Peer reviewed anti-MMGW papers
Discussion
Blib said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
Shirley, this is a good thing. If we went back thirty years, then the World would be cooler and we would all be saved?Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
No.The e-mails constitute probably only half of the stolen (your term, and substantiate if possible) documents in terms of data size.
For example, there is a 176 page document from expert and government reviewers concerning the 2007 4th Assessment of the IPCC Review (Working Group 1) where they all critically examine the narrative. Consensus is non-existent. I'm about 50 pages in so far, and will post some of the more juicy bits in due course.
Stevenj214 said:
Can the good people of Pistonheads provide me with links to any peer reviewed papers which argue against man made global warming?
The difficulty here is that those e-mails which were disclosed by a whistleblower show that the peer reviewed process has been interfered with to the extent that papers which argue against AGW were excluded, and indeed they went further and sought to ostracise a journal which begun printing journals which showed many flaws in the AGW process, going so far as to suggest that they would, if necessary, re-define the Peer Review process to prevent such printing !Those papers which slipped through were to be subject to review by those who were pro-AGW, such were the lenghts that the "scientists" are willing to go to to hide the truth.
There are papers, and I rather think that in future more anti-AGW papers will start to be published as those "scientists" who might otherwise attempt to interefere with the peer review process will worry that they may find themselves the subject of a whistleblower..........
You must be on the same planet as Ludo.kiteless said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
No.The e-mails constitute probably only half of the stolen (your term, and substantiate if possible) documents in terms of data size.
For example, there is a 176 page document from expert and government reviewers concerning the 2007 4th Assessment of the IPCC Review (Working Group 1) where they all critically examine the narrative. Consensus is non-existent. I'm about 50 pages in so far, and will post some of the more juicy bits in due course.
http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/
Blib said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
Shirley, this is a good thing. If we went back thirty years, then the World would be cooler and we would all be saved?John MacK said:
Blib said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
Shirley, this is a good thing. If we went back thirty years, then the World would be cooler and we would all be saved?kiteless said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
No.The e-mails constitute probably only half of the stolen (your term, and substantiate if possible) documents in terms of data size.
For example, there is a 176 page document from expert and government reviewers concerning the 2007 4th Assessment of the IPCC Review (Working Group 1) where they all critically examine the narrative. Consensus is non-existent. I'm about 50 pages in so far, and will post some of the more juicy bits in due course.
Your 50 pages in and claiming the whole document is debased? I think if you read a little harder you'll see that (1) the CRUs contribution to the evidence is only small and (2) Even if you completely remove the CRUs contribution there is still a concensus with GISSTEMP and NCDC which remain both independant and in agreement with each other.
By itself, I'm afraid the CRU leak doesn't debase the MMGW debate or the IPCC report.
In reponse to the OP, R.S Lindzen (formerly of the IPCC) has published some papers that dispute the findings. I believe William 'Bill' Gray (also formerly IPCC and a supporter of Lindzen)has published some works but I've not found them yet. William Gray also published a book on the subject but to the best of my knowledge this was never reviewed.
In terms of verifying your reference, dispite Lindzen at a glance appearing to be a very reliable source, it should also be mentioned that Lindzen also disputes the correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer.
HTH,
G
ETA: Found a paper disputing the ice sheets collapse for you;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceS...
It's not properly referenced and it even contains adverts but it's the best I've seen so far.
Edited by G_T on Tuesday 8th December 16:37
Stevenj214 said:
Can the good people of Pistonheads provide me with links to any peer reviewed papers which argue against man made global warming?
IIRC there was a list of 400 peer-reviewed climate sceptic papers posted on a blog somewhere, however not all 400 are peer reviewed, not all of them are papers, and not all of them are actually climate-sceptic (just have titles or abstracts, that at first glance appear to be sceptic, but actually the aren't). Having said which, it would probably be a good place to start. I expect it was discussed on WUWT.Are you conducting a survey of sceptic -versus- non-sceptic papers in the published litterature? If so I'd be interested in hearing about your findings.
Blib said:
John MacK said:
Blib said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
Shirley, this is a good thing. If we went back thirty years, then the World would be cooler and we would all be saved?Bing o said:
Blib said:
John MacK said:
Blib said:
Airbag said:
No, that's why they build straw men and are seizing on stolen, out of context emails in a desperate bid to put the conservation back thirty years.
Shirley, this is a good thing. If we went back thirty years, then the World would be cooler and we would all be saved?
No, iirc, he spoke about it with a gleeful sparkle in his eye!
He also told us that petrol would one day cost £2 a gallon. That man was insane!
Blib said:
G_T said:
By itself, I'm afraid the CRU leak doesn't debase the MMGW debate or the IPCC report.
Have you been reading the e-mails posted by Guam on the other thread? Or have you read them on another site?Airbag said:
Blib said:
G_T said:
By itself, I'm afraid the CRU leak doesn't debase the MMGW debate or the IPCC report.
Have you been reading the e-mails posted by Guam on the other thread? Or have you read them on another site?Oh yes, can you explain this;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff