You could just find your references from http://scholar.google.com
However, the point here is that there are many papers that support skeptics arguments. It seems some Warmists are so poorly informed about the issues that they do not know about this (1).
Edit: It seems that many here are acting like this is the only such list on the internet. Not so (2). There are also lists of videos (3), lists of news articles (4), peer-reviewed papers listed by topic (5), and even a skeptic replication of the effort put out by the IPCC (6), which is about equally well respected by Warmists as the IPCC _ARs are respected by Skeptics (7).
That list is exactly the reason that populartechnology.net is NOT to be trusted. Many (maybe most) of those papers do not rebut the tenets of AGW--instead they focus on the details that are open scientific questions. Nevertheless, if you don't actually look at the papers and try to read and understand them it's easy to be impressed by the quantity of papers and the journals in which they're published, but then once you start looking at them you figure out that the few papers in the list that actually DO refute something about AGW are published in journals of very dubious integrity (e.g. Energy and Environment), and the rest examining specific issues and not the big picture.
You should really have called the list "A few papers that support skeptics' arguments and 1100+ peer-reviewed papers that don't but were included to make the number seem impressive"
There are about 11000 papers published per year. Therefore the 1100 represents 10% at most. That's pretty much in keeping with various studies over the years.
<<1100+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments?
>>http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10...
Only in your dreams (and those of Mr Poptart himself).
The whole problem with Poptech's list is his severely limited (to put it mildly) understanding of climate science and climate change. He starts with an end-point (skeptic arguments) and then moves his way back through papers which he thinks support these arguments. The whole problem is that more often than not this 'skeptic argument' is entirely based on not understanding (basic) science and therefor not an argument at all.
But it gets worse: Poptech cherry-picks the papers he cites. The 'support for skeptic argument' doesn't necessarily have to be in a paper's conclusion: it can be anywhere. And thus papers which in their abstract for example state to look at the role of the sun in climate change make a very good chance to end up on Poptech's list EVEN THOUGH the paper's conclusions rule out the sun's influence on the current observed warming.
With that same approach ANYONE could build an extensive list of peer-reviewed papers supporting arguments that the world is flat!
Lots of the papers he has listed were published at Energy & Environment (E&E), a 'journal' with politically biased journal editor and a non-existent peer-review process. What's more, as was evidenced prior to Oliver Manuel's infamous "Iron Sun" opinion paper being published at at E&E, through postings by E&E editor on a publicly available Yahoo Group, E&E is not about science but about politics:
E&E editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen to Oliver Manuel:
"In any case, I am pleased we published this paper, if not as peer reviewed, but as an opinion piece. This seems fair enough as E&E is not a pure science journal, but is only interested in science as far as it influences the politics of energy policy and technology."
One can't have a clearer admission than that! And thus Poptech's list is loaded with papers which are 'not pure science'.
Pielke Jr's opinion isn't very favorable either: "[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor's political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet," & "If I had a time machine I'd go back and submit our paper elsewhere."
Then there's the not unimportant issue of Poptech's personality. He has no climate science training, no scientific background whatsoever yet somehow is able to know more about the issues than professional scientists from many fields. Two words come to my mind: Dunning Kruger.
Edit @ Poptech:
<
In your Dunning-Kruger affected dreams, Poptech.
You may claim 100 times to have rebutted all criticism, your critics (many of whom are scientists whose papers are included in your list) have a very different opinion. But you always do this, in every single internet discussion you take part in (and there have been many, hundreds if not thousands, where you've started off discussions by simply spamming discussion boards with your nonsensical list).
Why don't you first start with addressing what exactly is a 'skeptic argument' and, while you're at it, what exactly do you consider to be 'AGW alarm', a definition you decided to include once you became aware that as your critics pointed out, not all of your listed papers were actually skeptical of AGW science?* But of course you will not admit this little mistake because you never ever make a mistake. You 'change' stuff perhaps, but you never make 'corrections' to your list to address mistakes you committed because you make no mistakes. And you've got your site well-protected so no one can spot changes from a cache or via a wayback machine.
PS Dunning-Kruger is curable.
All of the criticisms stated here about the list are refuted in the list's "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section.
Bacchaus, why are you misrepresenting the list? The title explicitly says "ACC/AGW Alarm". From the rebuttals section,
Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
Zeebe and deMenocal's papers are not on the list but Meehl's is cited by Dr. Scafetta to support a skeptic argument. See the link: Carbon Brief Part II: Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section.
Gringo, you have stated multiple lies that are refuted,
1. None of the papers on the list rule out the sun's influence on current warming.
See "Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment" from the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section for the following,
2. E&E is a peer-reviewed scholarly journals cited in the IPCC reports 22 times and listed in the ISI.
3. E&E's editor's "bias" is towards academic freedom not party politics as she is also a social democrat.
4. Dr. Manuel's E&E article was published as an opinion piece, AFTER he already had his scientific work published in a peer-reviewed science journal.
5. Just like the IPCC reports, socio-economic papers are included on the list in the appropriate categories. From the rebuttals section,
Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a natural science paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are natural science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the natural science sections on the list. There are over 1000 natural science papers on the list.
6. Again from the rebuttals section,
Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.
Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers and extensive professional experience as a computer analyst is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either explicit to their position, were written by a skeptic or were already determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not the editor.
7. Gringo, name the time and place and I will in extensive detail refute everyone of your lies you have stated. Feel free to email me populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com when you wish to obtain such an education.
8. I have never spammed a single discussion board with my list but responded to dishonest people such as yourself who state lies, misinformation or strawman arguments about my list.
9. My list as archived at WUWT has always included the note, "The papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." thus no one made me aware of anything and the list's title has been further clarified to prevent any further confusion.
10. I have made various corrections and clarifications to the list but none of them have to do with any of the lies you have stated here.
11. I do not allow websites to violate my copyright and plagiarize my work.
12. I see you posted a link to the incompetent "ITsNotNova" I suggest reading my detailed refutation to his nonsense - Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion".
Hey Dook, that is a dishonest ad hominem as I believe there is such a thing as climate science and we have no association with the fossil fuel industry.
Any of the the papers that include a (PDF) following the title can be read for free online.
All Skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
I am out of space to reply to the lies and strawman arguments by Tevor. He is so ignorant that he does not even know that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in scholarly journals like Nature.
But they do not challenge AGW. It is a false list. Try finding one that challenges the mainstream theory. Every time somebody posts this list I look for a paper that challenges the theory and can't find one. This list is dishonest.
Today I randomly one from the "Gulf Stream" section; I thought that would be interesting. Then randomly clicked on one. It is a paper by Carl Wunsch that has nothing to do with AGW. It is about historic events.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...
We know Wunsch's views. He puts them on his personal website.
"I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component."
-- Carl Wunsch
OK. Let's try another. Sea Level section
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
New approaches raise questions about future sea level change
From the abstract ...
"Sea level integrates the effects of several critical aspects of global climate change such as global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, and the health of large ice sheets near the poles and smaller mountain glaciers at all latitudes. If we can confidently predict neither the likely locations of major coastal flooding next year, nor the height of mean sea level 100 years from now, we have a lot more work to do in understanding processes within and links between the atmosphere-ocean-solid Earth system."
How does that challenge the accepted theory that sea level is rising due to human activity? It doesn't.
So please explain what this list is other than many climatology papers by climatologist who all agree about the basics of AGW.
This is a great example of how some low-education people still don't believe in climate change. They don't read and they don't think. If some political operative says here's a list, denier idiots say "wow what a big list!" but never actually look at. There is no possible way somebody can claim to be a skeptic and accept this list as real.
Some quotes by other researchers included on this list, about this list
"Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
-- Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii
"This is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print."
-- Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University
"It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, 'This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'"
-- Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Perhaps you can explain what you think this list means, why you think it is important. Perhaps you can explain which of these papers actually challenges the mainstream theory. What do you think this list means?
I’ve looked at the first article in every one of the categories listed on the site you linked to and not a single one of them can be described as peer-reviewed paper that supports the skeptics arguments. Not one.
Whenever anyone makes such as claim as “1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm” I get suspicious. Instead of simply accepting the statement I investigate it myself.
I’m not going to review all 1,100+ articles, just the first one listed in each section. Here’s the reality:
GENERAL:
The first one is 33 years old and doesn’t even dispute climate change. The author is Sherwood Idso who is paid by Exxon to lie about global warming.
ANTARCTICA:
The first article in this category isn’t peer reviewed at all, it’s a letter in a journal, and in any event, it’s not remotely skeptical of global warming.
ARCTIC:
This one’s not a peer reviewed study either, it’s got nothing to do with global warming.
CLOUDS:
Written by Richard Lindzen, no scientific qualifications at all, paid by Exxon via 5 organisations to lie about global warming.
CORAL REEFS:
Contrary to the claim made, this work accepts that global warming is real but cautions against over-reacting.
DEATHS:
Neither accepts nor rejects global warming, the study concludes that extreme heat now kills more people than it used to but doesn’t blame it one global warming.
DISEASES:
Not a peer reviewed article, it’s a letter to a journal.
ECOLOGICAL:
Again, it’s another letter to a journal. A 38 year old letter written before the current onset of global warming.
GLACIERS:
The article fully accepts that global warming is real but suggests that other factors have contributed to the decline in ice-cover on Kilimanjaro.
GREENLAND:
Again, not remotely skeptical of global warming.
GULF STREAM:
Once again, the article isn’t skeptical about global warming, it offers an alternative as to how thermohaline circulation may be affected.
HOCKEY STICK:
The first article isn’t even to do with global warming.
MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD:
Again, nothing to do with global warming.
ROMAN WARMING:
Yet another one that has nothing to do with global warming.
OCEAN ACIFIFICATION:
Another letter in a journal, not peer-reviewed, not remotely skeptical of global warming
PERMAFROST:
Once again, not at all skeptical about global warming
POLAR BEARS:
Far from being skeptical about global warming, this article warns of the dangers of it
SEA LEVELS:
Nothing to do with global warming, all about sea-levels in the past.
SPECIES EXTINCTION:
First link has nothing there so used the second link, this clearly states that the authors accept global warming is happening.
The authors, none of which have any scientific credentials, seem to have cobbled together a random list of letters and journal articles that relate in some way to the climate, often there’s no mention of global warming at all. Many of them aren’t peer-reviewed, some are nothing more than letters, some even pre-date the onset of global warming.
In terms of a list of skeptical papers this list is about as bad as it could get, it’s almost as if it’s been put together to humiliate the skeptics. There are genuine peer-reviewed papers that are skeptical about global warming, some of them are very well known and yet they’re not even listed. Anyone with so much as a passing interest in the climates will be aware of these papers, so why weren’t they on the list. Any rational person would be forced to conclude that the authors don’t have so much as a clue what they’re talking about.
- - - - - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS
Not enough space here to answer your further questions, you may wish to post separate questions which I will be pleased to answer for you:
? How much warming is anthropogenic
? Why have we had cooling recently
? Is there a linear relationship between CO2 and temp
? What other factors affect climate
May I respectfully suggest you read my answers instead of believing the nonsense proffered by the extremist deniers. That way you’ll see that I am the first to admit there is much we don’t know about climate change, that it has many benefits, that many people will be unaffected by it etc.
Sceptics and denialists are two very different creatures. Sceptics accept global warming because it is actually happening. Denialists are just morons
Um, disturbing.
Baccheus..................You may want to check the link titled: 'Rebuttals to Criticisms'. It (and subordinate links) offer explanations for inclusion of certain specific papers.
I am not endorsing the credibility of the list, as I have not yet drilled into it, but they offer an explanation of the criteria used to include a paper in 'the list'.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
We have had lots of recycled anti-science from "populartechnology.net" in past "questions" here. This is just another installment of reshoveled climate science denial from that cesspool of dumbed-down fossil fuel industry lies. It's a crappy copy of Wattsup.
1100+ ....... wow , thats outrageous.
Did you read any or did you just regurgitate what someone else made up?
You know .....REALLY read ........ pay the $30 - 40 to buy the paper & read it
I guess there is a question in there someplace. I don't exactly see it, so I must assume that an opinion is wanted.
It is refreshing to see that some people know how to lay out evidence. So many greenies take opinions as evidence, or worse even fact.
I can now see the tsunami of PT bashing. "An obscure site.", "Who?", "Irrelevant, don't look there." and so on. That is all the greenies have in their bag of tricks. An honest presentation of the facts and conclusions is most welcome.
Just look at Trevor:
He has this mantra of knocking anything truthful.
1. It is old. (So what? Science didn't start yesterday. Water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level. It did back 33 years ago and even before that. True science is ageless.)
2. Doesn't dispute Climate Change. Ha! Ha! That is such a phony argument that it is ridiculous for a person to put that on this site. We are adults here, not grade school children.
A. If Trevor could only remember back 33 years. There was no official Climate Change. The greenies were coming out of an Ice Age and changing over to GW. Ha! Ha! So it didn't debunk something that didn't exist.
B. No one has bothered to define Climate Change in a scientific or legal way. How can you dispute something which doesn't exist even to this day?
Now we get to the crux of the matter, Sherwood Idso is paid by Exxon. So automatically that makes him a liar. Then he states he is paid to lie. Well prove it! At least I proved you a liar BEFORE calling you one. You aren't even man enough to acknowledge that.
We could go on but it just proves greenies live off of claims, while true scientists live off of science and facts.
Thanks I bookmarked it.
