800 Peer-Reviewed papers supporting skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic’s arguments against AGW alarm.

Formatting: All papers are cited as: “Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors”. All “addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers” are preceded by a ” – ” and italicized. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological.

Read the rest here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

———-

thanks to roger for the link..

here are the bullets you need in the war..when the green cultists throw peer review at you..this is what you throw back..play it on their terms..they want peer review..they can have peer review..but dont forget to publish it eh?

that picture at the top is freaking me out LOL 🙂

401

~ by seeker401 on October 21, 2010.

10 Responses to “800 Peer-Reviewed papers supporting skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW)”

  1. Please do not back down from any criticisms of the list, use the notes following the papers and email me if you need help, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.

    • what is the best peer reviewed piece in your opinion thats in the list? an enquirer wants to know

      • There is no best paper just like there is no best paper for defending AGW. Each one applies to different arguments. Anyone asking you this is attempting to discredit the list. They think if they can refute the “best” paper then the rest of the list is invalidated. The IPCC report is not based on a “best” paper it cites thousands.

  2. Poptech’s list is quite useless for scientific purposes.

    To make the list a paper can qualify as follows:

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).
    2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
    4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/ and again http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/
    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
    6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).
    7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.

    • its useless for you because you cant use any of it to sell your scam..thats why you dont like it..plenty of fucking non climate scientists are advising us what to do..dont try that one..the science is nowhere settled and the more it goes on the more back away from it..suck it up i guess..funny when the boots on the other foot eh?

    • The following 7 lies are being spammed at various locations where the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed paper list is referenced,

      Lie 1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).

      For a paper to be on the list it must support a skeptic argument against AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” It is a strawman that the skeptic argument has to be related to the IPCC of what is subjectively declared a “mainstream scientific opinion”. Various parts of the IPCC report are not alarmist and many alarmist positions are made by members of the media or popular alarmist websites. (eg. Climate Progress)

      Lie 2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).

      While various papers may support the existence of AGW (in some form) they reject alarmist conclusions. Such papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. Scafetta’s papers for example support much larger solar forcings than the IPCC and thus a much more reduced anthropogenic factor.

      Lie 3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).

      The list is not a single unified theory but a resource. None of the papers contradict each other because they do not even refer to each other in this manner. A few are mutually exclusive, this is not hard to understand as skeptics accept that there exists independent, mutually exclusive theories on certain aspects of climate change. Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.

      Lie 4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/ and again http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/

      All published criticisms have been rebutted by the authors of the original paper or a correction published. These rebuttals and corrections follow the original paper. Any other criticisms against these papers has never been submitted for peer-review and thus not taken seriously.

      None of Dr. Idso’s papers are seriously flawed and he has refuted the criticism’s posted above,

      A clarification of my position on the CO2/climate connection (PDF)
      (Climatic Change, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 81-86, February 1987)
      – Sherwood B. Idso

      Lie 5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.

      This is another strawman argument. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report, social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. Their papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections separate from the science sections on the list. The papers are still peer-reviewed and the list has never claimed that only natural science papers appear on the list, only that they are all peer-reviewed.

      Lie 6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).

      The list is not my thesis of a theory on climate change. The purpose is explicitly stated,

      Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,

      “You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?”

      – John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate

      7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.

      No paper is listed were the author admits their entire paper or science was flawed. Certain papers have had corrections made to them which did not change the overall conclusion or purpose of the paper.

      • many thanks for your rebuttal poptech

      • No problem, the poster above known by his alternate screen name “Blimey” is spamming this in various locations after I embarrassed him on another site. This is the behavior they have to resort to. They don’t want anyone to read these papers so they desperately do anything they can to smear the list.

        • i deal with a bot on twitter the same..its set to auto..so anyone who makes any comment regarding agw he posts right after..to stifle the debate..not to inform! keep up your good work 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: