750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

[Poptech]

750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

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 750 papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

 

[reillym]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/St...ls+climate+change+skeptics/3183069/story.html

"If you look at the statistics on how many of them are climate scientists, they just don't stack up," Prall said. "The people putting those statements out are having to reach far and wide. They're having to lower the bar to pad out their list. So they can't get very many top climate scientists, because very few out of that selection agree with them."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/St...nge+skeptics/3183069/story.html#ixzz0tnloeibA

I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.

 

[Poptech]

I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.

You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

 

[dannno]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/St...ls+climate+change+skeptics/3183069/story.html



I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.

LOL, there is only like one person on this entire forum who believes in the climate change fantasies as presented by the IPCC and their ilk.

Sorry, we've done the research already and have seen through the bullshit.

Do you know anything about the Medieval Warming Period or the mini-ice age that occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you know how these correlate with changes in sea level? Do you understand how the expansion of cities has helped lead to bad climate data? Are you aware of all of the years and years of raw data that has been tossed in the trash can by agencies of good repute? Take all that into consideration with climate gate and the emails, then add that into the multi billion dollar cap and trade market that the elite intend to manipulate and profit from, and it's pretty obvious what is going on here.

 

[dannno]

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel

Global Warming Hoax - The Other Side Video - sevenload

 

[reillym]

You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

Not sure what you are talking about google scholar in there for, there is no mention of that in the story, to my searching.

And there is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed publications against AGW "alarm". The story shows that the deniers are in the overwhelming minority, and have much less experience in the scientific field. They are political tools, that's it.

Oh, and "climategate" was a bunch of nonsense. All the scientists involved were exonerated.

 

[reillym]

LOL, there is only like one person on this entire forum who believes in the climate change fantasies as presented by the IPCC and their ilk.

Sorry, we've done the research already and have seen through the bullshit.

Do you know anything about the Medieval Warming Period or the mini-ice age that occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you know how these correlate with changes in sea level? Do you understand how the expansion of cities has helped lead to bad climate data? Are you aware of all of the years and years of raw data that has been tossed in the trash can by agencies of good repute? Take all that into consideration with climate gate and the emails, then add that into the multi billion dollar cap and trade market that the elite intend to manipulate and profit from, and it's pretty obvious what is going on here.

Climategate scientists were completely exonerated. And they are a small portion of EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that has yet to demonstrate a counter argument to man made climate change. They all agree. Every single one. Worldwide.

They must be all part of this conspiracy to tax our carbon! OH NOES!

It's silly, really.

Nobody denies that the earth has changed climate in the past. But that's irrelevant. The industrial revolution is happened. Crazy, I know.

The "billion dollar cap and trade market" PALES in comparison to the energy market, so please, if you are going to use that silly argument, keep in mind that are even more powerful lobbies in play. Of COURSE there are people who are going to profit from stronger environmental laws. That is the essence of a free market. What, do you expect people to just sit by and watch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

This argument gets nowhere when people are unwilling to accept that all scientists agree. There is a huge misleading in America that "the debate is still out" on climate change. It isn't. At all. Small groups of people will ALWAYS dissent anything. That's human nature. It moves us forward. Dissent is good. When it's validated.

 

[Poptech]

Not sure what you are talking about google scholar in there for, there is no mention of that in the story, to my searching.

And there is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed publications against AGW "alarm". The story shows that the deniers are in the overwhelming minority, and have much less experience in the scientific field. They are political tools, that's it.

Oh, and "climategate" was a bunch of nonsense. All the scientists involved were exonerated.

No kidding you don't know what I am talking about because you never read the paper that the story is about. The story doesn't show anything and just repeats the talking points for the press release of the paper. I have already extensively explained why the paper that the story is based on is bogus. The fact that you don't even know the basic facts about the nonsense you are repeating just shows you are tool for the alarmists to push their propaganda.

Climategate was not nonsense,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

and the show trials a total whitewash,

Penn State Report
Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash' (Fox News, February 5, 2010)
Penn State’s integrity crisis (The Daily Caller, July 14, 2010)

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
'Climategate': what a pointless investigation (Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010)

Science Assessment Panel
Climategate: the whitewash continues (The Daily Telegraph, UK, March 22, 2010)
MPs begin the Climategate whitewash (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 3, 2010)
Climate whitewash: British farce (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, April 5, 2010)
ClimateGate Whitewash (American Thinker, April 14, 2010)
Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash (Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010)
The Non-Inquiry of Climategate (Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010)
Whitewashing is quick work! (The Daily Caller, April 15, 2010)
Climategate whitewash (National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010)
A Green-inspired whitewash (Toronto Sun, April 18, 2010)

Muir Russell Report
Climategate Inquiry Chairman Failed to Check the Science (Canada Free Press, July 3, 2010)
Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears Everyone Involved (Prison Planet, July 7, 2010)
Global Warming ‘ClimateGate’ Investigation Yields Whitewash Report (CEI, July 7, 2010)
Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults (Canada Free Press, July 8, 2010)
Russell Report Whitewashes Climategate Scandal (The New American, July 8, 2010)
Climategate probe proves nothing (WorldNetDaily, July 9, 2010)
Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP (The Register, UK, July 9, 2010)
Climategate whitewash: Third time's no charm (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 12, 2010)
The Climategate Whitewash Continues (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010)
Climategate and the Big Green Lie (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010)
ClimateGate 'Whitewash' Helps 'Clear' Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim (Business & Media Institute, July 14, 2010)

 

[Poptech]

This argument gets nowhere when people are unwilling to accept that all scientists agree.

Why would people accept a lie?

Could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.

What is silly is your comments.

 

[WaltM]

16% of which are from "Energy and Environment"
Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)
Collected by a website which debunks 9/11 conspiracies and opposes legalization of marijuana.

Just to provide some context.

 

[WaltM]

Why would people accept a lie?

You accept a lie if and when it fits your views.

Could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.

What is silly is your comments.

Who ever said VOTE? You resort to putting words in people's mouths to make your point?

 

[WaltM]

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

You discredit it in your head, I don't dispute. Your standard of discredit is "I heard somebody say otherwise, I don't care if they're biased or politically motivated".

Your best argument presented was : "MWP was warmer".

 

[malkusm]

Ron Paul on Climate Change:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html

Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:

"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

 

[Poptech]

16% of which are from "Energy and Environment"

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and WorldCat
- Found at 54 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 82 in electronic form. Such as: Cambridge University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (XLS)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)

Lie and strawman, the policy papers are under the socio-economic section and are only around 100 papers. Most of the papers are science papers and it is a strawman as the list makes no mention of only having science papers, it is explicitly stated that all the papers are peer-reviewed. It is also explicitly stated what they cover which includes economics,

"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."

Collected by a website which debunks 9/11 conspiracies

This is true and irrelevant to the list.

and opposes legalization of marijuana.

Lie no mention of legalization is anywhere on the site.

Just to provide some context.

You need to get your facts straight before you attempt to post any "context". Please refrain from stating lies about the site in the future, thank you.

 

[Poptech]

You accept a lie if and when it fits your views.

Nothing I have stated is a lie, where it is irrefutably proven you have stated them repeatedly.

Who ever said VOTE? You resort to putting words in people's mouths to make your point?

My point debunks your propaganda, as you are dishonestly attempting to use the position statements released by a handful of council members of scientific organizations as the position of the membership body. You are dishonestly attempting to imply that the hundreds of thousands of their members support such statements. Your failure to provide evidence of this proves my point.

You discredit it in your head, I don't dispute. Your standard of discredit is "I heard somebody say otherwise, I don't care if they're biased or politically motivated".

Unlike you, I actually read the paper and know how to use Google Scholar. I can also read through the bullshit propaganda in the paper. What I stated has nothing to do with anything I heard.

Your best argument presented was : "MWP was warmer".

I made no such argument in this thread.

 

[WaltM]

Nothing I have stated is a lie, where it is irrefutably proven you have stated them repeatedly.

Outright denial.
That's an example of how you lie, asserting that something is DISCREDITED, IRREFUTABLE with the hope people will be bullied into thinking they're wrong.

My point debunks your propaganda, as you are dishonestly attempting to use the position statements released by a handful of council members of scientific organizations as the position of the membership body. You are dishonestly attempting to imply that the hundreds of thousands of their members support such statements. Your failure to provide evidence of this proves my point.

What evidence?

Unlike you, I actually read the paper and know how to use Google Scholar. I can also read through the bullshit propaganda in the paper. What I stated has nothing to do with anything I heard.


I made no such argument in this thread.

No, not in this thread.

Here you did : (I shortened it a bit, but you said it yourself)
If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man..

Yet you never state what WOULD BE acceptable evidence.

 

[WaltM]

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and WorldCat

Do any of these places that list E&E miss any of the "propaganda" journals you deny?

- Found at 54 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 82 in electronic form. Such as: Cambridge University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT

54 worldwide?
WOW, that's a lot compared to 325, which Journal of Phyiscal Chemistry is (but hey, this was never a numbers game, right?)

HEY, even CREATION SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL HAS 87!!
http://www.worldcat.org/title/creation-ex-nihilo/oclc/12671744&referer=brief_results

HAHAHA, let's look at the Journal of Historical Review how about 85!
http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-historical-review/oclc/5584935&referer=brief_results
(so much for your "There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust. This sort of propaganda is pathetic and sad and proves you are a zealot.")

Lie and strawman, the policy papers are under the socio-economic section and are only around 100 papers. Most of the papers are science papers and it is a strawman as the list makes no mention of only having science papers,

Intentionally misleading on your part.

it is explicitly stated that all the papers are peer-reviewed.

Peer reviewed using your standards exposed above.

It is also explicitly stated what they cover which includes economics,

"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."

Which would no longer make it "skeptical of man made GW" by scientific basis.

Oops, what you actually said was "800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm", keyword alarm?

This is true and irrelevant to the list.

Are you going to let your readers decide?

Lie no mention of legalization is anywhere on the site.

Yep, typical of you, when I make a mistake, you call it a lie.

I'll copy what it actually says "anti-marijuana resource"
Marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has been propagandized as "safe" by weak minded idiots. The reality is marijuana is an addictive drug that can cause brain damage, cancer, gum disease, heart disease, infertility, lung disease, obesity, pregnancy failure, viral infections and doubles the risk of car accidents. The United States has the highest level of marijuana use due to an increased ignorant acceptance of it as "safe" by popular culture through movies, music, television and video games.

You need to get your facts straight before you attempt to post any "context". Please refrain from stating lies about the site in the future, thank you.

I'm not perfect, but you're free to correct me, please refrain from outright saying "lie" if you wish not the same done to you.

 

[WaltM]

Just to give you some perspective of this guy's standard for "peer review"

He states that Energy & Environment is peer reviewed and serious because it's available in 54 libraries worldwide.

Let's see what journals exceed this 54 number.
Creation, by Answers in Genesis : 78
http://www.worldcat.org/title/creation/oclc/47147894&referer=brief_results

(granted, not all libraries are equal, University libraries are generally more serious than public libraries and theological seminaries, the University libraries he listed, just happen to be the biggest University libraries in the US, is it possible they collect as much as they can for reference purposes?)

The link where he "Corrects misinformation" is written by himself (maybe because he can't find another person who wrote it, other than the journal themselves)
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an interdisciplinary academic journal debating issues arising from aspirations of ‘integrated’ policy-making and academic analysis. It serves as a forum for constructive and professional debate and the search for solutions in a policy area that remains a focus of politics at all levels and involves major regulatory and investment efforts.
If you were to take this at face value, isn't this admitting it's not an unbiased source for scientific research?

 

[Poptech]

Outright denial.
That's an example of how you lie, asserting that something is DISCREDITED, IRREFUTABLE with the hope people will be bullied into thinking they're wrong.

You have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. On the other hand I have provided extensive evidence of your lies. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site.

What evidence?

You have failed to provide any evidence to support the implication that the membership bodies of the scientific organizations touted as proof of the alleged "consensus" support these organization's position statements released by their handful of council members. Without providing such evidence they cannot be used in support of this position.

Here you did : (I shortened it a bit, but you said it yourself)

If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man..

Yet you never state what WOULD BE acceptable evidence.

I can tell you what is unacceptable evidence, such as various tree-ring proxy reconstructions since tree-ring's are influenced by more than just temperature changes. I also find unacceptable any proxy reconstruction that has not undergone the necessary due-diligence to verify the reconstruction. Something that peer-review does not provide but McIntyre has demonstrated to be a necessity before any such reconstruction can remotely be taken seriously.

Do any of these places that list E&E miss any of the "propaganda" journals you deny?

This statement does not make any sense.

54 worldwide?

Actually if you can add (obviously you cannot) it is Found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

HEY, even CREATION SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL HAS 87!!

This is not a peer-reviewed journal but a magazine and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed. There is no question that various magazines will be carried far more often than journals will. This is an idiotic argument.

HAHAHA, let's look at the Journal of Historical Review how about 85!
(so much for your "There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust. This sort of propaganda is pathetic and sad and proves you are a zealot.")

This is not a peer-reviewed journal and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed.

Intentionally misleading on your part.

No it is not, your inability to read and then fabricate strawman arguments from things that are not stated anywhere on the list is not my problem.

Peer reviewed using your standards exposed above.

My standards are that all papers must be peer-reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal. I have successfully demonstrated this in each case.

Which would no longer make it "skeptical of man made GW" by scientific basis.

Strawman again as this is not stated. You cannot fabricated your made up criteria for a list that explicitly states what it is about.

Oops, what you actually said was "800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm", keyword alarm?

No oops, this is what the list says and what the title of this thread says. Since this original post the list has been updated to over 800 papers.

Are you going to let your readers decide?

Let the readers decide what? 911 has nothing to do with Global Warming. I already know the 911 conspiracy theorists position on AGW alarm as it is explicitly skeptical. This is demonstrated by anyone who ever reads PrisonPlanet or InfoWars. Both sites are right on this issue. So your tactic here will have no effect on their skeptical AGW alarm position.

Yep, typical of you, when I make a mistake, you call it a lie.

It was no mistake, you lied as you are desperately trying to do anything you can to get people not read what I have to say about AGW alarm. You cannot win a real debate on this issue so you resort to these dishonest tactics.

I'll copy what it actually says "anti-marijuana resource"

Yep and no mention of being against legalization.

I'm not perfect, but you're free to correct me, please refrain from outright saying "lie" if you wish not the same done to you.

When you stop lying I will say so, in the future if you do not want to be called out on your lies, don't state any.

Just to give you some perspective of this guy's standard for "peer review"

He states that Energy & Environment is peer reviewed and serious because it's available in 54 libraries worldwide.

Lie, again you fabricate something I never said. The listing of libraries was to show that E&E can be found in major libraries around the world and is taken seriously.

Energy & Environment is found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

I state that it is peer-reviewed based on,

EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (XLS)
"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
"Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

Your tiring nonsense about the non-science of creationism is sad and pathetic.

The link where he "Corrects misinformation" is written by himself (maybe because he can't find another person who wrote it, other than the journal themselves)

Correct the article is written by me but it is fully sourced and debunks various misinformation that people like you commonly state.

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an interdisciplinary academic journal debating issues arising from aspirations of ‘integrated’ policy-making and academic analysis. It serves as a forum for constructive and professional debate and the search for solutions in a policy area that remains a focus of politics at all levels and involves major regulatory and investment efforts.

If you were to take this at face value, isn't this admitting it's not an unbiased source for scientific research?

This quote states nothing about any scientific bias. E&E actually encourages debate.

 

[reillym]

You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher. Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?

i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.

They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.

There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers. Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it. But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.

The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.