Political Forum - View Single Post

Professor Peabody · #**833** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

If there really were " just as many people saying it does exist than those who say it doesn't, " - it should be an easy matter to quote for me any number of scientific papers from recognised science journals which provide evidence to support the argument.

They cannot do it. For almost 80 pages I have been asking them, but they cannot do it.

Come guys - it should be easy.

Quote title, author and journal - of an actual scientific paper that provides evidence to argue that AGW is not occurring.

Just title, author and journal - of an actual scientific paper that provides evidence to argue that AGW is not occurring

Can you do that?

Sure.

Quote:

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:

Anthropogenic:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Global warming(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)- Soon, Willie

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)- Soon, Willie

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...al-of-man.html

I think you missed my post, try that site. it has a list a mile long, I only posted a few. If I posted them all I'd likely be suspended for the length of the posting. I'm sure you will attack a few of the authors. But, please provide proof of the inaccuracies in their research or don't bother.

Quote:

Peer review? What peer review?
Written by John McLean
Thursday, 06 September 2007

INTRODUCTION

The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.

The comments for Working Group I are the only set of reviewers' comments to be made available to the public, and only then thanks to use of US Freedom of Information laws rather than a willingness on the part of the IPCC to allow people to examine the material. Surely all people should be able to examine the involvement and thinking of their governments and the reviewers from their own countries because it is the people who will most certainly bear the economic and political costs of any resultant actions.

REVIEWERS AND COMMENTS

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.

At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.

The number of reviewers who made just one comment on a chapter varied between 12.6% and 32% (i.e. almost one-third) of the reviewers commenting on that chapter. For four chapters, fewer than six comments were made by more than 50% of the reviewers who commented. For another four chapters, the figure was between 40% and 50%.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html

So much for the vaunted "Peer Reviewed". Read the whole article to understand just what a bad joke the IPCC really is. If that doesn't motivate anyone reading it to call their Senators and scream at them to vote no on the Global Warming legislation currently in Congress, you need to check you pulse.