ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags al gore , carbon dioxide , climate change , global warming

Reply
Old 18th October 2009, 06:39 AM   #1
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

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

Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects.

Myth debunked.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:02 AM   #2
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,020
Evidence that that is "a common myth?" Who has claimed there are no published peer-reviewed papers disputing human-caused global warming?

Such a myth would have to overlook that:

(1) There was, in the past, a scientific controversy regarding the existence of AGW. Until it was resolved by observations, this generated numerous papers by both sides.

(2) There are valid scientific disagreements at present, regarding the most likely anticipated effects of AGW and their magnitude. Papers addressing these issues can easily be misrepresented as challenges to AGW, when they are not.

(3) There is, in the present, a political controversy generated primarily by interests who find the prospect of having to limit their future damage to the environment, and perhaps even pay to remedy past damage, inconvenient and a transgression of their natural rights as wealthy elitist sociopaths. It is not at all surprising that such interests can generate a few dozen published peer-reviewed papers a year.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:18 AM   #3
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
__________________
It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes
This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 08:21 AM   #4
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
That was debunked along time ago, there is no "consensus". She used the search phrase "global climate change" which ignores some 11,000 papers.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 09:31 AM   #5
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,020
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
That was debunked along time ago, there is no "consensus". She used the search phrase "global climate change" which ignores some 11,000 papers.

Wow, that many? 11,000 papers relevant to AGW?

Let's see, then your 390 papers (even assuming all of them actually challenge AGW, which has been shown on other threads not to be the case) would be 3.5% of them.

Oops. Fake controversy fail.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 09:48 AM   #6
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Quote:
Respectfully,
but but...WHY
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:20 AM   #7
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,428
Most of those “papers” were published in the climate equivalent of UFOligy today.

If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how little real science is being done by climate change deniers looking at where those “papers” were published should do the trick.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:07 PM   #8
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
The STUPID. It burns.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:25 PM   #9
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Lets randomly check this list;

OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 22nd, and nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 146, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, on and on and on.

It looks like almost half of these "papers" are from the same source? Why is that do you suppose?

Wikipedia says;

"The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[2] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[3], with coverage from 1995.[4] Contributors have included Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549."

and

"The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.[2][5] Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there."[6]"

In other words, its a journal for hacks who cannot publish their tripe about AGW in any other place.

I think this list is debunked now...
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:27 PM   #10
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nd_Environment
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:50 PM   #11
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Many of these papers do not say what you think they say, PT...
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:52 PM   #12
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Many of these are not papers, but are correspondence, which has very different standards.

A really bad job was done in putting this list together, overall. Where did you copy it from?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 12:55 PM   #13
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!

__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 02:26 PM   #14
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
You were expecting anything else?
You realize he just put it up for the thread title - no other reason

meanwhile in the real world...progress is glacially slow but it's getting there

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Last edited by macdoc; 18th October 2009 at 02:27 PM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 04:31 PM   #15
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
You know, PopTech, what might really be convincing (maybe) is a bar graph plotting the numbers of your papers against the year of publication. If the number was growing, that might cause one to wonder.

Better yet, plot them, rather than by count, by percentage of all papers both for and against GW. That would be really useful to you, if it showed the percentage of con papers was increasing over time. You might even classify it as a miracle.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 04:49 PM   #16
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
shadron, excluding "Energy and Environment" of course. That thing is only one step better than J.O.N.E.S.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 05:19 PM   #17
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Some of these papers have author from The Cato Institute!
And there certainly is not anything wrong with that.

Not in the least.

Curiously, also, a number of the papers in Energy and Environment have been discussed at great length in various blogs. That is to say, the likes of Lambert, Rabitt, and Soro's operation, RealSmuggieClimate, seem to have thought they needed to discuss them.

Loehle is an example.

Well, what is it?

Are they right, or the self appointed moralistic bastions of scientific far left truthiness of JREF right?

Last edited by mhaze; 18th October 2009 at 05:23 PM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 05:38 PM   #18
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,786
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Are they right, or the self appointed moralistic bastions of scientific far left truthiness of JREF right?
Thanks. Next time I am looking for a classic example of poisoning the well I will have one readily at hand.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 05:46 PM   #19
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
And there certainly is not anything wrong with that. [citing Cato] Not in the least.
A free market advocacy group. What a non surprise. One might be astounded to read something so supremely idiotic if not for the track record.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 06:36 PM   #20
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Thanks. Next time I am looking for a classic example of poisoning the well I will have one readily at hand.
Sure, glad to uh...contribute...

Who poisoned the well, me, with my ridiculous long insult to the Upholders of Sciency Moral Hygeine, or those here who poisoned the well to whom I took objection to, the Energy and Environment articles being smeared? Just curious....

Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
A free market advocacy group. What a non surprise. One might be astounded to read something so supremely idiotic if not for the track record.
I request that you take your well known, well trod, and well exercised loop of neurons which fire this off (otherwise known as neurotic behavior....that is, repeating disfunctional behavior after it is shown not to work) and actually consider the facts. Bolding is mine.

The OP: Another common myth is that no peer-reviewed papers exist disputing "man-made" global warming or the various environmental and economic effects.

Please explain to your audience how the CATO institute is not an excellant source for commentary on this subject.

Last edited by mhaze; 18th October 2009 at 06:40 PM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:17 PM   #21
Wangler
Master Poster
 
Wangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
but but...WHY
Here's a clue, Mac.


Wangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:30 PM   #22
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
The OP seems to be silent. hmmm....
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:43 PM   #23
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
And Curiously, also, a number of the papers in Energy and Environment have been discussed at great length in various blogs.

Well, that is certainly convincing...
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:48 PM   #24
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
I have a blog, and I can't even get my wife! To come debate stuff on there.
So where do I sign up for the "scientists debate important stuff here" link I can put on it.
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 07:53 PM   #25
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Please explain to your audience how the CATO institute is not an excellant source for commentary on this subject.
Commentary? Uh, the OP is about peer-reviewed papers. (Or at least that's the topic it fails at.)

I suggest you contemplate this brief movie scene:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 08:39 PM   #26
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Wow, that many? 11,000 papers relevant to AGW?
No that have the words "climate change" appear in them, instead of the words "global climate change". Not all are relevant to AGW, least of all the papers selected by Oreskes - all 1117 abstracts where only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view' on AGW.

You failed indeed.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:20 PM   #27
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Exclamation

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Most of those “papers” were published in the climate equivalent of UFOligy today.
Not at all.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how little real science is being done by climate change deniers looking at where those “papers” were published should do the trick.
Please do...

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Space Research
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Central European Journal of Physics
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecology
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy & Environment
Energy Fuels
Energy Sources
Energy The International Journal
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Futures
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
GSA Today
Holocene
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
Irish Astronomical Journal
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Geoscience
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Paleontological Journal
Paleoceanography
Physical Geography
Physical Review Letters
Physics Letters A
Planetary and Space Science
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Social Studies of Science
Society
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Surveys in Geophysics
The Independent Review
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics Journal
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:22 PM   #28
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Exclamation

Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
OK, first paper; Energy and Environment. Yeah, great source there. NOT.
Energy & Environment is a fully peer-reviewed journal that is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:24 PM   #29
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Exclamation

Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

Quote:
These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:40 PM   #30
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
Quick question OP!
How many and which papers were published in Nature.
And could you give me issue numbers please!

Nature it the most reputable so I figure I will start there and work my way down.

You should know, nature is also called the "reputation killer" because if you publish in it and your peers find you falsified or even messed up your test. Your scientific reputation is on the line.

-edit-
To clarify!

What I mean to say is I know people who published in other journals and recanted there studies AFTER publication and it was ok. Embarassing but ok. I specifically have heard a friend tell me, "If I publish in nature, I better have my P's and Q's in order. Because you can lose your lab if you mess up there."

So personally (from my knowledge) I think I should start with nature.
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com

Last edited by zerospeaks; 18th October 2009 at 10:46 PM.
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:49 PM   #31
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by zerospeaks View Post
Nature it the most reputable so I figure I will start there and work my way down.
It is?

Jan-Hendrik Schon: Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:57 PM   #32
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
Quote:
It is?
You just proved my point! Someone either messed up a test or falsified research (the highest crime in science) in Nature. And you know what happened? They were found out and their reputation is ruined! Don't think those scientists will be overseeing a lab anytime soon because it is basically career suicide for LIFE to falsify data.
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 10:59 PM   #33
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by zerospeaks View Post
You just proved my point! Someone either messed up a test or falsified research (the highest crime in science) in Nature. And you know what happened? They were found out and their reputation is ruined! Don't think those scientists will be overseeing a lab anytime soon because it is basically career suicide for LIFE to falsify data.
I proved your point by showing that fraudulent science got published in Nature? Is that a joke?
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:07 PM   #34
Wangler
Master Poster
 
Wangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by zerospeaks View Post
Quick question OP!
How many and which papers were published in Nature.
And could you give me issue numbers please!

So personally (from my knowledge) I think I should start with nature.
You probably don't need PT to list the papers in Nature...just follow his link, and use the "Find on this page..." feature in your web browser.

"Nature" would be the search term.

In my own search, I see a few, only one or two appear to be papers, others are "Commentary" or "Letters", etc.

Might want to look for yourself, though!

Good luck!
Wangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:08 PM   #35
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
Quote:
I proved your point by showing that fraudulent science got published in Nature? Is that a joke?
My point was if you post research in Nature you better make sure it is solid because it will get found out if you missed the slightest detail.

So yes! you proved my point! If you publish wrong data in Nature you will get called on it and your reputation will be ruined.
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:11 PM   #36
zerospeaks
Metaphysical Naturalist Extraordinaire
 
zerospeaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
Quote:
You probably don't need PT to list the papers in Nature...just follow his link, and use the "Find on this page..." feature in your web browser.

"Nature" would be the search term.

In my own search, I see a few, only one or two appear to be papers, others are "Commentary" or "Letters", etc.

Might want to look for yourself, though!

Good luck!
He posted them like he knew them to be true and accurate. OK then! He should be familiar with them. I don't see the harm in asking him that question. And let us say he gave an answer and then I looked, and I discovered that he was wrong. Then that would call into question the entire list.
__________________
Every time I post an English Professor somewhere cries!
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. http://www.zerospeaks.com
zerospeaks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:13 PM   #37
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,428
Originally Posted by zerospeaks View Post

You should know, nature is also called the "reputation killer" because if you publish in it and your peers find you falsified or even messed up your test. Your scientific reputation is on the line.
Most of them were published in Energy and Environment, which is also a reputation killer though in this case itís because itís a pseudoscientific rag that publishes papers or embarrassingly low quality.

There are a couple references in Nature, but aside from a couple that were listed as commentary none they seemed to have either very little relevance to current climate change or actually refute the OPís claims. For example the very first one I found was a letter that talked about a climate change event 55 million years ago where a 70% increase in CO2 caused 5-9 deg of warming. Current accepted CO2 sensitivity is that a 100% increase will cause 3 deg of warming.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:16 PM   #38
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by Wangler View Post
"Nature" would be the search term.

In my own search, I see a few, only one or two appear to be papers, others are "Commentary" or "Letters", etc.
"The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles."
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:19 PM   #39
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by zerospeaks View Post
You proved my point! If you publish wrong data in Nature you will get called on it and your reputation will be ruined.
Actually it doesn't all it proves is that Nature's peer-review process is no better than any other journal and it's alleged "reputation" irrelevant.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2009, 11:26 PM   #40
Poptech
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,258
Exclamation

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Most of them were published in Energy and Environment, which is also a reputation killer though in this case itís because itís a pseudoscientific rag that publishes papers or embarrassingly low quality.
Absolutely not true. E&E is a reputation killer for frauds like Michael Mann.

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland


Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
There are a couple references in Nature, but aside from a couple that were listed as commentary none they seemed to have either very little relevance to current climate change or actually refute the OPís claims. For example the very first one I found was a letter that talked about a climate change event 55 million years ago where a 70% increase in CO2 caused 5-9 deg of warming. Current accepted CO2 sensitivity is that a 100% increase will cause 3 deg of warming.
And it states: "We conclude that ...other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the PalaeoceneĖEocene Thermal Maximum."

Clearly stating that CO2 was not the major driver.
Poptech is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.