Over 1,100 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptics Arguments Against Global Warming Bullshit

death2ducks

Have Mad_Son drop me a line after he's reviewed all of these.

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[Deleted User]

I wonder if death2ducks has ever read a scholarly article, study, or any literature that supports climate change; or if everything he's ever read on the subject comes from skeptic criticism or scientifically illiterate Internet commentators.

It must be parody.

death2ducks

CollegeDoog said:

I wonder if death2ducks has ever read a scholarly article, study, or any literature that supports climate change; or if everything he's ever read on the subject comes from skeptic criticism or scientifically illiterate Internet commentators.

It must be parody.

Last week you said that the science was settled and indisputable. Instead of discussing parody, I'd much rather discuss your hypocrisy. Or don't the libtards recognize hypocrisy when it originates at Middlebury Voc Tech?

[Deleted User]

It is settled.

That link was fucking retarded.

Very few of the journals argued against AGW but were included because maybe a fact or two supported an obscure skeptic claim.

Even if the 1,100 number you tout was accurate, which it isn't, it is still dwarfed by the number of journals that argue for AGW.

It's a shame the Viet Cong didn't put a bullet through your non-functioning brain.

allpurpleallgold

Abstract


This paper aims to explain the results of an observational population study that was carried out between 1991 and 1995 in six regions (departments) in France. The study was to assess the relationship between temperature and mortality in a few areas of France that offer widely varying climatic conditions and lifestyles, to determine their thermal optimum, defined as a 3°C temperature band with the lowest mortality rate in each area, and then to compare the mortality rates from this baseline band with temperatures above and below the baseline. The study period was selected because it did not include extreme cold or hot events such as a heatwave. Data on daily deaths from each department were first used to examine the entire population and then to examine men, women, various age groups and various causes of death (respiratory disease, stroke, ischæmic heart disease, other disease of the circulatory system, and all other causes excluding violent deaths). Mean temperatures were provided by the National Weather Service. The results depicted an asymmetrical V- or U-shaped relationship between mortality and temperature, with a thermal optimum lower for the elderly, and generally lower for women than for men except in Paris. The relationship was also different depending on the cause of death. In all cases, more evidence was collected showing that cold weather was more deadly than hot weather, and it would now be interesting to enlarge the study to include years with cold spells and heatwaves. Furthermore, the results obtained could be of great use in estimating weather-related mortality as a consequence of future climate-change scenarios.

That's a good start. Global Warming Climate Change proved wrong.