Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Meet The Denominator

Posted on 13 February 2011 by Rob Honeycutt

As most here have followed the climate issue for some time I'm sure we have each been faced with climate skeptics throwing out big numbers related to different aspects of climate science.

There is the ever present "31,000 Scientists Who Challenge Global Warming," the infamous Oregon Petition.

And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) and his, now, 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

These folks have yet to meet….   The Denominator!


Fig 1  -  Okay, this is really the Terminator but bear with me, the effect is about the same.

In this exercise we are going to give both the Oregon Petition and PopTech's 850 papers the benefit of the doubt.  We know there are many many reasons to challenge the assumptions of their claims but there is one thing they can not defend.  They are only presenting one side of the equation.

First, let's look at the Oregon Petition.  They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."  Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.

According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees.  We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees.  In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population.  If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099.  Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate.  This is what The Denominator does.  He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.

Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers.  Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm.  (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar.  I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science.  That returned 954,000 articles.  I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites.  A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure.  But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals.  I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents.  That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.  

I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages.  And if they try…

"I'll be back."

 
Update (Feb 18):  In the comments Poptech has brought up several valid points about the search results I came up with.  In an effort to better quantify the denominator I did some additional research. I did year by year searches going back 40 years on "climate change" and "global warming", excluded citations, and checked for various other erroneous results. 
 
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically.  My first cursory search returned 0.1%.  The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%.  It's a big improvement for Poptech, by almost a factor of 5, but still the denominator is so large that it dwarfs the numerator. If a qualified outside group were to audit Poptech's list I believe the numerator would also shrink significantly. 
 
There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science. Good science relies on healthy skepticism.  One highly biased individual creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism.
 

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Comments 301 to 350 out of 526:

  1. One last point I'd like to make though. There is no faith-based arguments at this site, PT-almost all of the contributions to this site have their origin in properly sourced scientific research, & many responses cite other scientific papers that strongly back the assertions made in the original contribution. Of course, science & evidence are a novelty to the members of the Denialist Cult who-as PT has shown-still believe that science can be "subjective", "belief-based" & decided by public relations campaigns. Also, though, what's faith based about the physical proof of the relationship between CO2 & IR radiation absorption? Or the measured decline in Stratosphere temperatures? Or the rapid rise in tropospheric temperatures over the last 30 years? Or the measured decline in Arctic Ice cover & glaciers? Or the measured decline in outgoing IR radiation to space? None of this has its basis in *faith*, but in *hard evidence*. When you & your Denialist mates can provide something more compelling than "AGW isn't happening because Lord Monckton tells me so" or "AGW isn't happening because 'insert left-wing conspiracy theory here'", then I'll be very interested to hear it.
    0 0
  2. #428 PT Then I take it Andrew that you don't have a problem with global warming theory in it's base form. What you are telling me is that you only disagree with alarmist views. Interesting. If what you describe should come to pass then what? Would you then be in a position to retract everything you have put to print?
    0 0
  3. Poptech, My comment at 404 was meant as a summary of the conversation thus far not an invitation to rehash your statements. I thought that was clear when I called it a summary. Your comments regarding deletion of comments posted to your site are highly amusing in the context of your continued complaints about the deletion of your posts here. According to you when comments are deleted here it damages the thread of the conversation but when done on your site it is a legitimate enforcement of policy. Ridiculous. I am pretty sure that the "discussion" has run its course and there is nothing constructive to be gained by continuing it here. Since we are not allowed to continue it on your site i suspect this will be the end of it. also, since this comment has nothing to do with the original subject i full expect it to be deleted.
    0 0
  4. The age of a paper is not relevant IF additional research has not come along to refute or substantially modify the findings of said paper. Where, however, there has been significant advancements in the science, the age of the paper is clearly relevant. The age of the paper is also relevant where such paper is a commentary/editorial, such as the law review article referenced earlier in the thread. The age of the paper is especially relevant in the case of climate science where the understanding of the climate mechanisms has increased signficantly. Leaving that aside for a moment, earlier you indicated that basically you can't call something "strong" evidence of anything, because the term "strong" (and by extension "weak") is subjective. Suppose that substance X yields result Y 99% of the time. Can it not be objectively stated that there is a "strong" correlation between substance X and effect Y? If one cannot use phrases like "strong" or "weak" evidence (or alternatively, if stating that "strong" or "weak" are solely in the eye of the beholder), how can any science have any meaning whatsoever?
    0 0
  5. This thread reminds me of an exchange between Dr. Richard Dawkins and a young-earth creationist about evolution on Channel 4 some years ago. Dawkins presented facts and science, and while the creationist always had something to say or some sort of answer (no matter how hard he tried to pin her down), and the young-earth creationist never made a scientific point or a statement of any substance. Needless to say, no matter how much science and facts Dawkins presented the creationist was unswayed. The exchange went nowhere. Here Rob et al. represent Dawkins, standing up for science and a theory (i.e., the theory of AGW), while the self-appointed curator of a meaningless (and much flawed) list is the equivalent of the young-earth ideological creationist. This discussion could go on ad infinitum, and that is just what the list's curator wants folks. On the upside, the very soft underbellies of the list and that of its curator have been exposed more times on this thread than I can keep track of.......mission accomplished Rob and John, time for everyone to move on, IMHO of course.
    0 0
  6. I've been following this exchange closely, as I had my own run in with PopTech's list some time ago, asked similar questions and, like this exchange, got nowhere and just kept running in circles. Mt recommendation: Just as Rob as done with the missing denominator, I'd like Skeptical Science to write a detailed analysis of the flaws in PopTech's list (e.g., lack of peer review, fatally flawed papers) and allow the exchange to continue.
    0 0
  7. What I believe Poptech misses here (amongst many other things) is that the denominator exercise is an allegory to point out a truth about his list. Of course the actual number that I got is not perfect. It's not a detailed study by any means. That does not make it wrong. It is not a perfectly accurate number but it is still correct. Likewise, Poptech's list is far from accurate, as many have pointed out here. So, in essence, we are attaching an inaccurate numerator to an inaccurate denominator. Does that make the exercise invalid? That would depend on the requirements of how the results are to be used. Being that we are not going use the results to build a rocket or a car or perform medical research, the accuracy of the actual number is not so important. The lesson of the allegory is. That lesson being: You can't just take a big number at face value. You have to step back and put numbers in context. Every number has a denominator. Putting Poptech's 850 papers into the context of all the research that has been done on climate change makes his list very very small.
    0 0
  8. Maybe we should move on to Poptech's site ? Oh wait, hypocritically and cowardly, he doesn't allow that but he does love to claim that he is censored. And you should see how he uses the same tactics of spamming, accusations, strawmen and self-congratulating with regard to the Firefox browser - that is seriously weird. Oh well, might as continue here for a while - it is quite good fun, after all, watching a dog chase its tail. Yes Dr. Idso is a credentialed scientist who is well published and his papers peer-reviewed. So ? Strawman followed by Appeal to Authority. Try again. These include credentialed scientists, So ? Another strawman followed by another Appeal to Authority. Boy, you do like pasting lists of your favourite scientists, don't you ? Try again. ect So you gave up pasting the lists (I presume that is what the "ect" means ?) when you ran out of Appeals to Authority to post en masse, eh ? Never mind. No papers were "waved through" E&E Unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. All the papers listed support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. Wrong again. The papers (even those that the original authors have told you that they don't) support YOUR version of skeptical arguments against 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that means. Will we ever know ? Do you even know ? Good you admit they are not identical papers. Still waiting for you to tell us as to who said they were - apart from the strawman you created, of course. Try again. Figure out how to read page counts. What will that prove ? It is not a strawman argument, It is and you still haven't answered my question. Try again. I have had these discussions with you before here Discussions ? I have seen your ranting and self-congratulatory outpourings, but I certainly haven't gotten into any discussions about such. What 'discussions' are you on about ? How can anyone discuss anything with anyone whose stock responses are 'No, I'm not', 'Yes, I am', 'You're wrong/lying', 'I'm right' ? I have no idea what is wrong with your computer or Internet connection. Regardless I updated it again anyway. Who asked you to diagnose any problems ? So the link was OK but you updated it anyway, for some unknown reason ? Right you are. Easy, you never sent me an email on the link not working but instead posted it here so you can use it to falsely attack the list. Prove it. Release your Inbox, otherwise you are just blustering as usual. Falseness is subjective and therefore unproven. Fail again. I stated broken links are still irrelevant Irrelevant in your world but not the real world. Try and work out why. Wrong again, I'm afraid. So what was your point about the link not working? Do you understand hyperlinks? You still don't understand ? Never mind. Go back and have another look. As for hyperlinks, what do you imagine that I might not understand about them ? How do I prove I am not their web admin? That's up to you to prove. Fail again.
    0 0
  9. Poptech... You are the gift that just keeps giving. Thank you.
    0 0
  10. You are correct in that the content of the paper is more relevant than the age. But the older the paper is, the more chances there are for a second paper to alter or modify the results. Your relavistic position that nothing can be objective and we are required to give credence to the most marginal/minority of view points (i.e. a 99.8% relationship is not a "strong" correlation, because someone believes that 99.9% is strong or only 100% will suffice) is absolutely laughable. It renders all science meaningless.
    0 0
  11. Poptech@449 wrote "No one has pointed out anything valid that has affected the numerical total of the list. The list is accurate as all the papers are peer-reviewed and support skepticism of AGW Alarm." Not true, I pointed out one such example here (peer reviewed - but does not support skepticism) The trouble is while the list of 850 papers may support your skepticism, that is not the same thing as supporting rational skepticism. It would be a more useful resource if you were to do a bit of curation and weed out all the papers that are incorrect or irrelevant. However, it is your choice, if you want to make skeptics who use your list look silly by feeding them dud amunition, it is up to you.
    0 0
  12. Rob Honeycutt: Poptech... You are the gift that just keeps giving. Thank you. I think that's why John let's all this ridiculous repetition continue. No one destroys the credibility of Poptech's 850 list than Poptech himself.
    0 0
  13. Poptech @ 449: Please correct your erroneous statement that all the papers are peer-reviewed. They are all in peer reviewed journals, which is quite different altogether.
    0 0
  14. Poptech - As I have noted on this thread you can Google complete results to 2009 using single year and single field searches. Even past that (2010, 2011), none of the searches I bothered to run gave more than 1400 results. But since many of the papers you list go back to the 1980's, we can certainly look pretty exhaustively at pre-2010 works and numbers. Using sampling it's not necessary to peruse more than a hundred or two, reading their citations and summaries, in order to establish a decent estimate of the percentage of papers that agree with the subset you have listed. More papers will simply reduce the +/- of the estimate. My initial estimate is <4%, although I haven't done this (haven't bothered, really) in depth. So - Your protestations that sampling and estimate are invalid, that one must completely and exhaustively read all papers in all fields in depth to get an order of magnitude estimate? Bzzzt - incorrect. You are demanding a more stringent criteria of people looking at the 'denominator' than you have used on your own list. If we sample and assume that you have found all of the papers meeting your criteria (I do not), that percentage will give a lower bound on the number of articles that do not agree with you. You are the person claiming that 850 is a 'significant number'; it's up to you to prove your case. Demonstrate that they represent a significant opinion, a significant percentage of work in the field - rather than incorrect fringe elements present in every discipline. The burden of proof is on you.
    0 0
  15. Poptech - "Incorrect all the counted papers are peer-reviewed." Counterexample: G&T 2009, which is on your list, was not peer-reviewed. It was an editor invited "review" paper; subsequently (and repeatedly) debunked by actual peer-reviewed works. No reviewers were involved in the G&T article itself. The only lists it belongs on are those showing how bad some science can get. It doesn't belong on a peer-reviewed article list.
    0 0
  16. Please provide support for the contention that all papers are peer-reviewed. Specifically, please verify that the paper referenced in this thread in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (if I recall the title of the journal correctly) was peer reviewed. Please provide your definition of peer reviewed. As an attorney, I can tell you that a law review article, while scholarly, is not typically subject to any type of peer review, at least as that term is generally understood in hard science disciplines. "Peer review" in that context is not much beyond editing for grammar and ensuring that the footnotes are in proper Blue Book form. Indeed a law review article is nothing more (in nearly all instances) than an extended, well-researched opinion piece that is incapable of "proving" anything one way or another.
    0 0
  17. Dennis, there is little point in doing what you propose. The "list" is a meaningless piece of nonsense. It is of no interest whatsoever to anyone sincerely trying to understand the science involved. It does not matter that the papers listed are technically peer-reviewed, per some database listing. E&E is not a real science publication, it has an agenda and even claimed it. They may have a different tune now, in their quest for being taken seriously, but what they do is clear. The quality of the stuff coming from it has shown to be dismal (they even published that pathetic Beck piece), and quality in this case is not a subjective notion. It pertains to how thorough the work is, how it makes sense with the existing body of knowledge, how much it advances the field, how useful it is to other reserachers. Even the CATO journal is part of the goofy list. A political organization trying to influence policy in the direction of its preferred ideology. Advocacy from CATO is and always will be only that, regardless how their "journal" is listed in databases. All this junk has no bearing on reality, whether it's called peer-reviewed or not. The total amount of papers that support AGW and concern about AGW is way higher than 850, even if one sticks to only science papers from real science publications. That the number is difficult to estimate does not change this fact. PT is just playing on technicalities with the Google Scholar thing. When numbers are as large as Rob found, you know that even after you cull out all the unrelated stuff you will still be left with a very large number, so what does it matter exactly how large it is? Whomever can be swayed by that kind of nonsense deserves to be taken on PT's wild fantasy ride. This ridiculous list thing is the map to get there.
    0 0
  18. From the IJMPB Aims and Scope, where G&T 2009 was published as a 'review article': "To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing." This was not a peer-reviewed paper.
    0 0
  19. Poptech... "Incorrect all the counted papers are peer-reviewed." Prove it. How could you possibly know unless you were on the actual review board or contacted a member of the reviewing board for confirmation?
    0 0
  20. Poptech... "Incorrect, I got 24,000 results for 2010 using the search phrase "climate change"." Break it down into journals. Or authors. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
    0 0
  21. PT, "I have stated multiple times that I am religiously agnostic and fully support evolution theory." My last post. Your position on creationism is irrelevant and not the point I was trying to make. However, I'll rehash for the sake of clarity-- regardless of your religious leanings, that does not mean that you cannot use or adopt the same techniques used by the young-earth creationist debating Dawkins in my example to further your ideology. Cheers
    0 0
  22. Poptech, for the record I had no intent to get you to reduce the size of your list. I have provided links on this forum to papers that are not on your list but should be. There are some threads like "it's not bad" where some papers from your list would be useful. But obviously I can't go to that thread and post "here's 850 papers saying it's not bad", it would not help my case.
    0 0
  23. Poptech@457 wrote "Incorrect, I already addressed that." no you didn't (I checked). Give the number of the post where you addressed it "It supports skepticism of CO2 being a primary climate driver by supporting solar as being the primary climate driver. Thus it supports skepticism of AGW Alarm." Nonsense, just because solar forcing has been the dominant driver of paleoclimate does not mean that the current warming is non-anthropogenic. "A criticism of a paper does not mean it is refuted." Not necessarily, no, but often it does. If you don't have the scientific background to judge the difference then you ought not to compile a list and should leave it to someone who does, for the reasons I gave. "What is "irrelevant" is subjective and no peer-reviewed paper is going to be removed unless it is retracted from the journal" That is a non-sensical requirement. Journals generally only retract papers becuase of plagiarism or scientific fraud etc. I don't recall ever seeing a paper retracted simply because it was wrong. If that was general practice it would be very common. "when you would consider all the papers on my list to be "dud ammunition" You often complain you are being misrepresented, but you appear quite happy to engage in misrepresentation yourself. Not all the papers on your list are dud, as should be obvious by the fact that I said you ought to weed out the ones that are incorrect or irrelevant (the implication being that there are some on your list that are not duds). I shan't hold my breath waiting for the apology though. "Your intentions are rather obvious - do anything you can to get me to reduce the size of the list." Apparently, size isn't everything, it is what you can do with it that matters ;o) The IPCC has a bigger list of peer reviewed papers that support its position. I do want you to reduce the size of the list, but only so that you can increase its quality. I am against alarmist claims that are not backed up by mainstream science just as I am against "denialist" claims that are not backed up by mainstream science. That is because I am interested in the science.
    0 0
  24. Poptech... "Incorrect, I have applied a much more stringent criteria to my list as I evaluate and filter every paper before it is put on the list." You have only applied an extreme form of confirmation bias to your list. You surely realize that repeatability is an important tenet of the scientific method. There is no way for anyone to qualitatively reproduce your results because they are all merely a function of your opinion.
    0 0
  25. PopTech - Hmm, I seem to recall someone on this list insulting folks by telling them they don't know how to use Google. Looking for 'anthropogenic "climate change"' in 'Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science' only (the largest subject category), limiting to a year-by-year list, the search shows 973 results in 2003, fewer in earlier years. After 2003 the numbers seem to get larger - but again, since you've collected papers back to the 1980's, plenty to compare to for a percentage estimate. Your claims that the comparison cannot be made are specious. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your list is relevant. First-pass estimations of the total number of papers published in the field indicate that it is not; if you wish to then do the work and show that we should take it seriously, rather than a collection of fringe opinions, 'bought science', ideological rants, and editorial biases - all admittedly my subjective evaluations of a number of the papers on your list. There's always a fringe - demonstrate that your list represents something more. Or be ignored. --- As to G&T 2009 - No, that was not peer reviewed. Their reply to the peer-reviewed debunking was, and by some miracle wasn't burned, but the original paper was not, according to their editorial policies. And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck.
    0 0
  26. PopTech - Enough said. We've all gone around on this long enough. I (and a lot of others) have expressed my opinions of your list, criteria, and significance to the field (the topic of the thread in the first place), you've expressed yours. If your list has significance, it should be possible to convince others of that - you aren't having too much success there, however. Discussion has otherwise descended into a Three Stooge slap fest of repeated assertions and denials. Off to other topics for me...
    0 0
  27. Phillipe @461: wrote: "The 'list' is a meaningless piece of nonsense. It is of no interest whatsoever to anyone sincerely trying to understand the science involved." I agree. The reason I would like to see a more thorough examination of the flaws in this list is that documents like this get waved around by antiscience policymakers and pundits to the public as if it were valid science. It would be best to have a one-stop shop to go to to debunk them (preferably a resource journalists could use). Skeptical Science has started to do this with the Monckton Myths, but others (Poptech's 850, the Oregon petition, and Inhofe's annual list) exist as well. Perhaps this site is not the place to do that, as the focus here is on pure science. But I don't know another site that fits that need.
    0 0
  28. Considering that no one, other than you, uses "AGW alarm" as a frame of reference when evaluating science, your statement "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion" is rather meaningless.
    0 0
  29. Poptech - You neglected the last paragraph of my post: "And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck."
    0 0
  30. Poptech @475 It is irrelevant that papers in the Journal of Modern Physics B *can* be peer reviewed. It only matters that the paper in question was. I have no idea if it was or not so dont bother arguing with me about that point.
    0 0
  31. Poptech... "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion." Incorrect. AGW has nothing to do with my opinion. The research doesn't care what I think.
    0 0
  32. I think we can safely call Poptech the "Christopher Monckton of peer-review."
    0 0
  33. Again, why should anyone care about one person's definition of "AGW Alarm" when evaluating the whole of climate science? How about we stick to at least somewhat widely recognizable terms versus what passes for a definition in your little fiefdom?
    0 0
  34. Poptech, As has been stated here many many many times in this seemingly endless thread, AGW Alarm is completely subjective and based entirely upon your opinion of what constitutes alarm.
    0 0
  35. Poptech... Alarm has nothing to do with it. That's your absurd qualification to rationalize your confirmation bias.
    0 0
  36. 478; "I have however had great success many places." Please, please, please no one ask him to justify that statement otherwise we'll be in fir another 500 posts discussing unsupirtable analysis!!!
    0 0
  37. Poptech - So, there is no objective truth? G&T's paper violates several basic thermodynamic principles, but if they continue to yammer about it after the blatant errors are repeatedly pointed out - that's OK with you? Science involves judgement - judging whether results are real, replicable, well established. Some work is good science by those criteria, some is bad. That particular paper is an epic fail. The only reason I can see for you to continue to include dreck papers such as that, is an ideological confirmation bias - accepting anything that even remotely supports your viewpoint, regardless of whether it's reasonable or even remotely plausible. Which is another reason to dismiss your list as simply not relevant to the science.
    0 0
  38. Poptech-"First you need to apply a direct comparison to my list and the common argument that is made. It is not whether smoking causes cancer but the exaggerated dangers from SHS. So if you can find 850 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism that SHS causes cancer or that the likely hood of it causing cancer has been exaggerated. I will immediately accept this as strong support." Why not firsthand smoke? Because you "believe in" firsthand smoke causing cancer, but don't "believe in" secondhand smoke? It's still 850 papers and, according to you, quality is subjective, but those high numbers are "strong evidence" against firsthand smoke alarm, right? I can come up with 850 papers that support skepticism of the "alarm" over firsthand smoke causing lung cancer. Why won't you join my crusade?
    0 0
  39. An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers, (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) by John Stubbles... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is an article printed in that journal. The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming, (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) by Patrick J. Michaels... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". And how about this for an unbiased view : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (The Electricity Journal, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 38-46, August-September 2007) by Henry R. Linden Tells you right off how he's going to slant that paper, doesn't he. No wonder he had to go to 'The Electricity Journal' ! The more we can see of this little list, the more ridiculous and desperate it becomes. This thread has become a good source which can be used against anyone who dares to bring up this list again. Well done everyone.
    0 0
  40. Another charming paper that gives the game away by its very title : The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming, (Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989) by Patrick J. Michaels (again !) Again, no wonder he had to go to the Journal of Forestry... Now, how many of the many thousands of papers that agree with the consensus view, have the word 'alarm' in the title ? It's not even worth checking, is it ?
    0 0
  41. Here are two papers from the list's 'cosmic rays' section that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change; the phrase does not even appear in the text. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel The ice age epochs in question in each paper are on the million year (Myr) time scale. That's why they're called 'epochs,' a word specifically used in geology to denote a longer period of time than what we normally refer to as an 'ice age'. Another: Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri This paper is about cosmic ray dynamics in the heliosphere; the abstract makes no mention of earth climate. None of these papers support any form of AGW skepticism, 'alarm' or phobia. It is not sufficient to simply gather papers with the words 'cosmic rays' in their titles and assume that they support the unsubstantiated Svensmark-style hypotheses. We now see concrete proof that '850 papers supporting skepticism' is another one of those malleable phrases that must have an alternate PopTechian definition.
    0 0
  42. Interesting. Poptech, how does the 1996 Mavromichalai et al. paper cited above support skepticism of AGW alarm?
    0 0
  43. Perhaps we should take a closer at that list after all, seems like there is a lot of stuff that does not even meet PT's declared criteria. This could be amusing.
    0 0
  44. Interesting to note that in Poptech's first post on this article he states... " Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. " I tested this. Searching the phrase "climate change" turns up: NYT... Zero articles Newsweek... Seven articles Guardian.... Three articles The only way you get the numbers he states is to leave word or phrase field blank. What were his words? Oh yeah... "Epic fail."
    0 0
  45. 497 Poptech: Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication. With that definition perhaps your tally of 850 should go to zero. How many of those papers are peer reviewed by actual publishing climate scientists? You know, actual experts in the field.
    0 0
  46. You do realize that with your ridiculous mantra that nearly everything is "subjective", you are basically arguing for scientific nihilism. And why should anyone respond to any of your inquiries, when your response will simply be "I disagree" or "Incorrect"?
    0 0
  47. Poptech at 503: The authors of the papers in question have the scientific background and disagree. Except when they don't, such as Pielke, in which case you ignore them in favor of your own "context".
    0 0
  48. Poptech @ 501: Please provide the objective method to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Its very simple. A qualified peer reviewer is one who publishes regularly in the field he is reviewing (climate science) with a reputation of scholarly works to his/her credit that stand the test of time. Most of the journals you list do not meet that criteria.
    0 0
  49. PT: "Papers are not included or removed from the list based on .. if they ... support skepticism of AGW alarm." Then by your own words, you must remove the three papers discussed here, as they do not support 'skepticism' in any way whatsoever. Failure to do this is admission of total and complete hypocrisy.
    0 0
  50. Wow. 509 comments. I personally recommend to everyone still debating Poptech take leave of the argument - you have better things to do with your time, and Poptech simply isn't worth your effort any more. If he ever was.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Worthy advice all should heed.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us