800 peer reviewed papers to deny
Counting papers is not science, but it’s a hell of a way to show just how counterfeit the line is that “deniers” deny the evidence.
The PopularTechnology list of peer reviewed papers is still growing and is up to 800 now. After thousands of sneering believers have ridiculed skeptics because “what-ever-you-say hasn’t been peer reviewed“, when they are given a list of hundreds of peer reviewed references, do they suddenly appear gracious, discover polite conversation and show an interest in the evidence? Not so. Instead, the sneer shifts gear, and attack the list of 800 papers because some of the papers are only a correction, an erratum, a submission (unpublished), a comment, an addendum, or a reply. And that’s a bluff too. Because if they had actually counted the list they’d know that there are a more items on the list than 800. The guys at PopularTech keep those not-peer-reviewed-but-valuable parts of the scientific conversation in the list, they just don’t count them. So this list is really 800 peer reviewed references plus other supporting material.
Naomi Oreskes claimed that the consensus was so solid that 100% of the peer reviewed papers published supported the AGW hypothesis. She was wrong. (Thanks to Eddy’s comment).
The number of peer reviewed papers doesn’t tell us about the climate around the Earth, but it tells us about the climate of politics-power-and-PR here on Earth. Half of the people at the party won’t even admit the other half have something to say.
There are many ways to shut down conversations and stop people discussing “the evidence”. Calling them names is one. Then there’s bluster, bullying, and just repeating the same untruth ad nauseaum.
Who are the deniers now?
in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
…
For random trivia (and I do mean trivia), some of the names appear multiple times. Apologies to the greats I’ve left off this ad hoc collection.
Idso = 72 (Both Sherwood and Craig), Lindzen = 22, Spencer = 6, Douglass = 14, McIntyre = 9. McKitrick = 17, de Freitas = 10, Carter 10, Michaels = 29, Soon = 23, Baliunas = 17, Pielke Jr 13, Pielke Sr 16.
One point to draw from this are the Idso’s, who’ve been working for skeptical science, and fighting for empirical evidence since at least the mid seventies. Craig Idso runs CO2science, a fabulous resource for anything to do with the Medieval warm period, Co2’s effect on plant growth, and ocean acidification. The Idso’s deserve a loooong round of applause, and so do the guys at PopTech. This list is an excellent resource.
“The inclusion of a paper in the Pop tech list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors”.
Lets compile our favourite top ten papers?
(If you could only take ten papers to a debate with someone from the Big Scare Campaign, which ones would you take?)
UPDATE
Rereke replies: I would take ten writs for theft of public money, made out in the names of the “top eight” players in the hockey team – plus the two nauseous Nobel Prize winners.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Posted on
August 4th, 2010 under
Global Warming • Tags: Oreskes (Naomi), peer reviewed papers, Popular Tech.
• 
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• RSS 2.0 feed
• Leave a response, or trackback
August 4th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Endorsement by friendly members of a Mutual Adoration Society is peer review. It does lack a lot of authenticity.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
5
August 4th, 2010 at 5:40 am
To rise above the fray, it is necessary to not stoop to tactics that may be employed by either side to jade the issue.
The facts stand on their own merit, no matter who supports or champions them. Adhering to scientific principles of discovery, elucidation and dissemination will (eventually) resolve the issue and demonstrate reality for all but the most obtuse to see clearly.
Those pioneering individuals that stand up against the pressure and the pain are to be commended, no matter what their position, as long as they do so with integrity and rigor.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 6:19 am
1Henry chance:
August 4th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Actually, the proponents of CAGW have claimed there isn’t any peer reviewed literature to support their claim that CAGW is nothing more than a falsified hypothesis. Naomi Oreskes claimed that the consensus was so solid that 100% of the peer reviewed papers published supported the AGW hypothesis. Seehttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686/ She was wrong. The CAGW hypothesis has more holes in it than an Al Gore alibi.
The “mutual adoration society” so clearly evidenced by the climategate emails has been smashed, thank God! The climate cabal was so keen on protecting their tax funded gravy train that they were willing to do almost anything to keep papers that challenged their position from being published that they were willing to “redefine the peer review process.”
How the worm has turned!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
5
August 4th, 2010 at 7:11 am
I would take ten writs for theft of public money, made out in the names of the “top eight” players in the hockey team – plus the two nauseous Nobel Prize winners.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
August 4th, 2010 at 7:12 am
#3 Eddy Aruda:
This used to be called, “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 7:25 am
You know they will just repeat the same old Argument from Authority: ”
Your peers aren’t as good as mine” For evidence see any posts that reference publishing in Energy and Environment (EE).
For the Warmists it won’t matter! If the message is “no AGW” they won’t believe it. This means the message must be to the masses and politicians.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Nah! Unless all of ‘em were reviewed either by Michael Mann or Phil Jones they ain’t no good!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 9:34 am
In an Australian context, with a carbon price imminent, do any of these peer reviewed papers tackle the question of the role of CO2 in the atmospheric temperature changing process (ideally from a perspective of the basic physics/chemistry of the energy exchange mechanisms in play)? If so then shouldn’t this information be put in the hands of our various politicians so they have the opportunity to reach properly informed decisions on the merits of a carbon price/ETS/CPRS?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 9:40 am
But I see the “experts” are leg tripping themselves lately. Tamino’s attempt to discredit Andrew Montford’s book ( The Hockey Stick Illusion ) has drawn heated debate , including attempts to rubbish Judith Curry , who has been trying to tell them on Real Climate to at least read the book as it raises important issues.
Steve McIntyre outlines how they ( Schmitt and co.) have ended admitting that Mann did get it wrong with the Tiljander data.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/
Also on Judith Curry ( looks like she is being dropped a few Xmas card lists )
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am
John Watt:
You make the assumption here that politicians make decisions based upon evidence-based policies rather than policy-based evidence. People hear what they want to hear just as scientists will find what they are paid to find. Given that the amount of money thrown at AGW in it’s various guises severely dwarfs money examining the counter case, it is to be expected that the number of peer reviewed papers supporting AGW dwarfs that which does not. But it only takes one finding to disprove a hypothesis… 100 confirming it doth not make it so. In that way science is on the side of the evidence, not the quantity of peer reviewed papers.
But I digress… politicians are for the most part not interested in the facts, except when they support their political stance.
Take the Australian experience for example. I expect that Tony Abbott, deep down, truly believes that CAGW is “crap”, to borrow his word. But he knows that he will lose the election if he comes out and says it loudly. So he puts aside the ETS concept and says he will tackle environmental issues directly with his “Green Army.” This is how politicians operate… they tell people whatever they think they want to hear, but far more importantly, they don’t tell people what they don’t want to hear.
People are not ready to hear that the AGW belief system was largely “crap.” They would feel betrayed if they were aware of the truth, and in their anger they would even shoot the messenger… that is assuming the Greens didn’t lynch him first.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Which just shows what a basket case climate ’science’ actually is. Anyone who dares question the ‘consensus’ becomes a pariah.
This is the kind of dogmatism to be expected from an 5th century religious order, not a 21st century scientific community.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 10:20 am
For my 2c: I think the claim of ‘no AGW’ is a mistake. The sceptic or realist argument should be ‘no catastrophic AGW’. That is where the warmist argument is devoid of evidence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Perhaps the most remarkable thing would be if these papers were NOT included in the IPCC reports.
Such an omission would indicate that either:
1. The reports are ALL rubbish, or
2. That the IPCC is a political organisation with a predetermined agenda.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide which one it is.
Cheers,
Speedy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Speedy #13:
That’s easy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can be nothing other than political.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Bernd
I’m tending to option #2 as well, given that some of these papers have been around for more than 10 years and should have had plenty of time for consideration.
It’s also a bit of a giveaway when the IPCC publishes its summary document for policy makers several months before the main body of the scientific report is finished. It’s almost as though they know exactly what the scientists are going to recommend!?
Cheers,
Speedy
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Bulldust:
Abbott was talking about the science of AGW. It’s unlikely that the voting public would take the time to grasp the subtlety. His policy on the AGW issue reflects your view that the voters are not ready for the defrocking of Gore and Co.
However it is worthwhile to confront all colours of politicians with any peer reviewed material that addresses the real role of CO2 in the climate change process. My local apparatchik regularly hides behind the peer-review banner when confronted by John Nicol’s unfashionable greenhouse analysis.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
August 4th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
The following article giving a view / analysis of the current political situation on the AGW issue in the USA drew some “interesting” comments from the pro AGW crowd. Its almost as if they don’t want to be aware of the political realities.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/28/climate-change-movement-harry-reid-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Oreskes has her own serious credibility problems regarding her infamous article published in Science in 2004. Why haven’t
the editors of Science responded to the reams of questions over this travesty? Just remember, Donald Kennedy was the
editor of Science at that time, and Kennedy had his own credibility problems when he was president of Stanford University.
Reading anything by Oreskes is, a priori, a waste of time.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Thanks again to Pierre for translating this interview where Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
August 4th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Peer-review system must be scrapped if ethical and true science is to move forward. The current system needs an expert in the field to approve the science but any new science then cannot be reviewed as who are the experts?
To turn down science due to protecting the current system and the current “old boys”, is just creating more educated idiots to replace the current ones.
If the current scientists do not know the true basic mechanics of a circle, how can they understand the mechanics of a planet?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
August 5th, 2010 at 12:59 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chemicallygreen and chemicallygreen, johnnyA99. johnnyA99 said: 800 peer reviewed papers to deny http://bit.ly/c5MIPC via JoNova #climate #green #duh [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 5th, 2010 at 5:05 am
Lord Jim @ 12;
Sir Jim, I don’t have a problem with your suggestion. However, amongst the skeptics there are some that still have a problem with the historical temperature records. I don’t like to concede anything to the Warmists. Because of that I’ll continue using AGW.
Also, it wouldn’t matter if I said GW, AGW or CAGW. In the vernacular of a warmist “warming” of any kind is man caused and likely catastrophic. To the skeptic there is still room for a lot of interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
August 5th, 2010 at 6:12 am
My grandfather (and Henry Ford) said if someone tells you they are an expert they are not.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
August 5th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@ Ross #17
Thanks for the link to Forbes. Chief amongst the whiners was are old chum Spaerica. I could see in my minds eye the tears falling on her keyboard as she hammered away.
Here is a bit of her wailing:
Well, she is committed. On the other hand, perhaps she should be committed?!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
1
August 5th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Yet ANOTHER GREEN CON by gillard and the communist federal labor government!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_sickens_voters_with_her_waste/
DON’T LET JOOLYA FOOLYA IN 2010
Remember a vote for The Greens IS a vote for labor and a carbon tax based on FRAUD, which will only make the cost of living UNAFFORDABLE!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
August 5th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Re: Bulldust, #10: “Evidence-based policy vs. policy-based evidence”. Brilliant phrasing. Mind if I poach it for correspondence with warmist politicians?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
August 6th, 2010 at 4:33 am
Fire away Patrick… they are just words, but I probably got the idea eslewhere… not sure who to attribute.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
August 6th, 2010 at 7:03 am
“It’s also a bit of a giveaway when the IPCC publishes its summary document for policy makers several months before the main body of the scientific report is finished. It’s almost as though they know exactly what the scientists are going to recommend!?”
Because the scientific report was already largely finished.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
August 6th, 2010 at 8:28 am
“largely finished” means that the conclusions weren’t written yet. The politicians at the IPCC wanted to write the “correct” conclusions and not depend on the scientists who might actually show some integrity. This has been reported by several authors, some of whom resigned from the IPCC and even asked that their names be removed as authors, because of the manipulation done by the political hacks who wrote the summary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
[...] LINK AKPC_IDS += "3312,";Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet) Loading … [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
AGW believers will just move the goalpost with absurd rationalizations.That is all they have left.
They also prefer lobbing ad homonyms at the writers of the papers,rather than to find what is wrong with them.That is because they know they have nothing else to lob at us with that is rational.
Naomi Oresked consensus claims are absurd,stupid and irrelevent.We know perfectly well there are a good number of accredited scientists who have spoken out against the AGW hypothesis early on.I recall Dr. Lindzen being disturbed about the AGW nonsense back in the late 1980’s.I recall Dr. Michaels arguments against the early Hansen modeling bromides in the early 1990’s.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0