|
Post by poptech on Apr 24, 2010 8:16:31 GMT
700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 700 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors."Note: Numerous updates to the Cosmic Ray and Solar Sections.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 24, 2010 13:28:19 GMT
This of course cannot be true because I have heard there are gatekeepers preventing papers supporting skepticism of manmade global warming from getting published. Also there is no funding for these papers because the people who control grant money don't give it out to studies skeptical of manmade global warming. Also scientists would never publish skeptical papers anyway because they are scared of losing their jobs, etc.
That is what I heard. I assumed it wasn't just a load of hot air talk.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 24, 2010 13:55:23 GMT
Gate keepers are currently disenfranchised. The gate keepers held sway for many years with a trickle of papers making it thru, they are currently battling other things.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 24, 2010 16:02:56 GMT
This of course cannot be true because I have heard there are gatekeepers preventing papers supporting skepticism of manmade global warming from getting published. Also there is no funding for these papers because the people who control grant money don't give it out to studies skeptical of manmade global warming. Also scientists would never publish skeptical papers anyway because they are scared of losing their jobs, etc. That is what I heard. I assumed it wasn't just a load of hot air talk. Don't be such a fool Socold. Very clearly the emails showed a big frustration over leaks in the monopolization process and a resolve to stop them up. I mean didn't you tell us here in 2007 that there were no scientists that didn't believe in global warming? So this is a survival count. One has to wonder how many casualties there were.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 24, 2010 19:59:31 GMT
This of course cannot be true because I have heard there are gatekeepers preventing papers supporting skepticism of manmade global warming from getting published. Also there is no funding for these papers because the people who control grant money don't give it out to studies skeptical of manmade global warming. Also scientists would never publish skeptical papers anyway because they are scared of losing their jobs, etc. That is what I heard. I assumed it wasn't just a load of hot air talk. Don't be such a fool Socold. Very clearly the emails showed a big frustration over leaks in the monopolization process and a resolve to stop them up. And yet **700** papers got through? Not much of "gatekeeping" is it? If there was actual gatekeeping going on I would have expected in the 10 years of emails to see discussions of **700** papers. Not **3** papers. Three being a number closer to the actual number of papers discussed in the CRU emails. And that is ignoring the fact that at least some of those 3 papers were justifiably attacked for being rubbish. In short the "gatekeeping" dog won't hunt. It makes no sense. It contradicts the available observations. It's a dead theory. What fits the data better is that the reason noone has published a paper showing a GCM exhibiting low climate sensitivity is because noone can. The reason noone has published a paper showing that surface stations show no warming over the 20th century is because noone can. The reason noone has published a paper showing that temperatures in the MWP were many degrees higher than present is because noone can. Etc. Rinse. Repeat. All the skeptic papers that might be but aren't - "aren't" because noone can do it, not because they are barred from doing so. Lindzen publishes. Spencer publishes. There is no gatekeeping. Which scientists don't believe the globe has warmed over the 20th century?
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Apr 24, 2010 22:55:59 GMT
socold you seem confused, there certainly is gatekeeping, especially on papers that challenge IPCC dogma. Yes there are skeptics papers published but they have to go to other journals, mainly journals like Energy & Environment and Climate Research, which was involved in Climate Gate for publishing skeptics. It is very difficult if next to impossible for skeptics to get published in the most popular journals. GCMs are programmed subjectively. This is an idiotic comment. If all GCMs are programmed to not show low climate sensitivity then how is a paper supposed to show them not? There are plenty of papers showing low climate sensitivity, Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth ( PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009) - David H. Douglass, John R. ChristyHeat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system ( PDF) (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007) - Stephen E. SchwartzWhat are you talking about? A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies ( PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - Craig Loehle
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 24, 2010 23:35:05 GMT
Don't be such a fool Socold. Very clearly the emails showed a big frustration over leaks in the monopolization process and a resolve to stop them up. And yet **700** papers got through? Not much of "gatekeeping" is it? If there was actual gatekeeping going on I would have expected in the 10 years of emails to see discussions of **700** papers. Not **3** papers. [/quote] That assumes all conspirators are really dumb all the time. Hey you could be right! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 25, 2010 0:02:32 GMT
socold you seem confused, there certainly is gatekeeping, especially on papers that challenge IPCC dogma. Yes there are skeptics papers published but they have to go to other journals, mainly journals like Energy & Environment and Climate Research, which was involved in Climate Gate for publishing skeptics. It is very difficult if next to impossible for skeptics to get published in the most popular journals. It's obvious why some of the papers on your list can't get published in popular journals. It has nothing to do with the consequences of the studies, but the studies themselves being fundamentally flawed. If someone submits a paper arguing that the moon made of cheese disproves global warming it would be rejected. Not because the reviewers don't like the fact it claims to disprove global warming, but because the reasoning of the paper is obviously rubbish. Roy Spencer and Lindzen manage to publish in popular journals because their work is not rubbish. Those who can't, publish in Energy and Environment apparently. Energy and Environment has slacker standards than popular journals. The Climate Research incident was a case of standards being slackened. You also have a number of other papers on that list that got published in popular journals. I don't see any mention of those papers in the CRU emails. If there's gatekeeping going on, why in 10 years of emails are there only about 3 papers discussed? If they are programmed subjectively then program one subjectively to show low climate sensitivity. See? By claiming it's just some arbitrary programming decision you actually make it easier to demonstrate that. If skeptics think the models are all arbitary and user-determined and want to convince everyone of that, then they could easily do so by demonstrating how many silly results they can get from them. Do you not realize how powerful an argument you could make if you could show that GCMs can show a climate sensitivity as low as 0.1C/wm-2? Or even negative climate sensitivity? You claim it's possible to do that, so can you also explain why skeptics in 30 years haven't bothered to make such a powerful argument? Loehle doesn't show the MWP many degrees warmer than present. In fact Loehle is compatible with the MWP being lower than present:
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Apr 25, 2010 0:29:32 GMT
It's obvious why some of the papers on your list can't get published in popular journals. It has nothing to do with the consequences of the studies, but the studies themselves being fundamentally flawed. No it has to do with gatekeeping, try reading and learning, The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp. 16-22, 2007) - Stanley W. Trimble Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics) Roy Spencer and Lindzen manage to publish in popular journals because their work is not rubbish. Apparently you are new to this because Dr. Spencer has had extensive problems getting papers published simply because the conclusions do not support the IPCC. The fact that he manages to get some published simply represents his determination. Those who can't, publish in Energy and Environment apparently. Energy and Environment has slacker standards than popular journals. Lie. You also have a number of other papers on that list that got published in popular journals. I don't see any mention of those papers in the CRU emails. If there's gatekeeping going on, why in 10 years of emails are there only about 3 papers discussed? Some have but those are in the minority and were very difficult to get published. The CRU emails explicitly showed gatekeeping attempts by lead authors of the IPCC. If they are programmed subjectively then program one subjectively to show low climate sensitivity. See? By claiming it's just some arbitrary programming decision you actually make it easier to demonstrate that. Are you computer illiterate? By simply changing an equation or by adding or removing an equation you change the results of a computer model. Computer models can be programmed to get whatever answer you want. If skeptics think the models are all arbitary and user-determined and want to convince everyone of that, then they could easily do so by demonstrating how many silly results they can get from them. Do you not realize how powerful an argument you could make if you could show that GCMs can show a climate sensitivity as low as 0.1C/wm-2? Or even negative climate sensitivity? You claim it's possible to do that, so can you also explain why skeptics in 30 years haven't bothered to make such a powerful argument? Anyone who understands basic computer science realizes they are subjective. Unfortunately many natural scientists are computer illiterate. Loehle doesn't show the MWP many degrees warmer than present. Loehle sure does shows it warmer,
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 25, 2010 11:45:06 GMT
It's obvious why some of the papers on your list can't get published in popular journals. It has nothing to do with the consequences of the studies, but the studies themselves being fundamentally flawed. No it has to do with gatekeeping, try reading and learning, No it has to do with the popular journals having standards. For example one paper in your list: Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature VariationsThe abstract starts: "Studies of the temperature anomalies during the last 27 years show a close relationship with the varying increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions and La Niñas reduce CO2 values and El Niños increase them. This close relationship strongly indicates that ocean temperatures and the solubility of CO2 in seawater control the amount of CO2 being absorbed or released by the oceans. It is therefore likely that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to a natural global warming and that CO2 produced through fossil fuel combustion by humans can not disrupt this balance." The initial observation is correct, but it's not a novel finding. That alone is enough to disqualify it from being published in a popular journals. But worse is the interpretation in the next sentence. Anyone slightly familiar with the subject should immediately realize the underlying flaw in the reasoning there. This is similar to the error in the flawed McLean study. It should not pass peer review in any popular journal. Where did it get published? Energy & Environment. I rest my case. People in general have trouble getting papers published in popular journals. It's not supposed to be easy. You say "because the conclusions do not support the IPCC" but you don't know that, you are just assuming things. I wouldn't call you a liar, you are just "bizarrely incorrect". Energy and Environment clearly has far slacker standards than popular journals. Over 10 years of emails there are about 3 papers discussed, at least one of those cases is a case of a bad paper being published (and cited by politicians) and them seeking to correct it. So where you claim to see explicit evidence of gatekeeping I see a desert with tumbleweed. I have a more advanced understanding of the role of computer models in science and of computer science. Sure you can make a computer say anything, but within the constraints of physics? No. Try making a model of a falling rock for example and get the rock to fall upwards without violating laws of physics. Good luck with that. So will you answer my question as to why noone in 30 years has demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM, if as you claim GCMs can be made to show anything? What I think is that GCMs cannot be made to show low climate sensitivity, because as in the example of the falling rock model, the model cannot be made to show that result without violating physics. That would explain why no skeptics have demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM wouldn't it? Because they are not willing to violate physics. It would also mean the high climate sensitivity result of models is an outcome of our understanding of physics of the climate. And that's the kind of think that lends evidnece to climate sensitivity being high. That's the original Loehle 2007 reconstruction. I posted the 2008 correction ( jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/01/loehle-temperature-reconstruction-corrected/) Your image also doesn't show the warming of the past 50 years. That's included in this one: As you can see not only does the Loehle reconstruction not show the MWP many degrees warmer than present which was my original point, but it even shows the MWP may have been cooler than today once you factor in the uncertainty bands. And the best thing is you can't dismiss that result as being a UN world government conspiracy, an attempt to get grant money, or an attempt to support AGW.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2010 11:46:11 GMT
Fundamentally socold is right. This list (with the qualifications below) show that even strongly sceptic papers can get into the main peer reviewed journals. Complaining that Spencer is given a hard time is bogus - noone should get a free ride, and most scientists don't.
The headline of this article is misleading though, as being able to use a paper to support a view does not mean that the paper is being correctly interpreted or is overtly sceptical of the view that CO2 is causing significant warming. For example, ARGO observations of a non-warming ocean do not imply that the models are fundamentally wrong. Nor do arguments from studies of ancient prehistory.
The list would be more compelling to fence-sitters if it separated out the loons (such as Jaworowski and Idso), the E&E papers, and the industry journals (Does "Climate change for Steel makers" sound like a peer-reviewed article? I don't think so) from the standard climate journals.
If we changed the definition to "peer reviewed scientific papers sceptical of the view that projected anthropogenic CO2 emissions are likely tol cause a 1.5-4.5C temperature rise this century", then I think the list would be a heck of a lot shorter.
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Apr 25, 2010 12:53:02 GMT
No it has to do with the popular journals having standards. [/url] All journals have standards, this is a ridiculous statement The initial observation is correct, but it's not a novel finding. That alone is enough to disqualify it from being published in a popular journals. But worse is the interpretation in the next sentence. Anyone slightly familiar with the subject should immediately realize the underlying flaw in the reasoning there. This is similar to the error in the flawed McLean study. It should not pass peer review in any popular journal. What is "novel" or not is subjective. Your opinion on what should pass peer-review is worthless. Where did it get published? Energy & Environment. I rest my case. You have no case. People in general have trouble getting papers published in popular journals. It's not supposed to be easy. You say "because the conclusions do not support the IPCC" but you don't know that, you are just assuming things. It is supposed to make sense. The complaints are not about methological errors but in many cases no reason is given for rejection. Mann's fraudulent papers get published all the time I wouldn't call you a liar, you are just "bizarrely incorrect". Energy and Environment clearly has far slacker standards than popular journals. I called you a liar because you are and continue to lie. Over 10 years of emails there are about 3 papers discussed, at least one of those cases is a case of a bad paper being published (and cited by politicians) and them seeking to correct it. So where you claim to see explicit evidence of gatekeeping I see a desert with tumbleweed. So you have a detailed analysis of exactly how many papers were discussed from every single email? So you know for a fact every single email over 10 years was obtained? Your ridiculous assumptions do not change the clear gatekeeping that was going on. I have a more advanced understanding of the role of computer models in science and of computer science. Sure you can make a computer say anything, but within the constraints of physics? No. So every atmospheric equation in the models are 100% correct, interesting why all the models are not identical. By simply accepting equation X as correct you program the model to get a certain result. Computer code is computer code, computers cannot empirically determine which physics equation is true or not. What sort of silly understanding do you think you have of computers? Try making a model of a falling rock for example and get the rock to fall upwards without violating laws of physics. Good luck with that. Many of the equations in climate models are theoretical and cannot be empirically proven. So will you answer my question as to why noone in 30 years has demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM, if as you claim GCMs can be made to show anything? Which skeptic controls which code base for which GCM? Do you even comprehend what you are talking about? Climate sensitivity is represented via mathematical equations in model code, simply changing the equation(s) so CO2 does not force as much temperature and you get lower climate sensitivity. You seem to lack a computer science education. What I think is that GCMs cannot be made to show low climate sensitivity, because as in the example of the falling rock model, the model cannot be made to show that result without violating physics. You example represents massive computer illiteracy. That would explain why no skeptics have demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM wouldn't it? Because they are not willing to violate physics. Really? So the current sensitivity code that includes theoretical forcings can be empirically proven? Please provide the experiment that can empirically demonstrate these. It would also mean the high climate sensitivity result of models is an outcome of our understanding of physics of the climate. And that's the kind of think that lends evidnece to climate sensitivity being high. You seem to lack a basic understanding between physics and theoretical physics. That's the original Loehle 2007 reconstruction. I posted the 2008 correction Your image also doesn't show the warming of the past 50 years. That's included in this one: LMFAO!! You cannot splice thermometers with proxies, what are you trying to do create another fraudulent work ala Mann? Wow this sort of propaganda never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Apr 25, 2010 13:02:53 GMT
Fundamentally socold is right. This list (with the qualifications below) show that even strongly sceptic papers can get into the main peer reviewed journals. Complaining that Spencer is given a hard time is bogus - noone should get a free ride, and most scientists don't. No he is absolutely wrong. You have a handful that have gotten into the more popular journals and the only real one that remotely seems unbiased is GRL. What is bogus is your lack of understanding regarding Spencer's complaints. He was not asking for a free ride but a reasonable explanation for rejection not arbitrary dismissal or no reason at all. The headline of this article is misleading though, as being able to use a paper to support a view does not mean that the paper is being correctly interpreted or is overtly sceptical of the view that CO2 is causing significant warming. For example, ARGO observations of a non-warming ocean do not imply that the models are fundamentally wrong. Nor do arguments from studies of ancient prehistory. No the headline is completely accurate. "Correctly interpretted" is subjective. Now you are creating new goal posts using subjective words like "overtly". The models are fundamentally a joke. The list would be more compelling to fence-sitters if it separated out the loons (such as Jaworowski and Idso), the E&E papers, and the industry journals (Does "Climate change for Steel makers" sound like a peer-reviewed article? I don't think so) from the standard climate journals. Too bad you emotional opinions are not taken into consideration. Now new goal posts "climate journals", so Nature and Science should not be used? Or should I just wait first as you move goal posts around to your emotional position? If we changed the definition to "peer reviewed scientific papers sceptical of the view that projected anthropogenic CO2 emissions are likely tol cause a 1.5-4.5C temperature rise this century", then I think the list would be a heck of a lot shorter. You are the king of the goal post move, I must admit. Too bad you are not in charge of these persistently changing "goals" to fit what every you "feel" like.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2010 15:01:07 GMT
No it has to do with the popular journals having standards. Yep, two sets! One that lets "Mike's Nature Trick" in and then the other one.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 25, 2010 19:05:50 GMT
What is "novel" or not is subjective. Your opinion on what should pass peer-review is worthless. Determining the novelty of findings is obviously not subjective. It's as easy as knowing whether the findings already exist! The finding that co2 has been rising for years, for example, is not novel because it's already known. So a popular journal would not publish such a finding for that reason. Why would any of their readers be interested in reading stuff they are already aware of? The popular journals receive way more quality submissions than they can handle anyway, so why would they waste publish space on something that isn't interesting? You are the one claiming there is evidence in the CRU emails of gatekeeping. I am the one pointing out there are only about 3 papers discussed in that way. I am making no assumptions about unknown emails. I am not saying every atmospheric equation in the models are 100% correct. It is perplexing how you managed to draw such an interpretation from my sentence: "Sure you can make a computer say anything, but within the constraints of physics? No." Im not claiming the computers determine if the equations are true or not. I am saying that people can judge how the equations are justified. If I was to change the stefan-boltzmann equation to have a big X 2000 in it, someone would challenge me for why I did it. I know we could get low climate sensitivity by altering the code, that's not in question. But can we do it by altering it in a physically justifiable way? Can we adjust a variable within the uncertainty of current understanding of climate and get low climate sensitivity? That would be an amazing result, groundbreaking, nobel prize winning possibly. You can't say there's no motive to do that. Why not list two examples so we can review their basis. That would be quite interesting. You might be right, I am willing to have a look at it. No need for control, source code for at least one existing GCM is freely available for anyone to take and modify. Although what I was thinking was that skeptics actually produce a GCM from scratch. Then why hasn't anyone done that? This subject actually has little or no relevance to computer science. It's a very simplistic light look at computers in so much as "source code" and "programs". Even a 10 year old vb programmer will understand what we are both saying. Again your response doesn't follow what I said. I said: "That would explain why no skeptics have demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM wouldn't it? Because they are not willing to violate physics." Rather than me prove a negative (that they can't do it), I am asking for skeptics to prove they can do it. The fact they haven't done so suggests to me that they can't change it in a physically correct way to achieve low climate sensitivity. How were you determining that Loehle shows the MWP warmer than present given that it ends in about 1960? You must have been splicing in global temperature since 1960 in your mind. Either that or you reached an unjustified conclusion. Anyway go blame Roy Spencer if you must, it's his graph. And it's not spliced anyway, it's overlaid and that is justified.
|
|