450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Thu, 29/10/2009 - 22:35
This huge list is here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
I've just checked a couple.
This one caught my eye:
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf
which has these 4 charts:
Compare those charts with official IPCC charts.
First what the IPCC is using for the past 1000 years:
and
from: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
and then the IPCC projection based on those:
from:
IPCC Slides
http://www.grida.no/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/slides/index.htm
This is the biggest so called scientific disgrace in history.
I think jail is too good for those responsible.
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 11:58
#2
Wow, more heated debate
Here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TJRORRMAB129FSARD
This is obviously a very controversial subject.
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:00
#3
Back to the randi thread
I like this post:
Quote:
Indeed, DATA is what matters. And it is in the arena of DATA that "climate science" has been a dismal, abject failure.However, if you look at the SKEPTICAL papers in climate science, you will find the data is clearly and honestly presented - available in an archive in full, immdediately downloadable from the internet. Yes, these are the papers in Poptech's list.
Now, if you go to the OTHER papers, those "mainstream climate science" papers, or to put it bluntly, the papers that JREF WARMERS FAVOR, we find curiously, that there oftentimes is a BIG PROBLEM with data availability or integrity.
Only one of dozens of such examples...
Yamal and the Divergence Problem
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7320hahaha...LIKE those CAPITAL letters?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5220484&postcount=99
Because this is what I have seen.
I've watched the climate audit process, and have seen really careful auditing going on. This is in stark contrast to what is being audited, which as this poster says, lacks credibility.
Now why is that?
This is a question on the climate audit thread:
Quote:
Kuzbad:
October 7th, 2009 at 10:20 amHello,
Realize this is offtopic for this thread, so please feel free to move this post as needed.
You've done a great job highlighting many deficiencies in archiving, sharing, and openness by many climate scientists. My question is the reverse of this–are there are any scientists or papers (maybe even ones who have worked with The Team?) that are exemplars? Papers with open data, open methods, and full archiving? Scientists who both talk the talk and walk the walk? Examples of the way things SHOULD be for everybody working in a scientific field and publishing papers?
I think it would be very interesting to see some examples of papers or scientists who do chose to do the Right Thing!
-Kuz
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:15
#4
Finally by post 188, a mention of science
Quote:
I'm still skeptical that the climate is already on rails to catastrophe, and it's the humans' fault.Maybe CO2 from fossil fuels is the primary cause of the warming trend over the past century, and maybe it isn't.
Maybe the warming trend will continue, and maybe it won't.
If the warming trend does continue, maybe it will lead to the end of life as we know it, and maybe it won't.
Frankly, the whole argument-from-authority tack in this thread is unconvincing either way. Peer review, or publication in Nature, is not the sole criterion of scientific truth. A peer-reviewed paper in Nature can still be false, and a note on a napkin can still be true. The attempt to short-circuit discussion by implying that the sheer weight of "authoritative" opinion makes it unnecessary is intellectually lazy.
Since fossil fuels are finite, and may soon be exhausted, it seems like good policy to encourage the development of alternatives, independent of whether or not one regards AGW as settled science.
How about a heat pump that generates electricity by converting atmospheric and oceanic heat energy into flowing electrons? Then even if AGW was true, it would only mean we'd filled our own reservoir with the energy of the future.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5221311&postcount=118
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:19
#5
Finally a positive repsonse
on here:
http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=482.0
It's amazing how many people just slam something.
I thought that was a great list. Divided into categories.
Very useful, and a lot of work.
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:20
#6
Those who want to control you
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
I see smear tactics as the usual reaction to things like this. So far I see no actual scientific debate, or discussion of the science. Only the usual smearing of the sources.
Here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156813
Here is PT response as to sources:
This is also interesting:
Your friendly host. Got Climategate news? Email climategate.scandal at gmail.com