1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers on Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

We are always treated to the claims that man caused global warming is a fact and there is consensus within the scientific community. Proof is usually provided as a claim that 97% of scientists support AGW or items such as the following

I guess the climate parasites are too busy sticking their heads in the sand to actually read the journals.


1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And unlike the followers of AGW, this site gives the methodology and actually reads the papers rather than doing a mindless key word search on the abstracts of pre-selected papers.

 

I clicked on a link provided by the site to the following paper.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24283#.UwP8xIWmXTo

The abstract is:

Discussion: (bold mine)

I'll go back to sticking my head in the sand now.

 

SixNein,

That was in the low climate sensitivity section and was merged by accident but has been corrected, thanks for pointing it out. Please keep up your cherry picking exercise though it is rather entertaining and desperate.

 

I looked on the web site. That paper (Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century) was not included in the list of 1350+ papers. You can find that paper using the site search function, but it is not included in the list of papers that oppose AGW.

Maybe you need to keep your head out of the sand a little longer.

 

I browsed through a few, and ya as expected they dont comprehend what they read...

 

I just clicked on one random paper, and got results about a simplistic model and discussion about need for reduced emissions.

And no, I'm not validating your site for you.

 

No you didn't, name one.

 

No you didn't, I have been doing this for far too long. Try cherry picking again.

 

I don't have the energy level of fanatics.

In fact, my broad view is nicely summarized here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339708&page=58&p=1063616256#post1063616256

 

But you have the energy level to cherry pick past 300 papers? You are not fooling anyone, why not be intellectually honest about the list?

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition

It is a blog yes but follow the links!

this is so easy,,,,

 

Yes it is this easy...

900+ papers and 2011? It is 1350+ and 2014! Why are you posting outdated links?

Please read the, "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section before posting nonsense you find on Google from dirty money websites (DeSmogBlog) funded by convicted money launderers.

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"

What would you like to argue from your link so I can refute it in extensive detail for you?

 

The only person who has been intellectually dishonest is yourself.

I selected an article at random, and the link above was it. You noted it was an error above then you promptly called it cherry picking to save face. Now your misrepresenting the design of your web site. You have a navigational menu to various sections, but your argument here would imply no such menu existed.

On the topic of energy, I think HAL said it best: "this conversation can serve no purpose anymore."

 

ORLY ! http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

Oh! My! How can you believe that crock!!

I have a used car you might be interested in

Previously owned by a little old lady

And what is not said is that the LOL sold it to the local street gang BUT the statement "Previously owned" is still accurate - just as the statement "1350+ papers supporting arguments against ACC/AGW alarm" is accurate to a certain level of truth

Just look at the claim here and learn what the phrase "weasel words" mean. For a start few of those papers actually refute ACC/AGW - they just could, maybe, somehow be used if you cherry pick the data. Even if there was a paper in there - and I am surprised that the AR5 is not included - that said "Climate change is happening really truly absolutely they could point out "because it does not mention how "alarming" ACC/AGW is then it could be used as claimed.

 

Why should we trust anything from a site that uses so many "weasel words"?

 

I went through about 10 yesterday and another 10 just now and none refuted climate change...the politically based delusion is so strong among deniers it's reached the psychological equivalence found in religious cults...

 

Here's some intellectual honesty:

1350 papers since 1990 is 59 papers per year.

Between November 2012 and December 2013, there were 2258 peer-reviewed papers published on climate change. Since that's 13 months, the annual average is 2084 papers.

59 / 2084 = .028

Sure looks like a 97% consensus to me.

 

No you didn't, you cherry picked. Now why not be intellectually honest about the list and stop trying to misrepresent it.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said please read the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section,

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

Why are you being intellectually dishonest? You have been explained this many times and continues to try and misrepresent the list simply because it does not support your alarmist ideology.

It is a strawman argument that all the papers refute ACC/AGW as stated in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against 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 getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

The IPCC AR5 does not support skeptic arguments so it would not be included on the list.

Using "Alarm" is not a weasel word but a qualifier that is accurate to actual skeptic arguments since alarmists like yourself consistently misrepresent their position.

 

Addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against 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 getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

You keep making this false claim but refuse to name a single paper and show that it does not support skeptic arguments.

 

Really? Where is your source? Oh wait, you didn't check the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

2,258 Meaningless Search Results

James Powell continues to demonstrate his computer illiteracy by doing worthless database searches in an intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign. He updated his previous meaningless analysis in continued blissful ignorance that the 'Web of Science' database does not have a "peer-reviewed" only filter and the existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine it's context. Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 2,258 meaningless search results not "peer-reviewed climate articles" for a query of the 'Web of Science' database - with 1 chosen by strawman argument.

1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in all the results was never determined.

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".

3. The 2,258 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

4. It is a strawman argument that most skeptics deny or reject that man can have an influence on the climate, but rather if there is any cause for alarm.

 

Fine, do your own search, and make your own estimate. How many papers on climate change were published during the last year --- according to YOU?

 

Define "alarmist"

 

No see that is the point - they don't have to refute climate change - they just have to be used somehow, somewhen by someone (probably cherry picking phrases) to refute "alarmism" - whatever the heck THAT is