Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

photon · 08-05-2014, 12:19 PM

I would bet too that a lot of those papers are even used in the IPCC reports, the title of the web page is:

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

So it's not 1350+ papers that deny AGW, or 1350+ papers that support an alternative theory to AGW, it's 1350+ that support skeptic arguments against alarmism.

Alarmism can of course be defined however one wishes, and if the bar is only that a paper in isolation can support a skeptical argument then yeah of course you're going to find a lot of papers. I looked at the first paper, it's from 1980 (which is a long time in Climate research, I doubt whoever wrote the page actually dug into the paper to see if its findings were adopted or if they were refuted, or even if they are relevant), and it doesn't deny AGW, it isn't even directly about AGW, it's about how a given radiative forcing translates into a change in surface temperature.

So it doesn't disagree with AGW, it just says that according to their calculations and data the amount of temperature change due to a given change in CO2 is lower than what others have said.

Since the paper there have been many papers showing climate sensitivity to be greater than what Idso comes up with (http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...termediate.htm).

That's just the first paper.

Coming up with huge lists like this is relatively easy to do, and orders of magnitude more difficult to refute, and really amounts to nothing much more than a gish gallop. Because finding papers that "support" a skeptical view of "alarmism" is a wide enough target as to be mostly meaningless, but whoever makes and quotes the list is trying to use it to undermine the much narrower and specific conclusions of AGW.

08-05-2014, 12:19 PM	#300
photon The new goggles also do nothing. Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Calgary Exp:	I would bet too that a lot of those papers are even used in the IPCC reports, the title of the web page is: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism So it's not 1350+ papers that deny AGW, or 1350+ papers that support an alternative theory to AGW, it's 1350+ that support skeptic arguments against alarmism. Alarmism can of course be defined however one wishes, and if the bar is only that a paper in isolation can support a skeptical argument then yeah of course you're going to find a lot of papers. I looked at the first paper, it's from 1980 (which is a long time in Climate research, I doubt whoever wrote the page actually dug into the paper to see if its findings were adopted or if they were refuted, or even if they are relevant), and it doesn't deny AGW, it isn't even directly about AGW, it's about how a given radiative forcing translates into a change in surface temperature. So it doesn't disagree with AGW, it just says that according to their calculations and data the amount of temperature change due to a given change in CO2 is lower than what others have said. Since the paper there have been many papers showing climate sensitivity to be greater than what Idso comes up with (http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...termediate.htm). That's just the first paper. Coming up with huge lists like this is relatively easy to do, and orders of magnitude more difficult to refute, and really amounts to nothing much more than a gish gallop. Because finding papers that "support" a skeptical view of "alarmism" is a wide enough target as to be mostly meaningless, but whoever makes and quotes the list is trying to use it to undermine the much narrower and specific conclusions of AGW. __________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.