Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

I gave you an example tell me how your FAQ handles that

 

So how much of other people's money is necessary to 'fix' the problem?

 

Moron, I WROTE THE FAQ. It is not a "FAQ" but "Rebutals to Criticisms".

And I am going to rewrite it because you are distorting it out of context.

 

How many of those "peers" reviewing the "data" that supports "man made climate change" receive their grant money from governments that stand to reap trillions in revenue from "solving" the problem?

 

Then tell me how your rebuttal of criticisms handles the example I gave you

 

What example are you talking about?

Anyway I rewrote this so you can not distort it,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not debunk/refute AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are not getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential.

Powell does not count these papers, even though he would never cite them to support his alarmist position.

 

Post #147

 

Who's process are you referring to? Powells? Because he clearly did not count all such papers.

If you are referring to the list that is because skeptics support low climate sensitivity, alarmists support high. Low climate sensitivity can be argued as AGW being inconsequential.

 

I'd say 100%...

 

Hardly. We have proven that the entire "peer reviewed" process ITSELF is highly corrupted.

 

Once again, NOTHING in the OP link even ADDRESSES the exposed CORRUPTION of the "peer review" process so glaringly revealed by the Warmists OWN internal; communications, much less debunks it, which is why you KEEP FAILING TO QUOTE what you are laughably trying to pretend does so.

Your usual BULLCRAP; allude to what you CANNOT ACTUALLY PRODUCE, and hope no one bothers to ACTUALLY CHECK IT OUT.

Welcome to your latest pimp-slappin'...

 

The OP's link is a strawman argument that is refuted by the existence of the papers on this list,

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

 

So we have scientists who rely on the government for their continued funding. Governments stand to reaps trillions in new revenue from "solving" the problem of "man made climate change". Scientists are just as human as anyone else.

 

Let me know when you actually READ the OPs link, then we can proceed.

Until then you are free to act like a 14 y/o with your 'pimp-slappin' BULLCRAP.

 

I've read it and it is only cited by those who are incompetent;

Through a combination of sheer incompetence and cherry picking Powell failed to count hundreds of skeptical papers;


Example 1: Powell failed to count papers that were skeptical such as,

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

* Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index)
* August 1997 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012
* Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? includes the search phrase "global warming"


Example 2: Powell intentionally did not count "review" papers which were peer-reviewed such as,

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

* International Journal of Modern Physics B is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index)
* January 2009 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012
* Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics includes the search phrase "global warming"

Powell does not count these papers, even though he would never cite them to support his alarmist position.

 

I hope you are not attempting to use 'we' as to include yourself. Maybe you actually think that though

 

And the LIES from the Warmist $cammers CONTINUE. See this, from 2011....MORE incriminating communications, including the ongoing CORRUPTION of the "peer review" process:


Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


"....Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.



“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email. .

[I] “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.


These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.


“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion. [/I]


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah..."13,000+ 'peer reviewed' papers", huh?

And the weasels formed a committee, and assured the farmer that the chickens were in no danger...

 

At one point in time all scientists in the world believed that there were only four elements: fire, water, earth and air.

At one point in time all scientists believed that stars and planets were set in crystals circling around the Earth.

At one point in time, all scientists believed that Earth was the center of the universe.

At one point in time, all scientists believed dinosaurs were reptiles.

The bones in dinosaur museum are only a guess the way they are arranged. At one time, they had a big spiky bone on the top of the head as a horn. Later, they decided it was a claw, and moved it.

Sometimes the scientists who are in the small minority are the ones who are right, and the great majority are just following the herd.

 

This is akin to bringing in a link from ICR.org in an Evolution debate.

PopularTechnology.net is a denier website

Try a independent neutral 3rd party site next time.

 

It is akin to your idiocy. Are you an amateur at using Google? Why are you posting lies off some blog from an admitted Internet Stalker? Talk about embarrassing,

"…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed." – Bud [Walt M.] other sockpuppet IPKA.

This nonsense is addressed in the Rebutals to Criticisms

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a climate "denier" website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe there is such a thing as a climate. Our position is quite clear, there is empirical evidence for a very mild temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man.

Try not being so incompetent next time.

 

Missing some pretty big points. There is the potential for mass extinction in the sea, in fact there is some evidence that due to the changing chemistry in the oceans that some species are already on the decline. If the world's sea population were to go through a radical die off, it would seriously affect food supplies the world over.

Same is true for general farming regions, though to a likely lesser extent as we have learned many ways to till the land, but livestock could take a serious hit in the mean time.

This isn't just about where will people live, this has serious ramifications when it comes to food, water and other natural balances. I don't think living space would be at issue nearly as much as the basics to survive.

 

Already did, obviously. You are fooling only yourself with your nonsense.

By all means...PROVE ME WRONG: QUOTE what you think DEBUNKS THE EXPOSED,and CONTINUED corruption of the peer-review process, by the Warmist elite.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh-huh. Except that EVERY BIT OF IT, is UNSUBTANTIATED SPECULATION.

 

Maybe you should try to actually dispute the points we've made. Like that'll happen....

 

if you did, you wouldnt have asked for a link to the graph I post

 

That was one scientist, once. Who was working with remains of a new dinosaur (At the time) that had no skull or feet preserved with the find