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

Of course they are, that is my point.

The fraction of a positive change from a interglacial is irrelevant if we are "warming" - the public will not care. It is not +0.8 °C but +0.74 °C (IPCC) since the end of the little ice age. The "science" does not indicate we are headed for another +2-3 C over the next century as this is widely disputed.

The public does not measure temperatures in fractions of degrees, which is why my skeptic graph is more accurate to what they will understand,

 

Are you confused? You already spammed this debunked nonsense,

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

"In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense such as, "Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America" that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate."


You must really consider yourself a computer illiterate. Oh man is that embarrassing, do you need an education on how Google Scholar works too?

 

Those are just intros to the detailed refutations. It is very simple, name the criticism you believe to be valid so I can refute it in extensive detail for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Those are just intros to the detailed refutations. It is very simple, name the criticism you believe to be valid so I can refute it in extensive detail for you.

 

You ought not to be surprised. This poptech character is a shrill denialist fantasist and troll who, I recall, regularly spewed his propaganda on another forum site.

 

You ought not to be surprised. This poptech character is a shrill denialist fantasist and troll who, I recall, regularly spewed his propaganda on another forum site.

 

Lies,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Are you also accusing the NASA astronauts of being funded by Exxon?

 

The Truth about Skeptical Science

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science"

 

That's absolutely precious - a denier thinking he/she knows more about an author's paper than the author.

Once again, you failed to define "alarm" or "alarmism" (2 distinct terms I might add) with any sort of objective criteria. You could not even define what value of equilbrium climate sensitity would meet that criteria. The term "exaggerated" is so subjective one could throw every paper under that category when placed against a reference case of human extinction in 2013. So your list was and still remains useless.

Laughable characterization.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

Once again, terms like "exaggerated" (to what comparison?) and "catastrophic" are not defined with any objective criteria.

If you believe equilibrium climate sensitivity is irrelevant to the issue man-made global warming and its consequences, then you are not qualified to put together your list.

The only nonsense is your list, and your continued pathetic attempts to promote it. Continue chasing your tail.

 

Who are you trying to convince?

 

Lies, I am not a climate "denialist" as I believe there is such a thing as a climate. I also do not "troll" but respond directly to all lies, misinformation and strawman arguments made against my work.

 

100% ad hom and inaccurate. Physicist John Cook did not even write either of the posts I linked to, which you are entirely incapable of making a substantive critique of. Get a clue.

 

You were busted on another political (UK-based) forum site. You deny the reality of the science pertaining to human-induced global warming. This means you are a denialist and propagandist no different in principle to those tobacco industry shrills who denied the science linking smoking to lung cancer. You are a fraud and probably a paid one at that. You have been exposed as a conspiracy theorist. Now kindly do a running jump or take your crazy conspiracy theories to the relevant forum. Thanks.

 

No such claim is made. Try reading,

1. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely assumed why his papers and his father's were listed, "Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers..."

Papers can be listed for two reasons,

(1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)

(2) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." (Not defined or mentioned by him)

All of the Pielke's papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).

It cannot be objective since alarmists are very emotional and try to claim catastrophe for just about any natural disaster and link it to AGW. I have no need to define a value for climate sensitivity but it is safe to say skeptic arguments fall on the very low end of the IPCC range with a value likely below +1.5C and very likely below +2C. The term "exaggerated" is a potential qualifier not necessarily a criteria, arguing against a negative view is more easily defined, such as Hurricanes are going to get worse ect...

So is being cited by the IPCC multiple times and being listed in the ISI laughable?

Don't you have any reliable sources for your smears?

The Truth about SourceWatch

"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources."

After all your spamming of refuted and outdated nonsense you failed to provide a valid criticism of the list, what an absolute failure.

 

It is inaccurate that John Cook worked for over a decade as a self employed cartoonist? Really?

It is inaccurate that John Cook censors dissenting opinions from his site? Really? Surely you are not this poorly informed?

Are you claiming the "Meet the Denominator" post is accurate? Shall I provide you with an education on how Google Scholar works? Which one of my irrefutable criticisms would you like to challenge?

 

Why are you lying?. Please link to this forum and show were I was "busted". Please quote were I "deny" the possibility that humans can contribute to global warming. Please provide evidence of these imaginary "payments". All of your ad hominems are noted.

What conspiracy theories do I subscribe to? Surely not 911, JFK, the Moon Landings, UFOs ect...

 

By definition, denying the reality of the science means you are a conspiracy theorist nutter no different in principle to those other cranks who adhere to the kinds of theories you mentioned.

 

I see you failed to provide anything to support your lies, making everything you stated discredited.

How is the "reality of science" determined? What "conspiracies" do I subscribe to? You are not making much sense.

Do you accept that there are credentialed scientists and peer-reviewed papers that do not support your position on climate change?

 

Concentrate now: By logical definition, you subscribe to the denialist conspiracy theory which rejects the scientific consensus underpinning human-induced global warming. Yes, there are a tiny minority of scientists who adopt your position on this, but as the OP makes clear, the vast majority which by definition is representative of the consensus view, surprise, surprise, have come to the conclusion that AGW is a scientific reality - DOH!

 

I reject that there is a scientific consensus on climate change because no such worldwide poll of every scientist has ever been done. Do you have such a poll of every scientist in the world?

That does not make one a "denier" let alone a conspiracy theorist. What exactly is the "conspiracy" there?

The OP makes none of that clear,

There were 13950 "results" that have the key words "global warming" and "global climate change". The search was not limited to results for "anthropogenic global warming" (man-made global warming).

1. The full search results are not available online so they cannot be validated.
2. It has not been confirmed that all the results were peer-reviewed.
3. It has not been determined what context the "search phrases" were used in the results as the papers could be discussing something irrelevant.


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. Why is Powell leaving out skeptical papers and falsely implying that the 13950 all support "anthropogenic global warming" when he did not search for that phrase?

 

I'm now convinced that the thousands of climate scientists who were involved in producing thousands of peer-reviewed papers confirming the veracity of AGW, are, in reality, all frauds who colluded together to collectively arrive at erroneous conclusions.

 

Concentrate now.."consensus' = DIDDLY SQUAT in SCIENCE.

What can be PROVEN is ALL THAT MATTERS....

- - - Updated - - -

Concentrate again....no one has EVER "confirmed the veracity of AGW"; that would require SCIENTIFIC PROOF, via SCIENTIFIC METHOD..."consensus" is not that.

 

Good what did it for you the thousands of peer reviewed papers that showed them to be frauds or the emails they sent each other admitting they were in the act of defrauding the nation?

 

Now for some much needed sanity and reality check:

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/...a-tale-of-ice-smokescreens-and-rebellion.html

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly, you have no understanding whatsoever as to what constitutes consensus, never mind proof, in science.

 

Awkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

If you do not understand what I just posted then you should not be commenting in this thread. There are no "thousands" of peer-reviewed papers confirming AGW as most climate papers do not even use the term.