The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[speling bee]

Oh the scientific debate was 'won' some time ago, AGW is only still contentious in some of the more antediluvian sectors of the media and cyberspace. The political argument takes longer - although in this country the Climate Change Act was passed with a huge majority and commits the UK to 80% cut in emissions relative to 1990 by 2050, EU countries have committed to a binding target of a 40% cut by 2030 and the US Clean Power plan will reduce emissions by that sector by a third...

... not enough, especially when the same Minister is responsible for reducing emissions and maximising oil extraction.

Hold your horses. Can you first explain:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

This can't be ignored.

[pjclarke]

Happy to oblige

http://http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

happy "eating crow"

It is, as PopTech (A bloke named Andrew) explains, a list that he thinks supports 'his' scepticism. I guess all science should be sceptical. Me I particularly enjoyed this inclusion:-

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
- D. J. Keenan

It has recently been claimed that the April–August temperature in France, in any given year, can be estimated from the harvest date of grapes grown there. Based on this claim, it was asserted that 2003 was the warmest year in the last six centuries. Herein, it is shown that the grape-derived temperature estimates are highly unreliable, and thus that the assertion is unfounded.

Yep. That's the whole edifice of AGW blown apart right there. No need for further debate. Seriously, PopTech (some bloke named Andrew)'s absurd list has been debunked so many times .... Greenfyre showed that most of the papers were either not peer-reviewed, rebutted by later work, trivial, Straw Men (not actually supporting of scepticism), mutually contradictory, or commentaries on now obsolete methods.

450 more lies from the climate change Deniers | Greenfyre's

Roger Pielke (Jr) objected to an earlier incarnation ...

My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.

But PopTech thinks he knows better that the authors themselves what their paper says. I liked this exposition of the methodology by GreenFyre

To understand some of the legitimate science that appears on the list I ask you to consider this hypothetical (and nonsensical) example:

"I say airplanes cannot fly because they are made of metal and metal is heavier than air. Here are 10 papers that say metal is heavier than air, and here are 10 more that say airplanes are made of metal. These 20 papers therefore support skepticism about man made airplanes being able to fly."

And Skeptical Science noted that even if wholly accurate and legitimate, which it certainly is not, the list represents less than 0.5% of papers in the target subject area.

Perhaps somebody could pick out the top 10 of the over a thousand and explain how they undermine the AGW hypothesis? I have better uses for my time.

[speling bee]

It is, as PopTech (A bloke named Andrew) explains, a list that he thinks supports 'his' scepticism. I guess all science should be sceptical. Me I particularly enjoyed this inclusion:-

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
- D. J. Keenan



Yep. That's the whole edifice of AGW blown apart right there. No need for further debate. Seriously, PopTech (some bloke named Andrew)'s absurd list has been debunked so many times .... Greenfyre showed that most of the papers were either not peer-reviewed, rebutted by later work, trivial, Straw Men (not actually supporting of scepticism), mutually contradictory, or commentaries on now obsolete methods.

450 more lies from the climate change Deniers | Greenfyre's

Roger Pielke (Jr) objected to an earlier incarnation ...


But PopTech thinks he knows better that the authors themselves what their paper says. I liked this exposition of the methodology by GreenFyre


And Skeptical Science noted that even if wholly accurate and legitimate, which it certainly is not, the list represents less than 0.5% of papers in the target subject area.

Perhaps somebody could pick out the top 10 of the over a thousand and explain how they undermine the AGW hypothesis? I have better uses for my time.

My mistake. I thought BB has posted a peer reviewed literature review or systematic review. How disappointing.

[pjclarke]

My mistake. I thought BB has posted a peer reviewed literature review or systematic review. How disappointing.

Believe me, if such a review existed and came to the conclusion PopTech pushes, it would be front page news on Science and Nature and Nobel prize time for somebody. There's an illuminating exchange at Roger Pielke Jr's blog between poptech (Andrew) and Roger ...(note there are two Roger Pielkes, father and son, a climatologist and a climate economist respectively)

Andrew: Roger, no one is stating you or your dad is skeptical of a human influence on climate. The papers listed support skepticism (my skepticism) of the current alarmist position on climate.

People posting here, have read them and can clearly see my point. Since I am in no way implying a certain hypothesis to you or your dad's position (nor any of the other author's of the papers) I am not removing them from the list.

Roger: Please do tell the criteria used to decide what was on and what was off the list. the title of your post is:

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. If they sopport _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be:

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

Andrew:Roger, the papers included were any that would support a skeptical position of either AGW is not real or AGW is real but skeptical of certain alarmist conclusions, either environmental or economical.

Clearly none of your papers support the conclusion that AGW is not real. Regardless I am not applying your personal view to any of this.

It is my argument in support of skepticism

RogerThanks for that clarification. I'd suggest then that you clarify your post and its title to more accurately reflect what it purports to show.

And if you want a good set of citations against certain "alarmist" conclusions (whatever you mean by that) I'd suggest the IPCC.

Andrew: The following has been added at the top of the post,

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.

Roger I always tell my students to define key terms when making an argument. I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-)

[BrilloPad]

Too much popcorn - I am getting fat....ter.

[speling bee]

Too much popcorn - I am getting fat....ter than MF in a suity sandwich.

FTFY

[BlasterBates]

My mistake. I thought BB has posted a peer reviewed literature review or systematic review. How disappointing.

ah interesting you're not going to read them or judge them on their merit you're simply going to accept the view of an anonymous guy who's never studied climate science and doesn't have a PhD...

You can always read the blog where he gets all his opinions..

http://http://www.skepticalscience.com/

the author of the blog is an extremely good professional cartoonist

[speling bee]

ah interesting you're not going to read them or judge them on their merit you're simply going to accept the view of an anonymous guy who's never studied climate science and doesn't have a PhD...

You can always read the blog where he gets all his opinions..

http://http://www.skepticalscience.com/

the author of the blog is an extremely good professional cartoonist

So are you saying you did post a literature review or systematic review?

[pjclarke]

ah interesting you're not going to read them or judge them on their merit you're simply going to accept the view of an anonymous guy who's never studied climate science and doesn't have a PhD...

You can always read the blog where he gets all his opinions..

http://http://www.skepticalscience.com/

the author of the blog is an extremely good professional cartoonist

How many have you read BB? Gonna take me up on my offer to identify the top 10?

John Cook is Climate Communication Fellow at the University of Queensland, he's published on the concensus and the Skeptical Science site presents evidence from the literature. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

[speling bee]

How many have you read BB? Gonna take me up on my offer to identify the top 10?

John Cook is Climate Communication Fellow at the University of Queensland, he's published on the concensus and the Skeptical Science site presents evidence from the literature. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

I assumed he'd read at least the abstracts of all 1350+ seeing as he pointed us in the direction of the blog and the blog is not itself a peer reviewed literature review of systematic review.

If that's not the case:

BB, as you linked us to the blog, in your (accepting not professional or peer reviewed) opinion, approximately how many of the 1350+ peer reviewed papers support:

Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism