My saner readers, I'm sure, aren't in the habit of reading Lubos; and indeed neither am I; so we have Ken Brook to thank for drawing Peer-reviewed global cooling to my attention. Its long on words but, oddly enough, rather short on actual quotes from papers doing things like predicting cooling. The best appears to be Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.
This paper does indeed say It thus indicates that whether on century scale or on the periods of quasi 60-year oscillations, the global climate wil be cooling down in the next 20 years.
The paper itself seems extremely dodgy (it appears to assert that global temperature can be predicted 5-10 years ahead from Chinese temperature, which I don't think anyone is going to believe; the "cooling" prediction is based not on physics but on extrapolating a time-series analysis of the past data into the future) and is not going to change anyones minds. I presume Meteorol Atmos Phys is a peer-reviewed journal, though (judged from this paper) one with rather low standards (hmm, its on the ISI index and whilst its impact factor is only 1.156 there are many lower).
However, Lubos's point is not (of course) the quality of the paper but whether there are any peer-reviewed papers predicting cooling. And so, we must say, there is at least one. Does this contradict Oreskes? Of course not: since that was done on a search of earlier paper. And I'm not sure this one has the right keywrods to show up. Also, assuming these people believe what they have written, we can confidently look forward to them contacting James Annan and Brian Schidt to arrange a sure-win bet for themselves. Lubos, of course, doesn't believe a word of it so is excused the bet.
- Log in to post comments
Your first sentence is incorrect. You might think that because you don't have any sane readers, just like you don't have any sane writers, any condition about them is satisfied.
But you actually have one sane occassional reader, namely me, and I assure you that I read Lubos' blog very carefully. ;-)
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that disprove the statement of the crackpot N.O. you mentioned. Incidentally, try to make a google search on her name.
Indeed, I don't necessarily claim that the paper is the highest quality paper in science but it would be impossible to say the same thing about any advocate of the AGW theories, too. These papers are spam.
I know that the Chinese paper, or any other paper, is not going to change the mind of any person like you because all of you are deeply religious bigots who don't have the slightest respect for rational arguments.
All the best
Lubos
[If There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that disprove the statement of the crackpot N.O. then why haven't you cited *one*? To do that, you have to find a paper from 1993-2003 with the correct keywords that explicitly doubts the consensus. As far as I know, you haven't done that. OTOH, maybe you're taking a broader view and including all papers. But if there are hundreds of such, why are you pushing things as embarassingly weak as this paper? -W]
Lubos, go and hang out at eli's place for a while. Or perhaps tim lamberts.
ON what basis do you dismiss Oreskes work? It just adds to the point that you dont know what you are talking about.
Dear Guthrie, make a Google search for Oreskes and click the third server you're offered, namely my blog. I hope it will answer all your questions.
There goes the neighborhood.
Brian "Schidt"? I haven't heard that one since high school :)
And yes, I'd love to bet with anyone who believes this nonsense about cooling.
ahhh, Lubost, you maintain your crown of clown.
All I can find on Oreskes is your quoting Peiser, who we all know was wrong, and a paper that an anonymous poster claims doesnt show what you claim it does.
Thats hardly scientific evidence for anything.
Also you seem to dislike Hussites, I shall have to introduce you to some Hussite re-enactors I know if your ever in the UK.