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

You seem either incapable of recognizing an analogy... or unclear on the definition....

 

And your "analogy" was the usual American provincialism incapable of encompassing a global world view

 

What? Validation/credibility loop = validation/credibility loop.

 

CO2 is not a "toxin"...it is PLANT FOOD, CRUCIAL to life on Earth. The "consequences" of CO2 are healthier green plants. "Hahahahahahahah".

How idiotic...

 

Not a big NYC fan but the sentiment is understandable:



We don't need you.

 

Sure, if we completely ignore the KNOWN FACTS about it:


ClimateGate: The Fix is InBy Robert Tracinski

"...But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal ...."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review'


Cartoon by Josh


""I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"peer reviewed" + "climate change = A BAD JOKE.

 

Nice pretty chart. Let's see the ENTIRE LINK, please.

Yeah. More Warmists making sure that THEIR PAPERS WERE "PEER REVIEWED", certainly "debunks" the CLEARLY PROVEN practice of EXCLUDING those they didn't like...how exactly?


After they got BUSTED, they were more careful about HOW they excluded non-Warmist articles. Yeah..we know....and?

How do you delude that your pretty chart, somehow, "debunks" THIS?:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


""I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow– even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! "

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Der.....



We see that you are having your usual problem with logical deduction.

 

Sorry just wishing away the rest of the world does not work

NEWSFLASH!! Flat earth has been debunked

 

And that is happening in every country around the world?

The IPCC is not the only meta analysis out there

And ONE comment, taken out of context, does not a rotten barrel of apples make - particularly when the apples it refers to were rotten

 

Not wishing away, ignoring.

It's what makes the HS nerds nuts. The cool kids don't tease them. They never even notice them.

 

The Epicenter of the UN's IPCC was/is East Anglia,and its immediate colleagues, who are the lying ass slimes quoted. Those are the jackasses who WRITE the UN's "climate reports", falsified data, and all.

And, we also see , they have no problem LYING to protect their Gravy Train.

THere is NO OTHER group that has the central influence that Mann, Jones, and the rest of the Warmist Cabal has on the AGW Myth/$cam.

Feel free to pretend that there is someone else BESIDES the IPCC spearheading the AGW-Warmist religion.

 

ummmm....it was in the OP's Link

 

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

A lot more than 23.

 

You must have missed this post

 

Adn it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the proven corruption of the Warmist-contaminated,"peer review" process, despite your ongoing delusions otherwise. " "

 

THat is a distinction without a difference.

Including papers debunking "AGW ALARM" , (which is CLEARLY PART OF THE WARMIST AGENDA), with those debunking "AGW", changes it...how, exactly?

 

First you ask for a link, which shows you never even opened the OP's link since I took the graph right out of the link.

When I point this out, now you say it has 'no bearing' on the so called 'proven corruption'?

Got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me next?

 

Funny how you didn't read the whole post either "Thus, a paper can acknowledge AGW (in some form) but still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions"

 

No, just waiting for you to explain how the OP link, somehow, "debunks" THIS?:




" "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow– even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh-huh. Sure they could. Can you cite EVEN ONE that did?

It is nothing more than an attempted DODGE, from EMBARASSED WARMISTS. PERIOD.

 

Apparently you do not understand it. I means AGW can exist and be inconsequential, the end result is a big yawn. Such as AGW will cause +0.25C increase in temperature over the next 100 years.

And why are you not including the rest of 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 can acknowledge AGW (in some form) but still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are not getting worse due to global warming).

 

Who would have thought an internet political forum was the home of the most brilliant climate scientists in the world?

They have disproved over 13,000 peer reviewed studies in a matter of hours. We are in the presence of greatness.

 

You don't seem to understand their process. If I submit a paper that says the temp increase of +0.26 in 101 years it will be recorded as a negative paper.

 

It is their FAQ ..go ask them sherlock

 

I dont have to explain (*)(*)(*)(*) because you are too dam lazy to look at the OP's link.

I thnk you are just here to get your kicks, and are not here for any serious debate.

 

Why would it not be listed as a paper that supports a skeptic argument, since low climate sensitivity is a skeptic argument? How can I not understand the process when I created it? ROFLMAO!

- - - Updated - - -

I can disprove the study in five seconds,

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"