrong you are, which your denial will not allow.|||The link is not what it claims to be. Forget the 700 papers, find ONE real paper that refutes the tenets of global warming and let's talk about that. I actually think they've changed the title of that page to make it more wishy-washy.





EDIT: You're going to have to do better than that. The first link is not even a paper--it's the abstract from a conference presentation. Those are not typically peer-reviewed, and to be honest are often written before the research is even done.





The second is from New Zealand Geographer? Perhaps it's peer reviewed (perhaps not), but the article mainly reads like an opinion piece. Nobody's going to re-write any textbooks from what appears in that paper.





EDIT for Poptech: We have no problem admitting these papers exist, many are written by people that have expressed that they believe in AGW. While it's certainly possible for conference proceedings to be peer-reviewed, that first quote comes from something that is ONLY an abstract, and the only "peer review" that it might have seen was a cursory glance from a conference organizer checking to be sure that it looked like an abstract.





Like I've said before about this list, forget the 700 and see if you can find even one (that doesn't come from Energy and Environment) that provides any real evidence against AGW.|||With that first one, exactly what greenhouse gases is he referring to that have either slowed or stabalized? Methane and CO2 are both still increasing. Ozone, another greenhouse gas, has stabalized. CFCs and HFCs, other greenhouse gases that have been limited by emission standards...





The paper then states that the temperature readings are false, that there is increased output from the Sun even though the Suns output has decreased since about 1970, and tropical cyclone activity, while there is no noticeable increase number wise, has been shown to have increased intensity wise.





http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu鈥?/a>


ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/鈥?/a>





Richie: I continue seeing you make the claim that it's 99.99999% natural (or 99.9 followed by any number of 9's) yet I have never seen you backup this claim with actual science. As I can't go into your question threads as you have banned me from posting in them for pointing out the numerous flaws in your arguments, how can you make this claim and what mathematics did you use?|||Many of the people on here are nothing ore than wiki ecoscientists as Global warming and the new and improved rebranded Climate Change is proved to be 99.99999% NATURAL





Everybody knows from Climategate that accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear 鈥?that warming was only one degree Fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from ground station readings which are inflated due to the 鈥榰rban heat island effect鈥?i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming鈥nd it is these, 鈥榝alse high鈥?ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym 鈥?garbage in, garbage out.|||http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10鈥?/a>





i looked at the first few links, and they don't appear to be from honest peer reviewed publications.


one clearly says it's "for peer review only" which means it was submitted, but likely rejected.





what that means is that the entire list is likely a fraud.|||I read your last link (the full paper, not just the abstract, as a public duty, since I have access to it and many of you will not). It is a 1994 opinion piece In New Zealand Geographer (wow, I'm overwhelmed), with no data and no testable statements.|||"increased output of the sun" -- wrong, the sun has been in a severe minimum.





satellite-based and balloon-based measurements of lower atmospheric temperatures show no warming whatsoever over the past few decades


-- wrong. Satellite measurements show .74 degrees warming since 1978 (as far back as the UAH database goes.) That is MORE rapid warming than the .2 degrees per decade projected by the IPCC.





You found yourself one garbagy site. It tries to make claims based on errant information. You have to check this stuff out before you swallow it. These sites will purposely mislead you.





And then you link to a "critical appraisal of the debate" that was written in 1994! Why are you quoting the state of the debate of 16 years ago? Yes, there was some question 16 years ago. There was some debate as recently as 5 or 6 years ago. But no more. It is absolutely established that man is causing the environment to warm.





What you have inadvertently demonstrated once again is that all denying of global warming is based on mis-information. Get your information correct -- look for yourself at the satellite measurements, the solar cycles and the depth of agreement of climate scientist and you will realize that what the scientists are telling you is unfortunately true, and that others are purposely misleading you.|||Answer: They cannot explain it because if they admitted these papers existed that means they would have to admit that there is extensive peer-reviewed dissent from alarmist claims.





@pegminer, the list is exactly what it claims to be, "700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm" and conference papers can be peer-reviewed. Opinion based papers can also be peer-reviewed.





@Dana1981, all of the papers support skepticism of of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of, thus they all support skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm. None of the papers have been misrepresented. The popularity of a journal is irrelevant but the list of journals is provided which includes many popular journals. The only listings that were not published are the submitted papers which are not counted towards the total and are provided in some instances in defense of a criticism of a certain paper.





EBSCO lists Environmental Geosciences as a peer-reviewed academic journal,


http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf





The paper in question was published in 2000 and while some of the data it mentions has since changed much of the criticism remains valid and supported.





@linlyons, ALL the papers are from peer-reviewed publications. There is no such thing as one that is "honest" or not. The one that says "for peer-review only" is an ADDENDUM to a paper, these are NOT counted, as this is explicitly stated in the second sentence on the page,





"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."





There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about the list.





FYI, there are extensive notes following the list. There are well over 700 papers (closer to 750) on the list. Corrections have and will be made to the list when they are legitimate, none of which discredits the existence of the hundreds of skeptical papers on the list.





@Weise Ente, the list makes no mention of being only research articles (yes there are many on the list) but of "peer-reviewed papers", all of the counted ones are. There are many more authors then just six and over 200 individual journals. None of the journals are trash, least of all E%26amp;E. The list is meant to be all inclusive and is not biased to the popularity of a journal. What is desperate is trying to deny the overwhelming evidence of the existence of these papers.|||Wow, that list is dishonest.





Less than half are actual research articles.


Most are editorials or from conferences and many are just reviews.


The same half dozen people are responsible for most of those papers.


Also the same few journals, such as Energy and Environment, are basically trash journals.





The fact they are padding the list shows how desperate they are.|||Easy, you're lying. Next!|||YOU NEEDTO SHUT UP AND GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO AL GORE OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!!!|||Keep in mind that for the most part you are dealing with fundamentalists. Have you ever had a discussion with a cult member or someone who fully believes the moon landings were a hoax?





Their basic stance is CO2 is to blame. Prove it otherwise. To get these guys off of CO2, you would basically need to come up with the Law of Climate which exactly explains all the processes of the Earth's climate system. So that basically means never.





And really, that's fine. We still live in a democracy so the majority of people will decide how much, if any, we want to do about global warming. However, we do have to be careful not to let fundamentalists get control of anything.