What do the sceptics say in response to the study on peer-reviewed papers on global warming featured on An?

Question

Inconvenient Truth that found zero papers disagreeing with the theory that man is causing global warming?

Answer 1

inconvenient truth = lies and rubbish

gore = liar and communist

Answer 2

i say watch 'the great global warming swindle'

Answer 3

YAWN

Here's ANOTHER Inconvenient Truth: GW has happened before and will happen again. It has very little to do with human activity. The last time the NW Passage opened up, there were no SUV's around to take the blame. The Vikings didn't care, they just took advantage, and used it to get to Newfoundland and NovaScotia. Which is why the first Europeans were so convinced that the NW Passage HAD to exist.

Answer 4

There are experts who disagree with global warming studies but they are few and far between.  However, Republicans seem to find them and run them out as the only experts that count.  Global warming has happened in the past--look at ice ages and such--but the temperature should not be increasing as fast as it is.  My opinion is that if you say that there is no evidence of global warming then you must have a very narrow field of thought.

On a side note, I thought that you had misspelled sceptics but dictionary.com shows it as an alternative spelling.  I learned something today!

Answer 5

That was probably the Oreskes study:

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

There aren't quite zero studies in the peer-reviewed literature disagreeing with the consensus, but there are very few.  However, the 'skeptics' respond to this with conspiracy theories (i.e. scientists are all in it for the money or they're all politically biased or they're all stupid and wrong).

Or they claim the study was flawed, which is simply wrong, because all you have to do is examine the peer-reviewed literature yourself to confirm it, as was done in the link above.

'Skeptics' don't care much about the scientific literature.  They prefer to link right-wing blogs.

Answer 6

I would first like to agree with one other person who posted an answer, go out an watch the great global warming swindle, it's a great movie that disproves all of the man made global warming garbage.  Secondly, when they said that they found no papers against man made global warming, they typed in something so that they would ONLY FIND ARTICLES SUPPORTING IT.  The environmentalists have constantly shoved this down our throat, and guess what, it's not even correct.  I would also like to point out to all the biased people out there (namely, Ken), the problem is that many global warming supporters will read one study(which may very well be flawed) or will be by some liberal left wing organization that tell them global warming is man made and is a problem, neither of which are true.  They read this and assume, I hope we all know what happens when you assume, that this is the consensus, which is false.  Please go to the follwing web sites to find the truth.

Answer 7

Peer review? What peer review?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_o...

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Answer 8

If there were no papers disputing the theory of man made global warming, then the papers were separated into 2 piles, one which they kept and used in your question, and the bigger pile , with differing opinions that they threw in the shredder.

By the way, there were at least 5 ice ages , with global warmings in between....do you want to blame those global warmings on Non-existant man, or do you blame dinosaur farts.

Answer 9

There actually have been many peer reviewed papers that question various parts the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  But as the evidence has become quite clear (to anyone without an ideological bias) the number of studies questioning AGW over the past decade are few and far between.

The problem with the "skeptics" is that they'll completely accept 1 study that agrees with them (without any scrutiny of it) and totally ignore dozens that don't agree with them.

Willow - Before you swallow the deception on The (not-so) Great Global Warming Swindle movie you might want to check these out:

Miscellaneous critiques of the film:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/...

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-...

http://currentera.com/SwindlersList.html

http://scan.editme.com/200703GGWS

The National Academy of Science in the UK comment on GGWS

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=6245

University of Cambridge: “Scientific Response to GGWS”

http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/PDF/GWS%20...

Video critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle by Stephen Nodvin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

British Antarctic Survey on GGWS use of flawed data

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/ne...

Rebuttal of GGWS by Sir John Houghton former professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Chan...

Seven major misrepresentations of science in GGWS

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

Comments on GGWS by Dr. Carl Wunsch (interviewed in GGWS):

http://ocean.mit.edu/%7Ecwunsch/CHANNEL4...

ABC Australia interview of a squirming Martin Durkin and analysis of GGWS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4q...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaS...