How many peer reviewed scientific studies say global warming isn't real?

Question

Here are a very few of the hundreds that say it's real. Just some of what's in IPCC report Working Group 1 (of 4 groups), Chapter 2 (of 11 Chapters). Just the ones that begin with the letters "Me".

Download the one Chapter (7MB, requires Acrobat Reader - free download) and see for yourself.

Answer 1

ROTFLMAO...

I wrote a cartoon once and had a peer read that cartoon.  Guess what the LA Times called it?  You guessed it!  Peer reviewed with absolutely no comment whatsoever and no agreement...

Just Peer Reviewed.

I am rolling with laughter right now

Global warming enthusiastics, please tell me why the low is 38 degrees in Sunny Southern California, yet it is the first day of Spring?

Welcome to your own lies and distortions....

Answer 2

zero unless you count some relay low brow ones.

Dr Jello

so you say that we cannot predict weather it will be cooler or warmer in a few years and yet you keep saying that we are heading into an ice age because that Russian says so. why can he "predict the future" but others can not?

.

SP

the hockey stick graph has not been proven wrong but some of its method was flawed (this relates to the soothing of the graph and some of the proxy's that were used). these have been corrected in resent versions. all reputable temp  reconstructions all contain a hockey stick component so your main point was wrong.

also the point about random numbers resulting in a hockey stick curve is plain wrong. the original graph was zeroed on the past 100 year mean so would exaggerate any hockey stick if there was one there.

Answer 3

Geeze how many time a day is someone ask to prove a negative?  That's problematic at best.  Climate is the result of natural forcings, that is an axiom.  Claims to the contrary are the only claims that need support.

While i didn't bother going through your cut and past list, I'm sure there are many people, who were not invited to peer review the studies many find some questionable methods.  Peer review is not a finding of truth, it is a review for errors, a scientific proof reading, and even though a paper may be published it is only the start of it's scrutiny, not the end.

Answer 4

Now the deniers rail against peer reviewed science. There is nothing left for them to fall back on. This is pathetic! What's their next move, not sending kids to school because they view it as liberal?

Answer 5

Global Warming is Real!! Ask Al Gore.

Answer 6

It's chiropractIC jello, and I've never seen any article in a chiro journal about curing cancer (and I have seen lots of them) (even though I think Chiropractic is mostly nonsense also).

Ya, when these clowns on here try to belittle the peer review process you know they are grasping. They don't like the results of the science so they are undermining the very process. For shame!

Answer 7

Jim Z said: "When outrageous claims are made, it is incumbent on the maker of those claims to substantiate them."  I actually agree with you for a change.  But it's the people claiming the climate scientists supporting AGW are wrong, that are making the "outrageous claims".  Just as if someone claims evolution or plate tectonics isn't true, the people claiming it (in opposition to the overwhelming vast majority of pertinent scientists in the field) are the ones with the burden of proof.

Those who belittle the peer review process are simply ignorant of science and how scientific research operates in our world. It's the first, of many, defenses against bogus science, but it's not the only.  It's a quality control mechanism (something badly missing from the doubters favorite web-sites), but it's not perfect.  Without peer review, you have those with a little knowledge confusing those with none (which is exactly the case with the remaining AGW doubters).

Answer 8

How many studies empirically prove AGW?

Answer 9

Probably none.  There may have been some published in Energy&Environment, if you count that as peer-review.  I don't.

"The journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she

sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view

that global warming is a problem, because that position is

often stifled in other outlets. "I'm following my political

agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right

of the editor?"

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/j...

That's the only way to get poor science published - find a journal with a political agenda.  Science which claims AGW isn't real won't be able to pass real scientific peer-review, because it's simply wrong.

It's a sure sign of desperation that the deniers are now claiming peer-review doesn't mean anything.  The only way this claim would be true is if there were a vast conspiracy among scientists to perpetrate the global warming hoax.  I know this is a fairly common belief among deniers, but to anyone with any knowledge of how the scientific community works, it's pure raving lunacy, no more likely than aliens at Area 51 or the moon landing being staged.

That's what AGW deniers are reducing themselves to - fringe conspiracy theorist loons.

Answer 10

Some people claim a knowledge that they don't possess.  When someone is skeptical of their claims, it is ridiculous to then ask the skeptic to prove the reverse.  The skeptic shouldn't bear the burden of proof.  When outrageous claims are made, it is incumbent on the maker of those claims to substantiate them.

Answer 11

None. There have not been any scientific studies by actual scientists that has cast any doubt on global warming in my lifetime.

That's why the anti-global warming propagandists have to rely on constantly shifting obviously bogus arguments. That's what you have to do when all of the facts and studies contradict the propaganda that the oil companies pay you spread.

Answer 12

All you people who say its real need to stop believing everything you read and see.

The famous graph showing the increase in temperatures has been PROVEN to be false by SCIENTISTS who are widely known as truthful and brilliant.

The man who made that graph used a program that would make the graph look like that no matter what the data was.

I'm not lying I know what I'm talking about,

both my parents are certified geniuses.

My dad is a scientist.

Answer 13

Bob,

The "Peers" whom you hold in such high esteem.... have been and currently are using flawed data in their so-called scientific studies.  I have a difficult time believing that they are not aware of this fact...... or that they could be so eccentric that they would fail to challenge the quality of the data upon which they are risking their professional careers.

The surface stations used to record temperature data are substandard in placement and condition, yet NOAA and their European/Asian counterparts, refused to remedy the situation and continue to allow higher-than-actual temperatures into the data-set used to "inform" the world on the 'state of the climate'.  

Currently, this 'Peer Group' has absolutely no credibility other than among themselves.

How sad that their parents spent so much money trying to educate them.

Answer 14

Why would anyone look at peer review as being a "gold" standard?  Peer review is a very low bar, as it's nothing more than like minded people agreeing.  How tough is that?

We should never forget that Mann's "Hockey Stick" data was peer reviewed before it was discovered flawed by a non peer, as was Hansen's Y2K Buggy data passed peer review before it also was found to be flawed by a non peer.

Every year Chiropractors gather to discuss how chiropracty can cure diseases like cancer.  Their reports pass peer review.  Still, I would go to an oncologist.

Yes, peer review is a very low bar, a very low standard.  We should expect more from our scientist.

[Edit} Bob - If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, just block those who don't believe the same way you do.  This way you will always get high marks from your peers.

I surprised at your lack of science.  It's not how many of your peers agree with you that makes science right, it how many people validate your findings.  Still there is not one person in this field who can tell anyone if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now.

Answer 15

0 at least in the last several years.

Answer 16

Get off the "peer review" kick.  All you need to know about "peer review" is the Mann Hockey Stick graph.  If an argument depends on statistical analysis then the paper has no merit without a statistican's scrutiny.

Peer review is a big joke.