What Do You Think About Climate Change?

[thomas00]

more changing of the goal posts. You previously claimed that there were no peer reviewed journal articles challenging the man-made global warming fantasy. I gave you access to well over a thousand ones and the best you can do is outright lie about what they are saying. lol

Have you actually read any of these papers? I think it's obvious that you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be contending that all of them argue against climate change, as they clearly don't. They are simply being represented by the owner of those blogs as challenging climate change. One of the blogs even admits this:

Criticism: None of the papers on the list argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997), Raschke (2001), Singer (2002), Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), Karlen (2008), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Zhao (2011), Beenstock et al. (2012)and more.
​

Out of their list of 1350+ papers they list, they concede that only nine of them actually argue from a skeptic's perspective. All of the journals in those 9 articles have very low impact factors -4.212,3.578, 0.319, 1.07, 2.973, 1.699, 5.58, 0.60 and two of them are open access. Compare that to the journal Nature which has impact fact of 38.138.

Journals don't have low impact factors for no reason.

As somebody who doesn't have an education in climate science and doesn't spend his days poring over the tonnes of literature on the subject, I have to make a decision about who to trust. How did I decide who to trust?

1.I used to spend time on forum (not related to climate science) that had a member who happened to be a climate scientist. Often people would throw the prevailing skeptic arguments at him which, in their minds, disproved the theory of human induced climate change. He took a lot of time answering these things and I never once saw an argument that he couldn't successfully refute or could demonstrate that the proposition had been misrepresented or cherry picked. For me, this wasn't an encouraging sign that the skeptics were on solid ground (contrary to what you may believe about people who take the position I do, I actually, along with many others I suspect, want the skeptics to be right)

2. I was curious about op-eds by journalists in newspapers that would challenge climate change science and would read them. Not once did I fail to see a rebuttal to their pieces, written either by scientists in the fields or other journalists. I was consistently seeing counter-arguments which showed a flagrant disregard for wider sets of data that were available and provided a broader context which showed the the 'against' camp's positions were highly misleading and often flat out ignorant.

3. I watched an IPCC scientist front an audience of skeptics on television (here). The fact that he was happy and willling to sit in an audience full of people who had views ranging from skepticism to ouright contempt for him, coupled with his ability to answer everything being lobbed his way, demonstrated further than the skeptics weren't providing anything very compelling. I have never seen anything like what happened on that show with any other contentious issue in science where often times proponents of certain ideas- ideas that we on this forum see as totally bogus- wouldn't even accept invitations to debate, and certainly not with anyone from the public.

4. I wonder why aren't people who are skeptical of this idea trying to get their work published in more prominent journals that are more prestigious, have a much greater impact and are more widely read? I see no evidence yet that they are attempting to do this. If they were, and the journals were knocking them back for scientifically dubious reasons which they could demonstrate then I would be more favourable to their argument that something fishy is going on.

Was I incorrect when I said "the skeptics won't even attempt (as far as I'm aware) to get any of their ideas published says volumes"? Yes, but publishing something in a journal isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to establishing the validity of an idea, and I never said it was. Quality amongst journals varies greatly and that matters.

 

[x-ray peat]

Have you actually read any of these papers? I think it's obvious that you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be contending that all of them argue against climate change, as they clearly don't. They are simply being represented by the owner of those blogs as challenging climate change. One of the blogs even admits this:

Criticism: None of the papers on the list argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997), Raschke (2001), Singer (2002), Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), Karlen (2008), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Zhao (2011), Beenstock et al. (2012)and more.
​

Out of their list of 1350+ papers they list, they concede that only nine of them actually argue from a skeptic's perspective. All of the journals in those 9 articles have very low impact factors -4.212,3.578, 0.319, 1.07, 2.973, 1.699, 5.58, 0.60 and two of them are open access. Compare that to the journal Nature which has impact fact of 38.138.

Journals don't have low impact factors for no reason.

As somebody who doesn't have an education in climate science and doesn't spend his days poring over the tonnes of literature on the subject, I have to make a decision about who to trust. How did I decide who to trust?

1.I used to spend time on forum (not related to climate science) that had a member who happened to be a climate scientist. Often people would throw the prevailing skeptic arguments at him which, in their minds, disproved the theory of human induced climate change. He took a lot of time answering these things and I never once saw an argument that he couldn't successfully refute or could demonstrate that the proposition had been misrepresented or cherry picked. For me, this wasn't an encouraging sign that the skeptics were on solid ground (contrary to what you may believe about people who take the position I do, I actually, along with many others I suspect, want the skeptics to be right)

2. I was curious about op-eds by journalists in newspapers that would challenge climate change science and would read them. Not once did I fail to see a rebuttal to their pieces, written either by scientists in the fields or other journalists. I was consistently seeing counter-arguments which showed a flagrant disregard for wider sets of data that were available and provided a broader context which showed the the 'against' camp's positions were highly misleading and often flat out ignorant.

3. I watched an IPCC scientist front an audience of skeptics on television (here). The fact that he was happy and willling to sit in an audience full of people who had views ranging from skepticism to ouright contempt for him, coupled with his ability to answer everything being lobbed his way, demonstrated further than the skeptics weren't providing anything very compelling. I have never seen anything like what happened on that show with any other contentious issue in science where often times proponents of certain ideas- ideas that we on this forum see as totally bogus- wouldn't even accept invitations to debate, and certainly not with anyone from the public.

4. I wonder why aren't people who are skeptical of this idea trying to get their work published in more prominent journals that are more prestigious, have a much greater impact and are more widely read? I see no evidence yet that they are attempting to do this. If they were, and the journals were knocking them back for scientifically dubious reasons which they could demonstrate then I would be more favourable to their argument that something fishy is going on.

Was I incorrect when I said "the skeptics won't even attempt (as far as I'm aware) to get any of their ideas published says volumes"? Yes, but publishing something in a journal isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to establishing the validity of an idea, and I never said it was. Quality amongst journals varies greatly and that matters.

I don’t think you really grasp the fraud that is going on. The IPCC has purposely restricted their inquiry to only man-made causes of global warming and have excluded any investigation into non-man made sources. An honest investigation would not have placed such an artificial restriction. It is obvious that they have stacked the deck in their favor to obtain their predetermined outcome. Since the IPCC is the main player involved, all Government funded research and most privately funded research has restricted inquiry to this same false dichotomy. Since the primary climate journals rely on this funding they have all fallen in line and IPCC supporters have been placed throughout the climate change industry to serve as their gatekeepers. This is why it is so difficult to get funding to investigate anything that goes against the IPCC.

It’s not that skeptics don’t want to be published in the top journals; it’s that they are not allowed to. Any non-tenured professor who challenges the orthodoxy will soon be on the street. That is why most skeptics are older tenured professors who have some job security though they face a lot of pressure as well. This is not my opinion but is gleaned from listening to many hours of podcasts from skeptics who all consistently tell the same story of harassment and non-funding of their work. Many have moved on to different areas of research.

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!
Climate science a UN charade
According to Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball “the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbor a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email. “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism””

Skeptics for the most part don’t claim that climate change doesn’t happen or that man doesn’t play a role in the climate but are only saying that man made greenhouse gases are not the primary issue. Many say that they are not even a major factor and that natural causes far outweigh anything we are doing to the climate. These 1000 peer reviewed papers argue against the main IPCC contention that man is the primary cause of global warming, disprove many of the IPCC predictions or show that a restriction of man made CO2 production would not do anything to change the climate. They certainly do not maintain that AGW is the main cause of climate change.

In science one develops a hypothesis and then makes predictions based on that hypothesis. The predictions are then tested by experimental observation to see if they hold. If not the hypothesis is discarded and the scientist looks for another cause. The IPCC has made a mockery of the scientific method. Instead of acknowledging their failure to predict anything they just change the name of their hypothesis (global warming to climate change) or push the predictions further out in time. Anyone who questions their methods is not debated but rather attacked on a personal level as a denier.

How they specifically got the science wrong is amply covered in this thread so I won’t bother to get into that. As Ray has said CO2 is life supportive and not the bogeyman it’s made out to be. The earth has had 20 times as much atmospheric C02 in the past and this was never a problem to life on earth and did not result in extreme temperatures. If you are honestly open minded on this, then go to YouTube, type in “climate change fraud,” and watch any number of top climatologists explain the deception that is going on. It’s not an accident that Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on this. He would be utterly destroyed.

 

[Kyle M]

Unless I'm not seeing something on the paper, it wasn't published in a journal. It's just been put on the internet. The peer-review it underwent consisted of an email exchange, which I can't access.

What peer review process do you have access to, if you don't mind me asking? I've put manuscripts through peer review personally, and I was never apprised of who the reviewers were and had minimal ability to interact with them. None actually, all you can do is address their criticisms by either adding data, changing wording, or saying to the editor you think their criticism is stupid and you aren't going to change anything about it. People who don't work in science, and I'm going to repeat this over and over again, have a rosy and naive view of "the system." Peer review does not exist to quality control science, it exists to aggrandize citation rings and try to direct funding within friend and colleague networks.

P.S. - your focus solely on the credentials of the arguer rather than addressing any of the arguments is, literally, ad hominem fallacy. This is how they control the breadth of discourse, by controlling the credentialing institutions. Or it is a coincidence that funding for both the schooling and research portions of a science education is nearly monopolized and rigidly regulated by the state?

 

[x-ray peat]

What peer review process do you have access to, if you don't mind me asking? I've put manuscripts through peer review personally, and I was never apprised of who the reviewers were and had minimal ability to interact with them. None actually, all you can do is address their criticisms by either adding data, changing wording, or saying to the editor you think their criticism is stupid and you aren't going to change anything about it. People who don't work in science, and I'm going to repeat this over and over again, have a rosy and naive view of "the system." Peer review does not exist to quality control science, it exists to aggrandize citation rings and try to direct funding within friend and colleague networks.

P.S. - your focus solely on the credentials of the arguer rather than addressing any of the arguments is, literally, ad hominem fallacy. This is how they control the breadth of discourse, by controlling the credentialing institutions. Or it is a coincidence that funding for both the schooling and research portions of a science education is nearly monopolized and rigidly regulated by the state?

What's funny is that he is arguing with me on another thread about how much he doesn't care about someone's credentials and any presentation of them is a logical fallacy. smh

 

[lollipop]

@Kyle M you might find this interesting:

Tearing Down Science’s Citation Paywall, One Link At A Time

 

[thomas00]

I don’t think you really grasp the fraud that is going on. The IPCC has purposely restricted their inquiry to only man-made causes of global warming and have excluded any investigation into non-man made sources. An honest investigation would not have placed such an artificial restriction. It is obvious that they have stacked the deck in their favor to obtain their predetermined outcome. Since the IPCC is the main player involved, all Government funded research and most privately funded research has restricted inquiry to this same false dichotomy. Since the primary climate journals rely on this funding they have all fallen in line and IPCC supporters have been placed throughout the climate change industry to serve as their gatekeepers. This is why it is so difficult to get funding to investigate anything that goes against the IPCC.

Channelling funding to one area of inquiry and not others does not constitute 'fraud', unless you are willing to stretch the definition of the word to bizarre lengths.

It’s not that skeptics don’t want to be published in the top journals; it’s that they are not allowed to. Any non-tenured professor who challenges the orthodoxy will soon be on the street. That is why most skeptics are older tenured professors who have some job security though they face a lot of pressure as well. This is not my opinion but is gleaned from listening to many hours of podcasts from skeptics who all consistently tell the same story of harassment and non-funding of their work. Many have moved on to different areas of research.

OK, so where is your evidence that journals are actively forbidding the publishing of any of the skeptics works?We see that the authors of at least 9 papers had the opportunity to do and instead opted not to.

And I'm asking for actual correspondence between journal editors and researchers, not just somebody on a podcast making claims.

Skeptics for the most part don’t claim that climate change doesn’t happen or that man doesn’t play a role in the climate but are only saying that man made greenhouse gases are not the primary issue. Many say that they are not even a major factor and that natural causes far outweigh anything we are doing to the climate.

Yes I've noticed there has been quite a retreat from the initial rejection that any kind of temperature rise was happening at all. As for the 9 studies I mentioned, they do argue from the position you've described. But typing in 'globe is not warming' into google provides no shortage of people who contest there is no global warming so I have no idea how accurate your claim that 'most' skeptics don't think this way is.

These 1000 peer reviewed papers argue against the main IPCC contention that man is the primary cause of global warming, disprove many of the IPCC predictions or show that a restriction of man made CO2 production would not do anything to change the climate. They certainly do not maintain that AGW is the main cause of climate change.

Have you made this conclusion by reading all of these 1350+ papers yourself?

Because I can go through many of them at random and conclude the opposite of what you have said.

 

[thomas00]

What peer review process do you have access to, if you don't mind me asking? I've put manuscripts through peer review personally, and I was never apprised of who the reviewers were and had minimal ability to interact with them. None actually, all you can do is address their criticisms by either adding data, changing wording, or saying to the editor you think their criticism is stupid and you aren't going to change anything about it. People who don't work in science, and I'm going to repeat this over and over again, have a rosy and naive view of "the system." Peer review does not exist to quality control science, it exists to aggrandize citation rings and try to direct funding within friend and colleague networks.

You didn't respond to my question about whether or not there was something I was missing in regards to it's publication so I will assume I was correct in saying that this paper is not published in a journal, and was simply uploaded to the internet and the only 'peer review' it underwent was an email exchange between some other people on a blog and I can't access that.

As for your criticism of the peer review process, I am not of the position that it functions solely as a method of quality control. But if you are going to claim that it exists to 'direct funding within friend and colleague networks' then you'd need to prove that for it rise about the level of a convenient excuse not to subject one's work to it.

Let's say for arguments sake that peer review is indeed absolutely bankrupt as a quality control. The best way to expose that is not to avoid it but to show numerous examples of it in action. I've asked for examples of top quality journals engaging in this behaviour with climate skeptics but I haven't been provided it with it yet.

P.S. - your focus solely on the credentials of the arguer rather than addressing any of the arguments is, literally, ad hominem fallacy. This is how they control the breadth of discourse, by controlling the credentialing institutions. Or it is a coincidence that funding for both the schooling and research portions of a science education is nearly monopolized and rigidly regulated by the state?

I didn't actually question the credentials of the arguer, so you're attacking a position I never took. I simply asked for some reviewed papers in journals and argued that not all information carries the same weight depending on where and how it was published. Are you disagreeing with that?

 

[thomas00]

What's funny is that he is arguing with me on another thread about how much he doesn't care about someone's credentials and any presentation of them is a logical fallacy. smh

Perhaps you could explain how investigating whether or not somebody has-and is willing to- let people scrutinise their conclusions constitutes questioning their credentials?

 

[Kyle M]

You didn't respond to my question about whether or not there was something I was missing in regards to it's publication so I will assume I was correct in saying that this paper is not published in a journal, and was simply uploaded to the internet and the only 'peer review' it underwent was an email exchange between some other people on a blog and I can't access that.

As for your criticism of the peer review process, I am not of the position that it functions solely as a method of quality control. But if you are going to claim that it exists to 'direct funding within friend and colleague networks' then you'd need to prove that for it rise about the level of a convenient excuse not to subject one's work to it.

Let's say for arguments sake that peer review is indeed absolutely bankrupt as a quality control. The best way to expose that is not to avoid it but to show numerous examples of it in action. I've asked for examples of top quality journals engaging in this behaviour with climate skeptics but I haven't been provided it with it yet.

Rancourt published that one article on the internet, but 10 seconds or less of searching would show you his journal articles. Would you like me to hold your hand for that? It would take less time than your response took to type.

The very fact that the system still exists means that there isn't evidence to the level of "proof" to people like you. If everyone bothered to engage with the system and follow money and careers around, and read websites like "retraction watch" regularly, then the system wouldn't have grown up in the first place. Why should I, who is arguing against an involuntarily funded and regulated system centrally planned by the coercive power of the state, be in the position of holding the burden of proof? Shouldn't you, who is espousing such a violence-oriented system (involuntary funding and regulatory apparatus) hold the burden to show me and other tax payers that it is entirely beneficial and somehow justifies all of our wealth extraction to fund?

I didn't actually question the credentials of the arguer, so you're attacking a position I never took. I simply asked for some reviewed papers in journals and argued that not all information carries the same weight depending on where and how it was published. Are you disagreeing with that?

Yes you did, you are dismissing skeptics for not publishing in main stream journals.

 

[Kyle M]

Perhaps you could explain how investigating whether or not somebody has-and is willing to- let people scrutinise their conclusions constitutes questioning their credentials?

Are you laboring under the thin delusion that the only way a conclusion can be scrutinized is through the peer review process in a main stream journal? That Rancourt paper uses well-known physics, nothing controversial, to show that CO2 is not a significant player in heat trapping beyond a small initial uptick that our atmospheric CO2 levels have already surpassed.

This is the kind of thought control I'm talking about. You have been convinced that only people with the letters PhD after their names, in accredited universities, doing official reviewing of submitted articles, can discover truth.

Just to reiterate, Rancourt uses textbook physics to show his conclusions, not experimental physics that could be questioned as to his methods etc. So your point is 100% moot, and you must either engage with the argument or admit that you aren't interested in engaging with it.

 

[Kyle M]

@Kyle M you might find this interesting:

Tearing Down Science’s Citation Paywall, One Link At A Time

I'm not a big Wired fan, and honestly the paywall is dead last on my list of problems with academia. Window dressing really. It's like saying the worst thing the Catholic Church ever did was not teach everyone Latin to read their dictates.

 

[lollipop]

I'm not a big Wired fan, and honestly the paywall is dead last on my list of problems with academia. Window dressing really. It's like saying the worst thing the Catholic Church ever did was not teach everyone Latin to read their dictates.

Makes sense.

 

[x-ray peat]

Channelling funding to one area of inquiry and not others does not constitute 'fraud', unless you are willing to stretch the definition of the word to bizarre lengths.

They are not "channeling funding into one area of inquiry" but are rather artificially restricting the scope of the investigation and predetermining its outcome. The proper area of inquiry is the climate and what is driving it. All causes need to be investigated equally, not just man made ones. Ignoring the natural causes of climate change is scientific fraud. It is the same as restricting cancer research to only that of eating too much processed food. Sure there is a link but by not investigating the other causes you distort the science and the policy implications. The end result would be no more hot dogs while everyone is back to smoking cigarettes and visiting the tanning salon. The IPCC recommendations to curb man made CO2 is equally as wrong headed and just as likely to work.

 

[Kyle M]

They are not "channeling funding into one area of inquiry" but are rather artificially restricting the scope of the investigation and predetermining its outcome. The proper area of inquiry is the climate and what is driving it. All causes need to be investigated equally, not just man made ones. Ignoring the natural causes of climate change is scientific fraud. It is the same as restricting cancer research to only that of eating too much processed food. Sure there is a link but by not investigating the other causes you distort the science and the policy implications. The end result would be no more hot dogs while everyone is back to smoking cigarettes and visiting the tanning salon. The IPCC recommendations to curb man made CO2 is equally as wrong headed and just as likely to work.

It is a very hard concept for some to understand that the currently employed scientists, who have a particular subfield, are not an objective voice on what scientific subfields should be funded in their field. As I said on Nutrition Deconstructed (the newest hip podcast on Ray Peat's ideas lol) AT BEST the current system is conservative, that is to say it favors currently held theories over new ones all evidence being equal.

 

[x-ray peat]

It is a very hard concept for some to understand that the currently employed scientists, who have a particular subfield, are not an objective voice on what scientific subfields should be funded in their field. As I said on Nutrition Deconstructed (the newest hip podcast on Ray Peat's ideas lol) AT BEST the current system is conservative, that is to say it favors currently held theories over new ones all evidence being equal.

I think its worse than that. I think science at the University level is used to promote whatever political agenda is on the table at the moment. Government controls the majority of the funding and if they want to show man as the culprit behind climate change then that is what researchers will show. If we have learned anything from RP its that real discoveries and real science is kept hidden from us. He has said several times that the most interesting studies are actually deleted from PubMed.

 

[x-ray peat]

Have you made this conclusion by reading all of these 1350+ papers yourself?
Because I can go through many of them at random and conclude the opposite of what you have said.

I am not sure what papers you are reading because everyone of the several I looked at all refute in some way the claims or predictions of the catastrophic AGW proponents. Could you show me which ones do not?

But in any case you first claimed that there are no peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarmism. I take it you have walked that back a bit.

here are the papers with the abstracts given that I went through
Skeptic Papers 2016 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2016 (2)
Skeptic Papers 2016 (3)

 

[Travis]

It is a good time to point out that even Kyle's reference, Rancourt, believes that CO₂ does lead to global warming. I have read it at least once and he predicts and smaller increase in temperature as a function of increasing CO₂.

I have never seen an actual journal publication in which the author claimed that a doubling in CO₂ would lead to absolutely no temperature change. The whole "CO₂ has no effect" trope is the domain of bloggers and commentators only.

Now, Rancourt makes some good points. Some climate models seem to exaggerate the effects of increased CO₂. The only question now is "who has the most accurate model". Even if Rancourt had been bribed by the oil companies does not necessarily invalidate his claims.

 

[Travis]

All of these journals I saw had impact factors that were so low it probably wouldn't be too much of a challenge for me to get a paper on the 'moon landing as a hoax' past their peer-review process.

A hoax? I know it was. Look at this video; notice the wires:

 

[thomas00]

Rancourt published that one article on the internet, but 10 seconds or less of searching would show you his journal articles. Would you like me to hold your hand for that? It would take less time than your response took to type.

The very fact that the system still exists means that there isn't evidence to the level of "proof" to people like you. If everyone bothered to engage with the system and follow money and careers around, and read websites like "retraction watch" regularly, then the system wouldn't have grown up in the first place. Why should I, who is arguing against an involuntarily funded and regulated system centrally planned by the coercive power of the state, be in the position of holding the burden of proof? Shouldn't you, who is espousing such a violence-oriented system (involuntary funding and regulatory apparatus) hold the burden to show me and other tax payers that it is entirely beneficial and somehow justifies all of our wealth extraction to fund?



Yes you did, you are dismissing skeptics for not publishing in main stream journals.

Now I'm propping up state violence? That's quite hysterical.

I'm arguing that all sources are not equal. Do you dispute that?

People who don't work in science, and I'm going to repeat this over and over again, have a rosy and naive view of "the system."

That's you relying on your credentials, and it's very arrogant thinking to claim that nobody 'outside' of research could possibly understand it like you

I'll ask again- are these people at least trying to publish in journals with much greater readership and reputation? If they aren't then they are in effect asking to be judged by different standards than everybody else. Aka special treatment.

Rhetoric about thought control and conspiracy to suppress truth is mere speculation and rhetoric, unless you can prove it.

 

[thomas00]

I am not sure what papers you are reading because everyone of the several I looked at all refute in some way the claims or predictions of the catastrophic AGW proponents. Could you show me which ones do not?

Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response : Abstract : Nature
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet
RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON OF THEIR GLACIOLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL CAUSES
Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate

There is an irony in people who quote tonnes of papers on their private blogs to support a certain position and then crow about suppression of truth and diminishing scientific standards. They publicise their views on a platform where they can pick and choose which critical comments they allow (if they allow any) and which they'll respond to. They don't have to suffer the threat of being challenged.

Unless you've been through all 1350+ of those articles yourself, scrutinised them and viewed them in context with the other thousands of papers of this matter, then you are merely accepting a blogger's opinion that they represent proof positive that AGW is bunk.

But in any case you first claimed that there are no peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarmism. I take it you have walked that back a bit.

I addressed this in a previous post:

Was I incorrect when I said "the skeptics won't even attempt (as far as I'm aware) to get any of their ideas published says volumes"? Yes, but publishing something in a journal isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to establishing the validity of an idea, and I never said it was. Quality amongst journals varies greatly and that matters.

You didn't respond to my request for evidence when you said that these folk weren't publishing in more popular journals because they 'weren't allowed to'.