1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers on Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Strawman, no claim is made on the list that the abstracts are going to include everything that is stated in the paper.

What part of the paper explicitly says "global warming" do you not understand?

The following text is EXPLICITLY from the summary of the full paper,

"If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature"

You found nothing, instead you keep arguing about a paper that states exactly what you claim it doesn't!

 

This is again intellectually dishonest. In the early 70's a series of papers appeared arguing the reflectivity of suspended carbon in the atmosphere could lead to cooling, potentially triggering an ice age. In late 75 two Soviet probes sent back definitive information on the Venusian atmosphere including the reflective properties of high concentrations of suspended carbon. Within a year those early papers where challenged; in some cases by the same teams who submitted the original paper. And theory was essentially killed off.

That is how science works, and it happens in all fields. A peer reviewed paper is not meant to be the definitive answer on a subject. It poses a question then explains what research was done and how, ending usually in a summary of what the data said about the original question. Other researchers take that information, design new experiments to test the conclusions, or use the paper as a way of eliminating steps in their own research

 

Yes interesting you forgot the word "If" in the sentence. They are postulating about what their results show. They are not making a definitive statement on the subject. The fact global warming is mentioned once in a 4000 plus word document is very telling about your honesty on the subject.

As much as you want to use bold red fonts, and bang your fists this paper is not about global warming. Therefore should not be considered as a supporting document by the OP

 

So a paper cannot use qualifiers? Better throw out the entire IPCC report!

Where does the list say the papers have to support your criteria for inclusion?

What part of "supporting skeptic arguments" do you not understand? Did you not read this article that was linked?

“A significant measure of negative feedback to global warming” (World Climate Report)

The paper explicitly supports skeptic arguments in support of negative feedbacks to global warming. Your denial that this paper supports skeptic arguments is absolutely amazing. I have never seen such denial in my life, especially after I link to World Climate Report which is run by the well known skeptic climate scientist Dr. Patrick Michaels. Why did he write an article about the paper, because it supports nothing and is irrelevant?

Keep dreaming that this paper cannot be considered a supporting document.

 

You didn't even address my argument! The date those papers were published had nothing to do with whether the contents of the papers are valid or not.

Strawman, no claim is made that a peer-reviewed paper is a definitive answer on anything.

 

See there you go again - leaving that tricky word out -IF - why is that? The paper is a preliminary discussion. It specifically mentions not having enough data to even defend the conclusion they draw about cloud deck statistics. The reality is this paper neither supports nor argue against the case for global warming. That is fact anyone who reads it will see

 

Rubbish - Is Fred Hoyle's paper on "Steady State Theory" still valid - yes or no

 

Irrelevant to my argument, Is it valid based on the date is was published Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

I left nothing off the title of the article that is linked, do I need to take screen shots or can you not click on the link?

Why did Dr. Michaels write an article about the paper at World Climate Report?

 

Stop trying to switch the argument - You claim the publish date of data does not invalidate the data - So is the paper relevant in the same context yes no

- - - Updated - - -

No idea and nor do I care - as I pointed out early, I have no interest in other peoples opinions of papers

 

Strawman, I made no such argument. I explicitly stated that the date a paper was published does not make it invalid, I made no argument about the data. Quote where I said "date of data".

So you continue to want to be intellectually dishonest for why the paper is listed then?

 

Is Hoyle's paper valid or not? Real simple question - why are you struggling with such a basic request

 

Strawman and irrelevant to my argument. The validity of Hoyle's paper has nothing to do with the date it was published.

 

And how many of the 1350+ papers are carbon ice age papers from between 1968 and 1977?

 

None that I am aware.

 

Life is too short to spend time on a site that by it's very titles is misdirecting people - once one detects one or more lies - why should I bother with the rest? If you want people like me to read your site - invest it with some intellectual honesty

 

I am so tired of crackpot websites denying climate change. I just want to want to respond with one word.

People only need to think. It is as obvious as knowing whether it is raining or sunny outside.

After thousands of years of deforestation, hundreds of years of burning coal, and a hundred years of burning natural gas and oil would you not think it would have some effect?...It should be painfully obvious to anyone that thinks.

I bet you would argue that killing whales for lamp oil wouldn't harm the whale population if this debate were held back in the whaling days.

I would probably be banned for using that one word.

 

The title is exact to the contents of the list. Your are not interested in intellectual honesty which is why you never address any of my rebuttals but act like they do not exist.

Please present the criticism of the list you believe is valid so I can refute it here in extensive detail for you.

 

Please read the, "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a climate change "denier" website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe the climate changes.

Just as it is obvious in recognizing your strawman argument. What skeptic does not believe these things are not having "some" effect?

- U.S. Forest land area increased from 747 million acres in 1997 to 749 in 2002 (U.S. Forest Service)
- Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest (U.S. Forest Service)
- Net Forest loss continues to decline globally and has been reversed in Asia (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)
- Net Deforestation in Brazil has fallen by two-thirds over the last four years (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)

 

You rebut me with other than cut and paste from a lying website and I will address them. I consider that entire site to be a misrepresenting lie.

The very fact that people think you are claiming other than YOUR exact literal translation is evident in the opening post of this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a straw man - the argument put forth by PC has been misrepresented and then attacked

THAT is a straw man argument - not what you claim that a straw man argument is.

No-one can make up their own definitions and then use them as rebuttal then claim "victory"

 

Oh this has been their modus operandi for a while, try a hack and slash approach at some forum till the members begin to sift through the wall of literature and arrive at the same place we have here. Just snake oil attempting to use a fresh label and hope people out there have never actually read an academic paper.

 

As I said - weasel words

They define words to mean what THEY want them to mean - and that has even been admitted on this board

 

Please stop posting libel about my website.

Strawman, I am not responsible for anyone else's mischaracterization of my work.

Please present the criticism of the list you believe is valid so I can refute it here in extensive detail for you.

- - - Updated - - -

All the papers are fully cited and sourced, there is nothing to hide. Name the paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

 

You have said this strawman already, it does not make it any more true. Qualifiers are not "weasel words" no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense.

 

The following was added to the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

Criticism: The list uses "weasel words".

Rebuttal: Qualifiers are not "weasel words", but an accepted method by the scientific community to express a level of confidence. Rejection of the use of qualifiers would mean rejection of the IPCC reports and the use of such terms as "consensus". The IPCC AR5 WG1 'Summary for Policy Makers' liberally uses qualifiers, "A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high".

 

What libel? That it uses Weasel Words - mate that is not libel - but on the other hand wording things so that people are deceived and defying words to suit yourself - now that IS false advertising

[/QUOTE] Advertising need not be entirely false in order to be actionable under the law of unfair competition, so long as it is sufficiently inaccurate to mislead or deceive consumers in a manner that it inflicts injury on a competitor. - See more at: http://intellectualproperty.uslegal...n-of-a-name-or-likeness/#sthash.nNVERPOg.dpuf[/QUOTE]

If your statement were such that people really understood that all the list is is a grouping of almost random papers that could be used as a resource for sceptical arguments then maybe but this very thread shows the common misconception brought about by your wording

It is not a mischaracterisation if there is deliberate intention to deceive and I would less inclined to believe there was IF you were coming onto these threads correcting the initial "misrepresentation" but that is not what is happening. This is the - what fourth or fifth time I have debated you on this board and each and every time there seems to be more of a concern to highlight the misinterpretation (look see these papers really CAN be used to rebut catastrophic AGW) rather than pointing out that they are merely a resource for sceptical scholars. Which appears to be the fall back position. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.

(*)(*)(*)(*)! Is slavery still in force where you live??? Don't bow to demands sorry

HUR HUR HUR - Name an argument they DO support. And that is the rub - that very vague claim that they "support" a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW "Alarm" with the word "Alarm being deliberately re-invented

- - - Updated - - -

The list doesn't - it is the title that does - and thanks for proving my point about you putting in your own rebuttals and then commenting on them. You have CHANGED the argument by changing the word list instead of title you have created a straw man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And BTW - your rebuttal is clear crap