It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
Look at this claim.
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Yes some people have claimed that. Some ignore the thousands of peer review papers that support AGW and claim they are a HOAX, a NWO agenda etc. etc.. Its a bit tit for tat is it not.
Some people have claimed "there are no peer reviewed research papers that disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming, among their other.......false comments. But here is again part of the proof that shows the claims of these people is nothing more than hogwash.
So we have 450 peer review papers that support skepticism and that Includes skepticism of the "effects to the environment and economics". I wonder how many of them are attacking Economic effects? What does that have to do with AGW. I guess they need to bump the numbers.
The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
The Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.
The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
See how it refers to a publication, that I put in Bold.
Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
- William Kininmonth
A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organisations in the debate. Particular attention is given to ways of resolving conflict in the energy and environment field.
Editors
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Dr Benny Peiser,
Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Book review editor
Debra Johnson The Business School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Editorial advisory board
Professor B W Ang
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore
Dr Maarten Arentsen
University of Twente, Netherlands
Professor David Ball
Middlesex University, UK
Max Beran
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, UK
David Cope
Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, London
Richard S Courtney
RSC Environmental Services, Cornwall, UK, formerly Senior Materials Scientist, UK Coal Research
Dr Wolfgang Eichhammer
Fraunhofer Institute (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany
Dr Horace Herring
The Open University, UK
Professor Hilary I Inyang
Global Institute for Energy and Environmental Systems (GIEES), The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Professor Aynsley Kellow
School of Government, University of Tasmania, Australia
Professor Bjorn Lomborg
Associate Professor, Dept. of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, Denmark
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
- Tim F. Ball
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
- David C. Archibald
David Archibald
David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science. After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst. Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate, and is a director of the Lavoisier Society, a group of Australians promoting rational science in public policy.
Remember this guy from earlier. Can you see a pattern Forming EU?
Mr William Kin inmonth
B.Sc (UWA), M.Sc(Colo State U), M.Admin (Monash U)
Principal Consultant, Australasian Climate Research
William Kininmonth is a consulting climatologist who worked with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years in weather forecaster, research and applied studies. For 12 years until 1998 he was head of its National Climate Centre. Between 1998 and 2002, he consulted to the World Meteorological Organization, including coordinating an international review of the 1997-98 El Niño event and preparation of a WMO publication, Climate into the 21st Century (Cambridge).
William Kininmonth is author of the book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-Science Publishing Co, UK – 2004).
Originally posted by atlasastro
Yes some people have claimed that. Some ignore the thousands of peer review papers that support AGW and claim they are a HOAX, a NWO agenda etc. etc.. Its a bit tit for tat is it not.
Originally posted by atlasastro
So we have 450 peer review papers that support skepticism and that Includes skepticism of the "effects to the environment and economics". I wonder how many of them are attacking Economic effects? What does that have to do with AGW. I guess they need to bump the numbers.
Originally posted by atlasastro
I wonder how many are just question the effect on the environment and not AGW itself?
Originally posted by atlasastro
I guess they need to bump the numbers there too.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Excuse me? What was that last bit?
Originally posted by atlasastro
Lets look at how you have been fooled EU. Again.
You guys really need the numbers I guess.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Here is another one from the same group.
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
- Tim F. Ball
Tim Ball.
Dr. Eduardo Zorita, a UN IPCC Contributing Author of Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 and since 2003, has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany, believes the CRU scientists should be barred from further IPCC work.
Marc Morano writing at Climate Depot:
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: "Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
[...]
Zorita's stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were "bullied and subtly blackmailed."
"In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research," Zorita explained.
No doubt a public lynching of Zorita is to come. And why this is so is the reason climate change is a religion and not a science.
Zorita's full statement is here.
We found no evidence for an increase in record temperatures. The fact that intra-annual and intra-monthly variance is declining suggests that we should see fewer record temperatures
Originally posted by atlasastro
So we have 450 peer review papers that support skepticism and that Includes skepticism of the "effects to the environment and economics". I wonder how many of them are attacking Economic effects? What does that have to do with AGW. I guess they need to bump the numbers.
The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
I wonder how many are just question the effect on the environment and not AGW itself?
I guess they need to bump the numbers there too.
The Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.
Excuse me? What was that last bit?
The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.
I clicked on this one.
See how it refers to a publication, that I put in Bold.
Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
- William Kininmonth
It links to this page.
www.ingentaconnect.com...
This is where they detail the paper in the publication.
IngentaConnect is the server that states on its home page www.ingentaconnect.com... that it is the Home of Scholarly research.
So on the face of it it looks like this. Your web page links to a scholarly database a Publication called Energy and Environment and in that publication William Kininmonth has an article Titled "Climate Change- A Natural Hazard".
It all looks pretty sweet.
"Climate Change- A Natural Hazard" is the prelude to a book. It was reviewed by this Publication, www.multi-science.co.uk...
If you look at their current board, there are no CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OR SPECIALISTS related to the field.
Editors
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Dr Benny Peiser,
Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Book review editor
Debra Johnson The Business School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Editorial advisory board
Professor B W Ang
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore
Dr Maarten Arentsen
University of Twente, Netherlands
Professor David Ball
Middlesex University, UK
Max Beran
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, UK
David Cope
Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, London
Richard S Courtney
RSC Environmental Services, Cornwall, UK, formerly Senior Materials Scientist, UK Coal Research
Dr Wolfgang Eichhammer
Fraunhofer Institute (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany
Dr Horace Herring
The Open University, UK
Professor Hilary I Inyang
Global Institute for Energy and Environmental Systems (GIEES), The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Professor Aynsley Kellow
School of Government, University of Tasmania, Australia
Professor Bjorn Lomborg
Associate Professor, Dept. of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, Denmark
It is not a peer reviewed paper even though it association with Environment and Energy makes it appear that way. It is a book.
The Author has never published any peer reviewed material on Climate Change.
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
- David C. Archibald
You probably will like like Archibald, he blames the Sun.
You have been sold it.
The Lies.
The deception.
The real hoax.
And you believe it.
I could keep going but what would be the point. 3 down and a trend showing.
That is true skepticism EU.
Check 'em all bro.
This is where you get your religion from.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Have a look at the records set this year.
Originally posted by Muckster
Nice try... the website is set up for no other reason than to forward the climate change sceptics agenda.
The only time this website veered from climate change denial was for...
"The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource"
And...
"The Anti Marijuana Resource"
Very impartial... NOT
As for the "peer reviewed research"
You can’t find any of the research references, or any other information of value, without first subscribing to this little Tea party of a website.
No thanks... Don’t fancy my email inbox being flooded with right wing propaganda and links to fox news.
Really it was set up for this? News to me and I am the editor.
Originally posted by Muckster
And like you, i could go on and on with links to pages containing information that back up my argument.
Originally posted by Muckster
Doing a quick search on Google doesn’t make you (nor me) a climate expert... nor does being an editor for an amateur website
However, it proves nothing because, as i mentioned before, a quick search on Google can provide just as many sites and stories that counter your argument which is all volume and no content.