Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:

**Hartlepool** · 24-04-2008 02:29 PM

Or laid on their backs in a clover meadow at night looking at the universe?

If not,better go and do it tonight because the fields are all full of clipo types,stargazing is part of the treatment they all undergo in the CC/MMGW Temple of Loons.

**Clippo** · 24-04-2008 08:29 PM

George wrote:-

And? Is 'libertarian' a bad thing per se?

Oh very very definitely !!!

You've sadly missed the point of this list of peer reviewed papers. It has been compiled by a member of a Libertarian (i.e. extreme right wing US) think tank which was a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition - google that in wiki and see who fellow travellers are/were.

My point about many of the ideas being debunked followed from a quick scan where I saw from the titles things like 'it was the sun wot did it' and 'cosmic rays are to blame' and so on - these are largely the tedious attempts at disinformation and doubt by Libertarian AGW denialists which have been debunked time and time again by the serious scientific community.

Since you have a penchant for this sort of thing, George, perhaps you could survey how many peer reviewed scientific papers have been published in the same period which are in favour of AGW.

Nancy Oreskes studies would be a good starting point.

**Clippo** · 24-04-2008 08:43 PM

Furthermore, George, I would suggest you read the summaries of many of the quoted papers and try to understand exactly what the researchers are claiming - which may be very subtely different to the II claims.

I see from the early papers that 'Millenial scale' warming (& cooling) episodes are identified from ice core analysis - but bear in mind our current warming phase is believed by most of the researchers who have actually made the measurements to be 'decadal'. You understand the difference I presume.

And I see the hoary old 'CO2 lag' argument, so favoured by TTGWS, is quoted.

You've been hornswoggled

**BenjC** · 24-04-2008 10:11 PM

Libertarian (i.e. extreme right wing US)

...... wow...... just wow.

I can't believe you've just equated libertarianism with the extreme right wing, I've always thought you were just a bit deluded but surely, surely you're not so stupid as to not know what a libertarian is?

You'll probably find the majority of contributors to this forum consider themselves libertarian.

**Poptech** · 25-04-2008 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Clippo

It has been compiled by a member of a Libertarian (i.e. extreme right wing US) think tank

No it has been compiled by me.

These ideas have not been debunked as valid science supports them. There is extensive evidence for a sun-climate connection:

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
A Critique on the Lockwood/Frochlich Paper in the Royal Society Proceedings (Ken Gregory, B.A.Sc. Mechanical Engineering)
Shining More Light on the Solar Factor: A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology)
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Science Daily)
Another Possible Climate Culprit: the Sun (The New York Times)
Basic physics supports solar activity as cause of global warming (The Guardian, UK)
Brightening Sun is Warming Earth (Harvard University Gazette)
Canadian Climatologist Says Sun Causing Global Warming (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (Science Daily)
Climate History and the Sun (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas Ph.D. Astrophysics, Willie Soon Ph.D.)
Cosmic Rays and Climate (The Danish National Space Center)
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Cosmic Rays 'Linked to Clouds' (BBC)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (Science Daily)
Cosmic Rays may solve global warming problem (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Cosmoclimatology: A new theory of climate change (The Danish National Space Center)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (Science Daily)
Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Part 1 (Anthony Watts. Meteorologist)
Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Part 2 (Anthony Watts. Meteorologist)
First Eurocongress on the Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate (Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Sherwood B. Idso, Eric S. Posmentier)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (Science Daily)
Flickering sun switched climate (Nature)
Fluctuations in the Sun may be changing climate (The Times, UK)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (Science Daily)
Exploding Stars Influence Climate Of Earth (Space Daily)
Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth's climate (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
It's the Sun, Stupid (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Science Daily)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (Science Daily)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (Science Daily)
Read the sunspots (Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (Science Daily)
Scientists blame sun for global warming (BBC)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (Science Daily)
Solar blow to low cloud could be warming planet (Nature News)
Solar Changes and the Climate (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Solar cycle drives ocean temperatures, study says (USA Today)
Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Solar Variability and Climate Change (Willie Soon, Ph.D.)
Sun more active than for a millennium (NewScientist)
Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says (CNSNews)
Sun still main force in climate change (WorldNetDaily)
Sun to Blame for Global Warming (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (Space.com)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Science Daily)
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold (NewScientist)
Sun's magnetic flip affects cosmic ray penetration (USA Today)
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming (Space.com)

**Poptech** · 25-04-2008 02:50 AM

Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (Science Daily)
Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated' (BBC)
Sunspots: correlations with temperature (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
The Solar to Global Warming Connection (Jim Goodridge, Retired State Climatologist)
The Sun Also Warms (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Willie Soon Ph.D.)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (Science Daily)
The Sun and Global Warming (NASA)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (Science Daily)
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change (BBC)
Why So Hot? Don't Blame Man, Blame the Sun (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics)

Originally Posted by Clippo

Nancy Oreskes studies would be a good starting point.

Oreskes study has been debunked and is worthless.

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)

Originally Posted by Benny Peiser

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

**mkpdavies** · 25-04-2008 09:17 AM

Looks like the envirofascists will sink to any level to try and get their way.

Each time they are exposed as the liars and cheats they are, the more their agenda becomes clear.

**Clippo** · 25-04-2008 09:35 AM

Poptech wrote:-

There is extensive evidence for a sun-climate connection.

Historically yes there is - but not for the current phase of GW. Satellite studies have shown conclusively only a minute change in the Sun's output over the last 2-3 decades. Refer to the IPCC reports for scientific fact on this.

However, curious at your seemingly impressive list of references to support your case I glanced down it and guess what ? we find the names Soon, Baliunas, Milloy (of Junkscience fame), Patterson - all well known contrarians whose theories have been debunked by the mainstream science.
Added to your list are many media articles which probably 2nd generation pieces from the flawed Solar / GW theorists. And then we have the usual crackpots from outside the mainstream Climate science fields.

Worried that I may have indeed been mistaken all along, I looked intensively at reference #6 in your first list attributed to the Guardian. (The Guardian publishing something so heretical ?????). What do I find ? Actually it's a letter from a reader. And guess who ?? why it's our old meteorologist crackpot Piers Corbyn.

I need say no more on the this topic.

As regards Nancy Oreskes' research, you are living in a parallel universe.

The deniers did try some time back to cast doubt ( their favourite tactic) on her research methods but their arguments were blown out of the water comprehensively. By your own printed admission, Science magazine refused to print Benny Peiser's 'research' - probably because it was so flawed it didn't get through initial peer-review.

**Hartlepool** · 25-04-2008 09:43 AM

Thank you Poptech for your posts #15 and #16,they are very welcome here and extremely informative.

As you will be aware,the pro Climate Change and MMGW fanatics are hell bent on dissing anything and everything that disproves or disagrees with their idea of things,your posts are perfect proof that these people are wrong in most of what they push on the subject.

Thanks.

**Poptech** · 25-04-2008 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Clippo

Historically yes there is - but not for the current phase of GW. Satellite studies have shown conclusively only a minute change in the Sun's output over the last 2-3 decades. Refer to the IPCC reports for scientific fact on this.

The IPCC is not scientific fact but merely an interpretation of some of the body of scientific work on this. There is still disagreement on this and I clearly linked to this.

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)

...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]

When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]

...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]

The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

Originally Posted by Clippo

However, curious at your seemingly impressive list of references to support your case I glanced down it and guess what ? we find the names Soon, Baliunas, Milloy (of Junkscience fame), Patterson - all well known contrarians whose theories have been debunked by the mainstream science. Added to your list are many media articles which probably 2nd generation pieces from the flawed Solar / GW theorists. And then we have the usual crackpots from outside the mainstream Climate science fields. Worried that I may have indeed been mistaken all along, I looked intensively at reference #6 in your first list attributed to the Guardian. (The Guardian publishing something so heretical ?????). What do I find ? Actually it's a letter from a reader. And guess who ?? why it's our old meteorologist crackpot Piers Corbyn.

Yes of course you can continue to call them names it does not change their scientific background such as Astrophysicists, I mean what would they know about the Sun?

Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics
Sallie Baliunas, M.A. Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Of course any rational person can decide for themselves. And the others are Scientists as well:

Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology

People can make up their own minds.

Originally Posted by Clippo

As regards Nancy Oreskes' research, you are living in a parallel universe.

The deniers did try some time back to cast doubt ( their favourite tactic) on her research methods but their arguments were blown out of the water comprehensively. By your own printed admission, Science magazine refused to print Benny Peiser's 'research' - probably because it was so flawed it didn't get through initial peer-review.

Really? Answer this question did Oreskes use the search term "Climate Change" or "Global Climate Change"? He was so wrong that she was forced to write a correction to this.

Thread: Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Extensive Evidence for a Sun Climate Connection

Oreskes Study is debunked and worthless

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions