400+ Genuine Scientific Papers Supporting AGW! Not that hard to Acquire!

The main argument in the introduction to my list, that some people such as Andrew – the initiator of my project – just didn’t seem to get is that within science, confidence is increased through rigorous testing and retesting, coupled with many other independent studies consistently coming to a very similar result. This is very different to the “confidence” one could draw from the book I discussed in the list’s introduction or Andrew’s list both of which instead rely on many assorted ideas, all of which together disagree on the opposing conclusion drawn from a wealth of information but all of which fail to agree in content.

There isn’t much confidence to be drawn by many different ideas grouped together but there is in one idea backed up by a wealth of consistent evidence (all of which has been tested through rigorous scientific methodology).

Likewise, this robust idea is not degraded by a handful of “broken” studies that no longer sit in wall of understanding (beautifully explained in Marc Roberts, Frank and Associates comic below).

They say that “one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. I couldn’t agree more. By Andrew’s own admission, his list doesn’t represent a unified theory but exists only to demonstrate that such papers exist (as discussed in the introduction of my list) and it seems, in my opinion, to be another example of Ernest Reedham’s obsession with broken bricks in the  above comic.

For that reason, I’m done with Andrew and all this pseudo-sceticism nonsense. My project will continue, but without further discussion regarding Poptech, Andrew or his devoted fan Adam Jayne.

That put aside of the latest 100 papers to be included in the unified list, now 400 strong, I came across some really interesting reads, the top ten are;

Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras

– McSweeney and Coomes (2011) PNAS – Where the is so much negativity around climate change, this paper stands as a positive example

The Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing

– Dull, Nevle, Woods, Bird, Avnery and Denevan (2010) Annals of the Association of American Geographers – This paper suggests anthropogenic greenhouse force may have played a role deeper in human history than currently discussed. This is also the theme of the following paper;

The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago

– Ruddiman (2003) Climatic Change

Unravelling the structure of species extinction risk for predictive conservation science

– Lee and Jetz (2011) Proceeding of the Royal Society B – My ecology background coming through – something that I’ve discussion in Innovation is Key and The Human Island; climate change on it’s own is a difficult one to assign risk to various species, but it further complicated by other human impacts, such as land use change. Which is also discussed in the following paper;

Responses to historical climate change identify contemporary threats to diversity in Dodecatheon

Oberle and Schaal (2011) PNAS

Differences in Thermal Tolerance Among Sockeye Salmon Populations

– Eliason, Clark, Hague, Hanson, Gallagher, Jeffries, Gale, Patterson, Hinch and Farrell (2011) Science – More on species dependent response to climate change and with salmon being very important in many ecosystem for the transfer of oceanic nutrient fertilisation of temperate forests, this is worth further investigation.

Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate

– Dawson, Jackson, House, Prentice and Mace (2011) Science – Interesting framework for ecological management under a changing climate.

Feedbacks of Terrestrial Ecosystems to Climate Change

– Field, Lobell, Peters and Chiariello (2007) Annual Review of Environment and Resources – Further explores the dynamic relationships between climate, land use change and ecology. Both from a research perspective and future potential human activity pathways (ie. biophilic initiatives, bioengineering / geoengineering, rehabilitation and new avenues of prosperity = more work / wealth options) this is a fascinating area of study.

Investigating the climate impacts of global land cover change in the community climate system model

– Lawrence and Chase (2010) International Journal of Climatology – More on land use change and how important it is, not only to species persistence, but to the changing climate itself.

Priming depletes soil carbon and releases nitrogen in a scrub-oak ecosystem exposed to elevated CO2

– Langley, McKinley, Wolf, Hungate, Drake and Megonigal (2009) Soil Biology and Biochemistry – The Anthropocene hydrological and nutrient cycles are likely to be different to those we’ve experienced in the Holocene. In this paper the soil carbon and nitrogen cycles are investigated.

As I’ve discussed previously, Nature have a new journal, Climate Change, which I’ll be keeping an eye on and I’ve also stumbled upon yet another new peer-reviewed journal; Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology. With any hope these publications won’t only continue to build on the wealth of evidence we already have for anthropogenic climate change, but what positive actions we can undertake to improve our activities to produce a prosperous anthropocene that we can take pride in (for it is unlikely we can keep CO2 concentrations under 450-500 ppm, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act and that the future needs to be one of hardship – we simply need to listen to the ol’ grey matter in our noggins rather than the noisy little band of pseudo-sceptics).


3 thoughts on “400+ Genuine Scientific Papers Supporting AGW! Not that hard to Acquire!

  1. Hey, didn’t you hear Andrew tell you already “we never said there wasn’t” ?

    Oh right, I forgot, a) Andrew is banned , b) we’re not trying to convince trolls, but people genuinely looking for honest information.


    1. Indeed.. he’s interesting like that. It’s clear he thinks his list is a powerful knock at the science behind AGW, but has the trump card of, “it’s only meant to be a resource” when anyone questions the strength, from a scientific perspective, of his list.

      I’m happy to move beyond it all.


      1. no, he’ll never say “I have an argument against science” he’ll try very hard to avoid saying “I never said this was science” but when he can, he’ll say “I got scientists on my side” (but avoid saying “I have MORE scientists on my side”)

        When you bring up credentialism, he’ll pull out his handful of scientists. At that point, he’ll be embarassed to admit they add up to less than a dozen (yes, as in literally a handful). Then it becomes “I’m just saying they exist, I’m not saying I have more or they are better”.

        When you tell him the scientists don’t all question GW or AGW, he’ll say what most people don’t know “I never said they question or doubt AGW, I just said they are not alarmist!”

        In other words, anybody who doesn’t agree with Al Gore, or doesn’t want a carbon tax, is a non-alarmist. Even those who believe they’ll be a tipping point, mass sea level rise, or increase in hurricane severity. As long as you don’t think we should do anything about it (whether or not we caused it or can change it) you’re on Andrew’s good side.

        The denier secret : Start with the most absurd person to make your strawman. Everybody else is then on “your side” because your opponent is strawmanned using Al Gore.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s