MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course I CAN.
Prominent Climate Scientist: Glaciers Will Melt Faster
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
david duke doesn't count.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
Ahhh, I see what you did there! Clever.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
go for it
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I don't feel like listing all 1350, so here's a rare link provided for your education.
Pay close attention to the Criticism/Rebuttal section which is kept current and shows there have been ZERO valid arguments against any of the inclusions on the list.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals
Don't feel bad, they don't let you see this shit on your sources of news and science.
Feel free to debunk all 1350 in turn to support AC's claim that he's never been provided with even one.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for a single peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change.
Even just one.
Even just one.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
1350 provided.
You do understand other people read these posts? When you just got handed your ass, covering your ears and repeating La-La-La-La-La only works for your little world. Everybody else actually sees the ass kicking.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I didn't see any. I seen a lot of rebuttals and I found this interesting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=popular+technology+sourcewatch&rlz=&gws_rd=ssl
Seems your web site has a hate boner for sourcewatch
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And at the bottom are 1350 peer-reviewed papers. Let's start with the first 100, go ahead and do what no one else has been able to do...debunk them.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
So you missed the 1350 peer-reviewed papers at the bottom? Try again. Or admit defeat.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for someone to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change.
Even just one.
Even just one.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I saw an article that claims there are 1350 studies which "support skeptical arguments", but nobody, and let me make that clear, NOBODY HAS CITED EVEN ONE peer reviewed study which CONTRADICTS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And that's exactly why you will fail to make ANY ground in your little campaign against the big bad oil companies. Smugness based on stupidity won't win you any support. I fully support your choice of response, it makes my end of the debate so much easier.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just looking at the first one, i can see the paper debunked itself.
it was written in 1980 and claimed: ...climate sensitivity was probably only about 0.3 °C.[10] The following year, he criticized NASA's global warming predictions, saying they were "about 10 times too great"
let's see what NASA predicted in 1981:
wooops, debunked.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Read carefully
Not even one.
There is not even one study in that list of 1350 which CONTRADICTS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.
Not even one.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
although plenty of them make wrong predictions about how CO2 concentrations will have little or no effect on global temperatures.
they were all wrong, but whatever.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I like how Muypoco declared victory though.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ’900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on Populartechnology.net listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”
The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.
Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.
Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails.
Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again.
http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition
The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.
Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.
Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails.
Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again.
http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition