The purpose of this informal project was to determine if skeptics are publishing real evidence that contradicts global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-p...Part2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/case-aga...part3.html

Quote:Science progresses through the peer-reviewed literature; unless an idea, theory, or interpretation is reported in a peer-reviewed journal, it is just someone’s unsubstantiated opinion. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not ensure that an author’s arguments will stand the test of time, but rather that they have been scrutinized by experts and judged to represent a contribution to science that others in the field can benefit from knowing about.

Quote:Instead of starting with the literature, I began with a list of over 100 skeptics who have or give the impression they have scientific expertise. For example, Christopher Monckton, despite his lack of scientific credentials, gives talks in which he takes on the guise of a scientist. Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist, blogs about complicated scientific matters. George Will, in contrast, while acting as though he knows more than scientists, does not pretend to be one. I include Monckton and Watts, but not Will.

Quote:Note that some skeptics tend to publish with others: Baliunas with Soon; Balling with the Idsos; etc. So the total number of papers is somewhat less than the total obtained from adding the numbers for each skeptic.

The point of this exercise is not just the number of papers, but what they say and whether they make a case against human-caused global warming. In subsequent posts, I will offer what I regard as the "takeaways" from these papers.

hmmmm:

Quote:70% of those listed have no scientific publications that deny or cast substantial doubt on global warming. This list includes such outspoken and media-promoted skeptics as Joe Bastardi, Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Christopher Monckton, Jo Nova, Ian Plimer, Matt Ridley, and S. Fred Singer. Why don't they write up their argument and submit it to a scientific journal?


None of the papers provides the “killer argument,” the one devastating fact that would falsify human-caused global warming. The best they can do is claim that sensitivity is low, which they have been unable to substantiate and which much evidence contradicts. If as the skeptics claim, human-caused global warming is wrong, why can’t they show it is wrong?


None of the papers explains the observed, concomitant rise in fossil fuel emissions, atmospheric CO2, and global temperatures. Attempts in some papers to blame the the sun are falsified because as temperature has risen, solar activity has remained about the same, or even declined.

Even though this is just a blog post, and in no way a formal review, it gives you a very good idea of where many of these well known skeptics are coming from. Most of them aren't trying to back up their position with positive evidence. Instead, many seem to rely on finding the 1 paper out of 1000 that they can raise criticisms about, in an attempt to cast doubt on the other 999. Nice job going after the low hanging fruit. It's about as honest of a strategy as me claiming that all Republicans are corrupt because Nixon was a Republican. It's the argument that Climategate was based on. It's a logical fallacy.

These people don't seem interested in conducting serious research, they just want to convince you to go along with their agenda. A simple Google search shows that many of the (7) people in question who have published more than a few papers have received funding from fossil fuel companies, or publishing results in low quality journals. That certainly does more to bring the character of these people into doubt than the phantom liberal group that is paying off hundreds of thousands of researchers.

This is my question: Do you really think that a small group of questionable researchers, politicians, and bloggers are making a strong case that AGW is a bunch of horsesh!t? I know that a lot of you claim that AGW has been debunked, but I'm not seeing it. These researchers have the means; it's not like journals are turning them down. Why aren't they publishing more in an effort to change the consensus? Why aren't they trying to conduct good science by replicating their results?

Could it be that all they really want is to create just enough fuel to keep the fire going?

Disclaimer: This thread is not meant to serve as evidence for AGW.

lol

(11-28-2013 10:09 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  lol

You win.

Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles do not mean what you suggest. The lack of articles does not mean they are wrong.

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles does not mean they are wrong.

Peer review is supposed to be a mechanism for quality control, and the standard of quality demanded varies by journal.

(11-28-2013 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:09 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  lol

You win.

lol

(11-28-2013 10:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles does not mean they are wrong.

I disagree. Peer review is not a strong barrier.

How many peer reviewed articles have you published in, say, the last two years?

(11-28-2013 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles does not mean they are wrong.

I disagree. Peer review is not a strong barrier.

How many peer reviewed articles have you published in, say, the last two years?

How does that matter? BTW it's one, with two recently submitted.

What I'm saying is that peer review doesn't really guarantee that the significant results someone found are valid or reliable.

(11-28-2013 10:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles does not mean they are wrong.

I disagree. Peer review is not a strong barrier.

How many peer reviewed articles have you published in, say, the last two years?

How does that matter? BTW it's one, with two recently submitted.

What I'm saying is that peer review doesn't really guarantee that the significant results someone found are valid or reliable.

So if peer review is meaningless, why does the original point about peer reviewed articles matter? And for the record, my numbers are 7 with two more pending.

. . . real evidence that contradicts global warming.

Your whole proposition is sort of a mess. If global warming is a fraud and a sham, it's virtually impossible to provide evidence that contradicts something that doesn't exist. It's a similar exercise to proving a negative.

and then, even if it wasn't possible to disprove global warming, that is not proof of global warming.

. . . And besides, the cool kids call it "global climate change" these days.

(11-28-2013 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Galileo and Copernicus couldn't get published in the peer reviewed journals of their day. Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

This is not to say that the skeptics are right. But their numbers of peer reviewed articles does not mean they are wrong.

I disagree. Peer review is not a strong barrier.

How many peer reviewed articles have you published in, say, the last two years?

How does that matter? BTW it's one, with two recently submitted.

What I'm saying is that peer review doesn't really guarantee that the significant results someone found are valid or reliable.

So if peer review is meaningless, why does the original point about peer reviewed articles matter? And for the record, my numbers are 7 with two more pending.

Replication of results. Skeptics aren't having their ideas suppressed, and they aren't replicating or finding evidence for alternate hypotheses. Peer review acts as a filter, but not so much so that there's no room to rock the boat. It's actually kind of a problem in some fields that too many people are trying to publish new and exciting studies with significant findings that aren't replicated.

So a non-rigorous, non-peer reviewed summary, written by an openly biased author is supposed to mean something?

Especially when it's regarding the lack of "positive evidence" to dismiss a hypothesis?

No one would publish this nonsense since it's just another example of cherry picked evidence. More demonstration that the catastrophists have no understanding of logic.

The skeptics are reviewing the "science".

(11-28-2013 10:31 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:09 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  lol

You win.

lol

Hahaha

(11-29-2013 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So a non-rigorous, non-peer reviewed summary, written by an openly biased author is supposed to mean something?

Especially when it's regarding the lack of "positive evidence" to dismiss a hypothesis?

No one would publish this nonsense since it's just another example of cherry picked evidence. More demonstration that the catastrophists have no understanding of logic.

So now that we've established this, how about we dismiss everything that you post coming from climate skeptics?

(11-29-2013 03:12 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So a non-rigorous, non-peer reviewed summary, written by an openly biased author is supposed to mean something?

Especially when it's regarding the lack of "positive evidence" to dismiss a hypothesis?

No one would publish this nonsense since it's just another example of cherry picked evidence. More demonstration that the catastrophists have no understanding of logic.

So now that we've established this, how about we dismiss everything that you post coming from climate skeptics?

That you have to ask such a question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issues.

(11-29-2013 03:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:12 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So a non-rigorous, non-peer reviewed summary, written by an openly biased author is supposed to mean something?

Especially when it's regarding the lack of "positive evidence" to dismiss a hypothesis?

No one would publish this nonsense since it's just another example of cherry picked evidence. More demonstration that the catastrophists have no understanding of logic.

So now that we've established this, how about we dismiss everything that you post coming from climate skeptics?

That you have to ask such a question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issues.

You always fall back on the "you don't understand" argument. You should try posting something with substance sometime...

(11-29-2013 03:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You always fall back on the "you don't understand" argument. You should try posting something with substance sometime...

Says the guy who started this thread

Why is it my fault you're too ******* stupid to understand? Answer that before you go on.

(11-29-2013 03:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You always fall back on the "you don't understand" argument. You should try posting something with substance sometime...

Says the guy who started this thread

Why is it my fault you're too ******* stupid to understand? Answer that before you go on.

Quote:So a non-rigorous, non-peer reviewed summary, written by an openly biased author is supposed to mean something?

It's pretty ******* simple. Do you hold climate skeptics to the same standard or not? One of these days, you should stop being a d-bag and have a constructive discussion with someone.