Feed on
Posts
Comments

There’s a list of 450 “peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of ‘man-made’ global warming” making the rounds on the internet. Let’s take a closer look at it.

When peer review doesn’t mean peer review

Take a glance at that list, and it just leaps out at you: so many of the papers are all from the same source, from a journal called Energy & Environment. I counted 79 out of the 450, all from just one journal. Now, it isn’t the case that global warming is a small, narrowly focused field of research; if it was, one might expect it to be served by relatively few journals, and this large number of papers from a single journal wouldn’t be so strange. But global warming is a very broad field of research. It draws on a large number of disciplines, from atmospheric physics, paleoclimatology, marine science and more. It should, therefore, strike you as odd that fully 17% of the skeptical papers on this list all come from the journal Energy & Environment. And what a journal it is. From wikipedia:

“The journal is not listed in the ISI’s Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals, although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal, with coverage from 1995. “

So E&E doesn’t merit a listing in JCR, and hence has no impact factor, which, for publishing scientists, can be a big deal. The quality of the journal in which one publishes can count toward ones career. E&E simply would not count, and Scopus just lists it as a trade journal, which isn’t worth much at all. To pile on still further:

“The journal’s peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers. Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature’s blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: “…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there.”"

What good peer review provides is confidence that what you are reading has been scrutinised by relevant experts in the field. I can’t begin to comprehend, then, who scrutinised and approved this E&E paper. Perhaps it was the timecube guy. This author wants you to know that everything we know about the sun, our “currently fashionable model” for it, is in fact wrong:

“Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.”

Fair enough, I suppose. If we can’t even figure out what that big glowing thing in the sky is, then we certainly shouldn’t do anything about global warming. After all, if the sun was secretly all along a neutron star, and nobody noticed, then, heck, everything we think we know about everything can be called into question. Especially the IPCC conclusions. Right?

There are standards in science, and one of them is peer review. Scientists know what it is and what it isn’t, and the review process in a sub standard vanity press journal like E&E, well, isn’t. Let’s just take the E&E papers out of this list. It’s better for it, as a lot of what remains in the list really isn’t junk.

Skepticism, or just scientists doing science?

Here’s how you know man made global warming science is not a religion: it keeps on trying to debunk itself. Here’s one way you can see it keeps on trying to debunk itself: this list of 450 papers (well, excepting the dross from E&E).

It is an accepted scientific norm that research, once conducted and reported, can be challenged. Nothing is sacred and nothing is untouchable. Accordingly, here’s a great example of just that from the list.

That’s the Richard Lindzen, climate contrarian, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, lead author of Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. He went to a symposium organised by the Charles D. Keeling, the man who first recorded the progressive atmospheric accumulation of CO2, and pretty much a rock star in climatological terms; and he presented a paper challenging the most fundamental aspect of man made global warming, that increasing carbon dioxide causes climate change. And what did the prestigious National Academy of Sciences do with that highly skeptical paper?

They published it.

And that, people, is how scientists do science.

A question of context

So here we are, 2009, 12 years later, and the idea that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause climate change is still the accepted consensus. What Lindzen wrote in 1997 didn’t overturn that consensus. It challenged it, but that wasn’t enough. The reason is that there exists a preponderance of evidence for man made global warming. This list of 450 disparate papers, many of which are from just one junk journal, does not make for a coherent scientific argument against man made global warming. In fact, the creators of the list don’t bother to explain why each paper is “skeptical of man made global warming”; and I find myself skeptical that many of these papers even come close to doing any such thing. If there is a coherent case to be made against “man made global warming”, it isn’t being made by this list.

Picking only the papers that appear to be skeptical of a topic, without considering the totality of the research published on that topic, is called cherry picking. Compare and contrast with the IPCC. It isn’t as though the IPCC doesn’t consider contrary research findings in its reviews: it does. The following example (from the TAR) shows this review process in action:

“5.1 Observed changes in terrestrial (including freshwater) species distributions, population sizes, and community composition.

The IPCC evaluated the effect of climate change on biological systems by assessing 2,500 published studies. Of these, 44 studies, which included about 500 taxa, met the following criteria: 20 or more years of data; measuring temperature as one of the variables; the authors of the study finding a statistically significant change in both a biological/physical parameter and the measured temperature; and a statistical correlation between the temperature and the change in the biological/physical parameter. Some of these studies investigated different taxa (e.g. bird and insect) in the same paper. Of a total of 59 plants, 47 invertebrates, 29 amphibians and reptiles, 388 birds, and 10 mammal species, approximately 80% showed change in the biological parameter measured (e.g. start and end of breeding season, shifts in migration patterns, shifts in animal and plant distributions, and changes in body size) in the manner expected with global warming, while 20% showed change in the opposite direction. Most of these studies have been carried out in the temperate and high-latitude areas and in some high altitude areas. These studies show that some ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to changes in regional climate (e.g. high-altitude and high-latitude ecosystems) have already been affected by changes in climate.”

Now think what would happen if the IPCC worked the same way as the creator of this “450 papers” list. We would have a list of papers showing changes in the biological parameter that were only consistent with global warming. By not considering the totality of the evidence, for and against, and putting it in context, we would get a quite false impression of the state of research. If the creator of the “450 papers” list had been given the same job, we would have a list of papers that only showed changes in biological parameters that were not consistent with global warming. Either way, it would be cherry picking, and therefore misleading. What we get from the IPCC review instead is the honestly reported finding that 20% of their datasets did not support global warming. They weren’t ignored or suppressed, but put into context, we can see that the preponderance of the datasets rather did support global warming.

It is possible for hundreds of research papers to exist that are “skeptical of man made global warming”, and at the same time, for the existence of such papers to be insufficient to overturn the consensus on man made global warming. It’s a question of putting research into context, and considering the totality of the evidence.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
-F. Scott Fitzgerald

What should have been done

What this topic needs is a fair review. Some group to take a look at all the evidence relating to man made global warming, for and against, weigh it up, pull out the main themes and the most well supported research findings, and report all this in a transparent and open manner. Put these “skeptical” papers in context, and provide an overview of the level of scientific certainty on the topic of “man made global warming.”

Come to think of it, the IPCC reports do just that.

This list of 450 papers doesn’t really prove anything. It scores a cheap rhetorical point, perhaps, by showing – albeit incompetently – that skepticism exists in the peer reviewed climate science literature, but really that just demonstrates that climate science is, well, science, rather than being a religion that silences all its heretics.

So please don’t be fooled by silly junk like this list. Consider the totality of the evidence, and don’t fall for the temptation of cherry picking only the research that supports your point of view.

17 Responses to “Skeptical about 450 “peer reviewed” papers skeptical of global warming”

  1. Poptech says:

    “Journal Citation Reports” is a commercial product of the Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective ranking system.

    “Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,

    Show Me The Data
    http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
    (The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
    - Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

    Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
    http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/180/2/254
    (The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
    - Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

    The Scopus listing is wrong since E&E has nothing to do with any specific “trade” such as say “chemical engineering” ect…

    EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal.
    http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf

    The Manuel papers are clearly a radical new theory but they do not represent the common skeptical position, however the papers are skeptical of AGW.

    E&E is not a sub-standard or vanity journal, it is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal.

    Actually the UK has just determined that it is a religion,

    Climate change belief given same legal status as religion (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

    This is interesting “criteria”,

    “the authors of the study finding a statistically significant change in both a biological/physical parameter and the measured temperature; and a statistical correlation between the temperature and the change in the biological/physical parameter”

    They cherry picked 44 papers out of 2500, knowing full well that ones meeting this “criteria” would show the “change” they were looking for. Thanks for helping make my point!

    If the list of 450 papers was so irrelevant then you would not feel the need to post on it.

  2. [...] if those are unconvincing, Carbon Fixated draws our attention to this gem EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E [...]

  3. CAM says:

    Poptech: Why don’t you explain the point of the list.
    Maybe these questions will help:
    What do you think your list shows or achieves?
    What criteria were used in its compilation (which databases, with which search terms)?
    Why did you compile it?
    How do you decide if a paper is “skeptical” or not? What is the threshold?

  4. Tony Zito says:

    /good grief! I hope that EBSCO will reconsider classifying E&E as an academic journal. I cannot imagine an honest and reputable journal publishing this nearly psychotic passage:

    “Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.”

    This is damning, wouldn’t you say, Poptech? If you are trying to argue for or against something, you don’t want to be associated with E&E. Just a little friendly advice.

  5. [...] Global Warming” as seen in numerous blogger websites (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Poptech’s ALARM was added later when he realised his mistake in listing [...]

  6. אומגה 3 says:

    מגוון רחב של ויטמינים, תוספי תזונה ברזל, מגה גלופקס ועוד..

  7. Hi! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with
    hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard
    work due to no back up. Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?

    I am greatful that you currently taking a period to see my user profile.
    You are welcome to have a look at my own web-site
    as well for supplemental advice and very helpful suggestions :
    : http://partyplanningcentral.blog.com/

  8. good advice says:

    Heya i am for the first time here. I found
    this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out a
    lot. I hope to give something back and aid others like you helped me.

  9. Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
    you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is wonderful, as
    well as the content!

    Also visit my web-site: Highly recommended Website

  10. user-pic says:

    Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Many thanks, However I am going through troubles with your RSS.
    I don’t understand why I am unable to join it. Is there anyone else getting similar RSS problems? Anyone who knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

  11. With so few game publishers with this group, it’s not worth a lot. I have severe doubts about the games industry believing you will find the future in PC my life, even if an ever smaller class of PC gamers are.

  12. Quality articles is the crucial to invite the people to pay
    a visit the web page, that’s what this site is providing.

  13. Heriberto says:

    Right here is the right website for everyone who would like to find out about this topic.
    You realize a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I actually would want
    to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a subject that has been written about for decades.
    Excellent stuff, just wonderful!

  14. google.com says:

    I was very happy to find this website. I need to to thank you for ones time for this particularly wonderful read!!
    I definitely loved every part of it and i also have you book marked to see new information
    on your blog.

    Also visit my blog; search engine optimization (google.com)

  15. Magaret says:

    Great website. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to several
    pals ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thanks to your effort!

    Feel free to visit my weblog flower delivery valencia
    ca (Magaret)

  16. Roxanna says:

    Hello! I understand this is kind of off-topic however I
    had to ask. Does running a well-established blog like yours take a lot
    of work? I am completely new to operating a blog but I do write in my diary everyday.

    I’d like to start a blog so I will be able to share my own experience
    and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any kind of ideas or tips for brand new aspiring blog owners.
    Thankyou!

    Here is my homepage – home loans; Roxanna,

Leave a Reply