abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It's one of several studies which compiles thousands of studies regarding the subject.
Deniers are having trouble linking anything. I linked peer reviewed studies about peer reviewed studies.
I thought you guys were "winning"...?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Deniers are having trouble linking anything. I linked peer reviewed studies about peer reviewed studies.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Are people still trying to state that the "97% meta-analysis" means 97% of scientists overall?
It was 97% of the 30-odd percent that actually took a definitive position.
Seriously as I've said before, I don't believe in ACC as it's described, it's too dramatic and the data-sets have little predictive value BUT if it can be a vehicle for ensuring huge new research grants for National Institutes of Science then I'm happy enough (carbon taxes are just bullshit anyways).
But lying about the 97% does more harm to your side than anything the anti-side could do or say.
It was 97% of the 30-odd percent that actually took a definitive position.
Seriously as I've said before, I don't believe in ACC as it's described, it's too dramatic and the data-sets have little predictive value BUT if it can be a vehicle for ensuring huge new research grants for National Institutes of Science then I'm happy enough (carbon taxes are just bullshit anyways).
But lying about the 97% does more harm to your side than anything the anti-side could do or say.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What problem? Our Orbit. That's a tough one.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, the physics are well known....in a bell jar. Those are the only experiment that have been done, to my knowledge....very small and static experiments.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for something peer reviewed concluding that man is not the cause of climate change. So far all I hear is that "it's just a theory".
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmismhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Counting
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Koch brothers! Heritage! Racist!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The papers on the list argue against alarmism. Basically they don't conclude anything.
This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. 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 Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well then it should not be hard to cite one study that supports the skeptic argument. Just one study, not an article that is not peer reviewed claiming there are hundreds of studies, one study.
travisw
Well-Known Member
He's cited his little shit stain of a site before. If I remember correctly, 1 guy wrote 70 of the papers and the funding comes from Exon or something. Given the criticisms he levied against the cite you supplied, it's certainly an interesting, if not absolutely retarded way to go for a rebuttal.
They are apparently anti weed on popular technology too.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/04/150-scientific-studies-showing-dangers.html
Classic Beenthere.
The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So in other words, he cited fuck all...
Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading. ISI Highly Cited Researchers such as Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen will naturally be well represented on the list. It has been independently verified by Needlebase that there are over 1500 unique authors on the list.
Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so.
The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, I supplied 3 citations. 1 was to an article which put forth an argument as to why consensus matters, the other two were peer reviewed studies, each of which compiled thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject and pointed to a vast majority of those which were conclusive supporting man made climate change.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So then.
It should be easy to find ONE peer reviewed study supporting the denial position and not simply an inconclusive study which "doesn't support alarmism".
What does that have to do with Global climate change?
Did you look at the list?
Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury
A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden
Science does not support consensus' on climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)
- Henry R. Linden
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
I only went through a few of the THOUSANDS of papers provided.
You didn't look at the list.