2011-10-31 23:27:03Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

I have revised the introduction to the database of peer-reviewed papers at 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html

Please review the database itself at 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

You will see that after declining to remove the photos, we have now removed them after all. The reason is that we now have115 skeptics and the point of it all, the number of papers, began to get lost in a sea of images.

Please let me have any comments, corrections, or additions. We are going to publish this in a day or so.

Thanks for all your help with this project. 

Jim

2011-11-02 03:22:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

"unless an idea, theory, or interpretation is reported there in a peer-reviewed journal"

With your 3 examples, perhaps you could include a brief explanation as to exactly why you did or didn't include them.

Otherwise looks good.

2011-11-02 05:21:33
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.49

I agree with Dana, an explanation would be helpful and "Otherwise looks good." :)

Nitpick: the link to Oreskes close after the ]

2011-11-02 05:41:29
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Will do as Dana and Riccardo suggest. Thanks to both. Number now up to 118, including Muller. I had him in, then took him off, then after reading his statement that "two years ago, anyone should have been a skeptic," put him back. 

2011-11-02 14:45:51ready?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I think we need a break from all these BEST posts before we reach BEST saturation.  Are you ready to launch this one tomorrow (Wed.) Jim?

2011-11-02 15:31:34Good to go
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Jim, once you've made these changes and you're happy to go live, let us know here - Dana will publish this tomorrow if you're happy to go live.

UPDATE: note, just updated the screenshot in your blog post too, to reflect the latest updates. I would like to see this evolve, increase in size over time - as we'll only covered the top tier deniers, there are a whole bunch more who purport to have scientific expertise with zero papers. Would like to see the sea of zeroes grow.

2011-11-02 20:15:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

Jim Powell,

I'm not sure you're being fair to Muller: He uses the word "skeptic" in much the same sense that SkS uses the term "true skeptic". So his statement really means, "Two years ago, there were legitimate conceptual grounds for doubt; now there are no legitimate grounds for doubt."

2011-11-03 00:10:00
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Neal,

I have wrestled with Muller--had him on, off, and now back on. He is a different brand of skeptic than say Michaels or Piekle Sr.--and they differ from each other. Here is what he said, from the Washington Post, "“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.” In other words, "Until I have done it myself, it is not to be trusted." I count an article of Curry's because she raises the possibility of bias in the IPCC's work. Isn't Muller saying that two years ago, he doubted human-caused global warming? At least it seems to me he was over the line then. I predict now he will be saying the same things about the "human-caused" part of the argument. Everyone should be a skeptic about that until we hear from him. After all, HE says he was a skeptic until recently. 

But I predict I will get a lot of flak about including him.

Dana: tidying up a bit and will let you know soon that it is ready to go. Thanks.

2011-11-03 00:43:54
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Dana,

Good to go. Thanks for your help.

Jim.  

2011-11-03 01:20:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

Jim,

No, even 2 years ago, Muller was a "luke-warmer", not a denier. He hammered on the "hide the decline" issue (unfairly), but he did not claim the Earth was no warming.

In the broader scope, I don't see any advantage to antagonizing him unnecessarily. Reminds too much of the Joe Romm school of influencing people.

2011-11-03 02:14:34
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Neal,

My interpretation is that he is today sayng, "Two years ago everybody should have been a skeptic about "the temperature rise that had previously been reported...""

Doesn't that make him a skeptic by his own admission, his own words? 

2011-11-03 02:41:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

No, because he uses the term "skeptic" to mean "someone who doesn't BLINDLY accept the largest #'s. but wants solid evidence." He clearly distinguishes between deniers and skeptics; although the people that he draws the lines at are different than the people I would note. But he has never said the GHE wasn't happening, to my knowledge he's always said that the Earth is warming.

At a time when the real deniers are attacking him, I don't think we should join in (a la Romm): He's actually an excellent scientist, and if we just leave him alone, he will recognize that the WUWT folks, et al. are a bunch of crazies. He can then be rather beneficial to the cause.

If you're a Harry Potter fan, think Snape.

2011-11-03 03:10:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think Jim's plan is to say Muller used to be a 'skeptic' and has now changed his mind.  Makes Muller look good that way.  And he certainly has made a lot of 'skeptic'-type quotes.

2011-11-03 06:06:57
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

I am going to leave him on and encourage Neal to present his views in the comments. Maybe nearly everyone will agree with Neal. Maybe we will get a debate going over how we should regard Muller. 

No one was asking Muller to BLINDLY accept anything. Was he not saying that with his eyes wide open two years ago he did not accept the GISS, NOAA, and Hadley numbers, not until he had verified them himself? Is that not being a skeptic?

I will modify Part 2, about which I need comments, as Dana has said. 


Jim. 

2011-11-03 06:13:27
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

The names are unreadable: the font is too small.

2011-11-03 07:04:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

They're linked to a readable page though, neal.

2011-11-03 07:15:51Whoops!
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

wrt Richard Muller:

"There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Richard Muller"

I don't believe this is accurate. From the BEST page:

Richard Muller's published works on climate have appeared in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals including:

  1. Science (vol. 277, pp 215-218, 11 July 1997; vol. 288, p 2143-2144, 23 June 2000).
  2. Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (vol. 94, pp 8329-8334, Aug 5, 1997).
  3. Geology (vol. 25, pp. 3-6, 1997; vol. 25, pp. 859-861, 1997).
  4. Paleoceanography (vol. 17, pp. 2-1 to 2-12, 2002).
  5. Geoch. Cosmochim. Acta (vol. 67, pp 751-763, 2003).
  6. Nature (vol.377, pp 107-108, 14 September 1995).

and also in other journals such as Eos. He has been active in the American Geophysical Union on climate research, and wrote “Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes”, a technical book published by Springer.

 

 

2011-11-03 07:57:28
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Neal,

As explained, I searched the WoS for articles that come up under Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences. None of these 6 articles come up, none of them are about human-caused global warming. One is a letter which I did not count in any case. 

The question is not whether Muller, or anyone, is a well-published scientist, but whether they have published articles that deny or cast substantial doubt on human-caused global warming. Lindzen has published 101 articles in Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences, of which 9 meet that definition.

 

2011-11-03 08:33:38
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

Then you need to modify the text of the statement: "There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Richard Muller": It isn't accurate at all. We will run into a buzz-saw.

2011-11-03 08:46:03
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Neal,

Remind me of where I say that and I will change it.

2011-11-03 08:55:27
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

When I click on Richard Muller's name on the "medal display case", this pops up.

2011-11-03 09:01:18
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

We will correct that. 

2011-11-03 09:26:55
Jim Powell

jpowell@usc.edu
207.154.96.107

Corrected now.