Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[pjclarke]

So its List Wars!

I see you've found the list of 'sceptical' papers at Popular Technology (or a clone of it). It's good etiquette to cite your sources. It would also be good if an explanation of exactly HOW each study is meant to contradict the concensus could be stated, not too much to ask, one would think.

'Popular Technology' sounds like a magazine along the lines of Popular Mechanics. It is in fact a one-man-band website. This guy has collated a list of 500 peer-reviewed papers that 'support scepticism'. Here's how he made up the numbers ...

1. Include garbage published in fringe journals. Yep, its Energy and Environment again, about 1 in 6 of the papers appeared here. It is trivial to demonstrate that this journal publishes scientific garbage. One purpose of journal publication is to put a study in front of experts in the field for further scrutiny. E&E is carried by only 39 libraries worldwide.

2. Throw the net REALLY wide. So there are papers by economists and social scientists disputing some aspect of the projected economic risks from climate change. As they say, if you laid all the economists end to end they still would not reach a conclusion. If you think climate models are uncertain ... try economic models.

3. Redefine 'scepticism'. For example, some sceptics believe that the sun is responsible for modern global warming, so any paper that argues the sun can and has influenced climate in the past, an uncontroversial assertion, is here.

4. Include contradictory papers. So there are papers that indicate the proxy record is uncertain, others that rely on it, papers that attribute all recent warming to cosmic rays, others to oceanic currents, some arguing for low climate sensitivity, others for high and so on. Its like WUWT in miniature. A bit like saying 'I have 10 papers that show gaps in the fossil record contradict evolution, and 10 more that show the fossil record is unreliable, therefore I have 20 papers that contradict evolution...'

5. Include papers that were discredited by subsequent research. Such as McLean et al on tropical temperatures, possibly the shortest lifespan of any paper in recent times, Douglass et al on model-observation discrepancies, Schwartz on climate sensitivity etc.

6. Include comment and opinion pieces published in the (non-reviewed) commentary section of academic journals.

Mr PopTech does not indicate HOW he believes each paper 'supports scepticism' so one is left guessing. I rely instead on the common sense principle that given the fanfare that surrounds even the most obviously flawed 'nail in the coffin' for AGW, any paper that genuinely contradicts the concensus and stands up to scrutiny would be front page news. The two that come closest are McKitrick and Michaels on the link between economic activity and temperature trends, which may demonstrate that the land surface trend is overestimated and Lindzen and Choi on negative feedbacks. While the latter looks to me highly suspect, and has attracted much negative blog coverage (e.g. from Roy Spencer), a formal rebuttal has not yet been published.

cheers.

[EternalOptimist]

List wars indeed, but you started it.
You sound more and more like a propogandist, less and less like a scientist

as a sceptic, I am waiting to be convinced, the propoganda approach will be counter productive

[BlasterBates]

I see you've found the list of 'sceptical' papers at Popular Technology (or a clone of it). It's good etiquette to cite your sources. It would also be good if an explanation of exactly HOW each study is meant to contradict the concensus could be stated, not too much to ask, one would think.

'Popular Technology' sounds like a magazine along the lines of Popular Mechanics. It is in fact a one-man-band website. This guy has collated a list of 500 peer-reviewed papers that 'support scepticism'. Here's how he made up the numbers ...

1. Include garbage published in fringe journals. Yep, its Energy and Environment again, about 1 in 6 of the papers appeared here. It is trivial to demonstrate that this journal publishes scientific garbage. One purpose of journal publication is to put a study in front of experts in the field for further scrutiny. E&E is carried by only 39 libraries worldwide.

2. Throw the net REALLY wide. So there are papers by economists and social scientists disputing some aspect of the projected economic risks from climate change. As they say, if you laid all the economists end to end they still would not reach a conclusion. If you think climate models are uncertain ... try economic models.

3. Redefine 'scepticism'. For example, some sceptics believe that the sun is responsible for modern global warming, so any paper that argues the sun can and has influenced climate in the past, an uncontroversial assertion, is here.

4. Include contradictory papers. So there are papers that indicate the proxy record is uncertain, others that rely on it, papers that attribute all recent warming to cosmic rays, others to oceanic currents, some arguing for low climate sensitivity, others for high and so on. Its like WUWT in miniature. A bit like saying 'I have 10 papers that show gaps in the fossil record contradict evolution, and 10 more that show the fossil record is unreliable, therefore I have 20 papers that contradict evolution...'

5. Include papers that were discredited by subsequent research. Such as McLean et al on tropical temperatures, possibly the shortest lifespan of any paper in recent times, Douglass et al on model-observation discrepancies, Schwartz on climate sensitivity etc.

6. Include comment and opinion pieces published in the (non-reviewed) commentary section of academic journals.

Mr PopTech does not indicate HOW he believes each paper 'supports scepticism' so one is left guessing. I rely instead on the common sense principle that given the fanfare that surrounds even the most obviously flawed 'nail in the coffin' for AGW, any paper that genuinely contradicts the concensus and stands up to scrutiny would be front page news. The two that come closest are McKitrick and Michaels on the link between economic activity and temperature trends, which may demonstrate that the land surface trend is overestimated and Lindzen and Choi on negative feedbacks. While the latter looks to me highly suspect, and has attracted much negative blog coverage (e.g. from Roy Spencer), a formal rebuttal has not yet been published.

cheers.

You certainly seem to shift the argument.

You suggested there were no papers contradicting global warming, and lo and behold we find several hundred. Those papers stand, there maybe criticisms on some of them but they stand as part of the debate. Only when a paper is retracted or is revised is it removed from the debate.

for example:
retracted paper
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...etract-siddall

[sasguru]

List wars indeed, but you started it.
You sound more and more like a propogandist, less and less like a scientist

as a sceptic, I am waiting to be convinced, the propoganda approach will be counter productive

Careful, your bias is showing. You prove the psychologists dictum that you see what you want to see.
Mr Clark did not start the meaningless list wars as far as I can see.
Any objective observer would rate Mr. Clarks posts far higher in terms of quality of argument then Mr Bates, as he addresses each point asked of him with commendable thoroughness.
Mr. Bates on the other hand ignores the posts that don't fit in his viewpoint.

It's a clear win for Mr Clark.
.

[sasguru]

You certainly seem to shift the argument.

You suggested there were no papers contradicting global warming, .

Wrong. You're the one squirming and wriggling.

No one suggested there were no papers contradicting global warming, the suggestion was there are few quality papers contradicting global warming.
And as your judgement on quality seems to be non-existent/very poor it is actually Mr Clark who suggested a couple of possibilities.


I don't know why he bothers, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

[EternalOptimist]

Careful, your bias is showing. You prove the psychologists dictum that you see what you want to see.
Mr Clark did not start the meaningless list wars as far as I can see.
Any objective observer would rate Mr. Clarks posts far higher in terms of quality of argument then Mr Bates, as he addresses each point asked of him with commendable thoroughness.
Mr. Bates on the other hand ignores the posts that don't fit in his viewpoint.

It's a clear win for Mr Clark.
.

SasGoru has spoken

The science is settled
The debate here is settled

except neither is true

[sasguru]

SasGoru has spoken

The science is settled
The debate here is settled

except neither is true

The science is never settled.
The debate here is - there's no contest in terms of quality. But then you have no background to judge that, not having the education to do so.

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

The science is never settled.
The debate here is - there's no contest in terms of quality. But then you have no background to judge that, not having the education to do so.

HTH

my education may be lacking, but at least I answer questions directly without wriggling.

A few years ago you believed that AGW was causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt away.
Now you believe that AGW is causing the Himalayan glaciers to thicken

is that true ?

[TimberWolf]

It's a clear win for Mr Clark.
.

It's much more difficult to stand against a scientific consensus than it is to go with it. HTH.

[DodgyAgent]

The science is never settled.
The debate here is - there's no contest in terms of quality. But then you have no background to judge that, not having the education to do so.

HTH

maybe you could define "quality"