• Home
  • About
  • Archive
  • Blogroll
  • Denier vs Skeptic
  • Spam
  • The Science
  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Greenfyre’s

“My heart is moved by all I cannot save”

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition
Deniers record high incoherence ratio increasing? »

450 more lies from the climate change Deniers

November 15, 2009 by greenfyre

GarbageBPSDB A week ago this “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” appeared and I figured it was just a matter of days before it started making the rounds of the climate change Denialosphere.  Sure enough it has turned up at Wattsupmybutt so I guess it’s time to state the obvious, that it’s utter nonsense.

Let’s have a look at a sampling of these “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers.” The list includes:

UPDATE: Pielke pulls 21 papers off the list! “they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”  Better Recheck That List (Hat Tip to Former Skeptic for the heads up)

NOT peer-reviwed

The following are NOT peer-reviewed Journals

Energy & Environment: 82 papers on the list

E&E is a sort of vanity press for the Deniers, cited by one Wag as “where bad science goes to die.”

Submitted 2 papers on the list

“Submitted” to a peer reviewed journal is not a synonym for “published” in a peer reviewed journal; anything can be “submitted.”  (did that really have to be stated?)

Known to be wrong

The following papers are known to be wrong (refutations linked)

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Refutations here.

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski  

Refutations here.

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
– G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Refutations here.

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
– John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Refutations here.

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
– Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Refutations here.

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Refutation here

Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)

(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
– Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

Refutation here

Hockey Stick: 10 papers on the list

Refutations

  • The hockey stick is broken,
  • Brand New Hockey Sticks,
  • Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger

Straw Men (and outright lying)

The premise is that that certain things like the Medieval Warm Period or greater snow accumulation are evidence against climate change when they are not. The only thing they are evidence of is that the person making the claim is utterly clueless about climate science.

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

With reference to a more recent paper on the same subject, Swanson had this to say “What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others” (I wonder what point he was trying to make with the bold, all caps?).

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
– Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev

Quoting the authors ” … they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C. ” Greenland icecap thickens despite warming

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)
– Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell

Same as with Greenland above and here.

CO2 lags Temperature changes: 7 papers on the list

The CO2 lag is in no way inconsistent with climate science. Actually the lag was predicted by Lorius et al (including Hansen) before it was discovered

If they actually understood the science they would realize that one thing that we would have had trouble explaining is if there was no lag … the Deniers  have it totally backwards.
The “Temp leads Carbon” Crock

  • The lag between temperature and CO2
  • ‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags“
  • Discussion: A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing
  • Mind prisons and prisms: CO2 lag and Global Warming
  • Why CO2 lags behind temperature; another climate change skeptic myth explained

Medieval Warming Period – Little Ice Age: 21 papers on the list

The Deniers like to claim that the MWP and LIA refute anthropogenic climate change. The logic is basically that “there were fires before matches and napalm, therefore fires are natural and matches and napalm cannot cause fires.” Sorry, that should be “There was warming before humans, therefore warming is natural and …”

“Medieval Warming?” (& the Hockey Stick)

  • Climate Myths: Medieval Warm Period
  • Myth Used as Evidence Against Global Warming
  • The “Medieval Warm Period”

Trivial

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
– D. J. Keenan

It has recently been claimed that the April–August
temperature in France, in any given year, can be estimated
from the harvest date of grapes grown there. Based on this
claim, it was asserted that 2003 was the warmest year in the last six centuries. Herein, it is shown that the grape-derived temperature estimates are highly unreliable, and thus that the assertion is unfounded.

How the hell does that support “Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”?

Dated

Being old does not make a particular paper or study no longer relevant, but it sure makes some papers totally irrelevant. Commentaries on 20 year old techniques and methodologies would be an example.

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.

“The questions which need to answered include the importance of other anthropogenic influences suc as landscape changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading, “

They have been answered. Oh look, the Deniers forgot to mention this bit: “Controls such as conservation and improved energy efficiency, of course, which are benefits to society should be implemented regardless of global climate change,”

Do NOT support Denial

The following papers in no way support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”, so they are not “refuted” so much as explained.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

Explained here and here.

To understand some of the legitimate science that appears on the list I ask you to consider this hypothetical (and nonsensical) example:

I say airplanes cannot fly because they are made of metal and metal is heavier than air. Here are 10 papers that say metal is heavier than air, and here are 10 more  that say airplanes are made of metal. These 20 papers therefore support skepticism about man made airplanes being able to fly.

And it is that lack of logic that puts some of legitimate science on the list; a completely false and idiotic claim.

Mutually exclusive

As discussed here and here, that a number of the papers are mutually exclusive.

Put simply, if paper A is true, then B cannot be. So by accepting some of the papers as valid the Deniers are necessarily saying that others on the list are false. If they are false, why are they on the list?

The answer is naturally that Deniers embrace anything that purports to dispute anthropogenic climate change no matter how absurd or contrary to things they already claim are true.  Denierism is not a coherent position that juxtaposes one set of hypotheses against anthropogenic climate change. Rather it is the irrational, knee jerk rejection of climate science.

This just a sampling, but this point I decided I had already put more work into the list than the author had and could think of no good reason to do any more. Looking at the third of the list that I did, not one of the papers Beach Garbage 1is current, relevant, peer-reviewed, and supports the Denier claims, not one.

I don’t know about you, but if I dig down 1 m below an outhouse and all I find is exactly what you would expect to find under an outhouse, I am satisfied that the next 2 m will just be more of the same.

If anyone can find anything on the list that actually IS a peer-reviewed paper that is current, relevant, and supports skepticism of anthropogenic climate change, well we should talk about it. Until then, this list seems to be nothing but decomposing shit.

NB: If anyone wants to append comments about any of the papers on the list I will gladly incorporate them into the post. Thanks

Click to share AddThis Social Bookmark Button

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Garbage by Editor B

Beach Garbage 1 by jschneid

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

  • The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
  • The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Advertisement

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Assault on Science, Climate Change, Climate Science, Denier Culture | Tagged Anthony Watts, Climate Change, Denier Lists, Deniers, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming | 227 Comments

227 Responses

  1. on November 16, 2009 at 12:35 am John Mashey

    Good compendium, thanks.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm Poptech

      Not really considering E&E is peer-reviewed and I did not count the submitted papers in the paper count.


      • on November 16, 2009 at 7:26 pm DavidCOG

        Here’s the comment I just posted at your blog, in case you don’t allow it past moderation:

        > That looks like it took quite a lot of time to compile.

        > A pity then that it’s nothing more than lies and misdirection: https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/

        And judging by your comments in this thread, I’d say you already realise that your hard work has just been masterfully exposed for the nonsense that most of it knew it was to begin with. No wonder you seem so angry and irrational. Better luck next time.


        • on November 17, 2009 at 4:01 am Poptech

          The only one lying is the author here as I have pointed out repeatedly that E&E is peer-reviewed and I did not include the submitted papers in the paper count.

          He also cannot produce published responses to the papers and instead has blog posts and youtube videos that whine about them. That is not how published peer-reviewed science debates work.


  2. on November 16, 2009 at 1:33 am Eric L

    Looking at the third of the list that I did

    Just a clarification — are the numbers above numbers out of the third you looked at? So there are likely more than 82 E&E, more than 21 on the MWP/LIA? Or are those numbers for the whole list, and then there are others you haven’t analyzed that likely many fit into the categories for which you don’t have numbers?

    How did you sample and what is the resulting estimated breakdown for the full list?
    —-

    It includes the E&E, the 21 etc. I basically skimmed and pulled out the one’s that I knew right away to not fit the description. It was enough work as it was to document what we already knew, that the list is nonsense.

    “likely many fit into the categories for which you don’t have numbers?

    ” Bingo … the whole list in fact. It’s not like there were actually any legitimate papers out there that undermine climate science, but which no one knew about.


  3. on November 16, 2009 at 2:19 am scruffydan

    I saw this list not to long ago from someone who came to my blog to defend the swindle movie.

    I didn’t have time to to the required legwork, but am glad you did [1]
    —-

    [1] None of us do, and it sucks that we waste our time debunking the Denier idiocy when we (and they) could be having lives, but there it is. If you see any others on the list that you can easily document as not belonging, feel free to mention it.


  4. on November 16, 2009 at 7:25 am Fran Manns

    The minute you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist.
    —-

    And how much more true of the Deniers who never were scientists, never made the effort to understand the science they pretend to discuss, and seem to believe their own gibberish?


  5. on November 16, 2009 at 7:38 am omnologos

    Hey! You’re on Tom Nelson’s blog today (I know, I know, won’t put a link to it here, lest it offends any of your visitors). [1]

    Your list is nice and dandy, but it suffers from two problems: first of all, you keep conflating everybody and anybody into this magical thing called “Denialism”, as long as they don’t fully agree with the direst climate predictions. [2]

    As usual, you almost “get” the concept (see the “Mutually exclusive” section), but then shy away from reaching the obvious conclusion (eg if I disagree with you and you disagree with Watts, it doesn’t mean I agree with Watts). [3]

    Secondly, the trivial point about “grape harvest” (yes I fully agree with you about it) is not just made by people that are skeptic of global catastrophic warming. Is it really conceivable that not even one scientific article claiming a catastrophe upon us, has ever been refuted? [4] I think we should be told…the stuff about motes, beams and eyes is proverbial to say the least.
    —-

    [1] He links me now and then, and I see no reason to waste anyone’s time with his site

    [2] “as long as they don’t fully agree with the direst climate predictions” cite and quote where I allegedly do that. We’ve been over this how many times?
    Deal with it honestly and stop wasting my time with this meme.

    [3] Defend your premise that “Denialism” is a monotype. As documented here it is a behaviour set. Your premise that A beats his spouse with his left hand, B with his right, therefore one of them is not a spouse abuser is patently false.

    [4] a) If it exists, give the reference;
    b) even if there were 100, refuting them would not necessarily be a refutations of the 1000 others unless they were predicated on the refuted papers, so spare us the logical fallcies.


  6. on November 16, 2009 at 8:37 am omnologos

    1. Hadn’t seen the link until now. that’s why I mentioned it. It is actually common to see believers’ sites linked from non-believers’, [1] and very seldom the other way around. [2] Mooney was genuinely surprised to be linked by Morano, a few months ago… [3]

    2. You classify my blog as “Denier” when the one and only thing I fundamentally disagree with you about, is the degree of certainty that additional CO2 will cause disasters of unimaginable proportions. [4]

    3. In one of your posts linked above you provide this definition of “Denier”:

    “The hysteric paranoids who rant, distort, and lie, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, who dismiss the mountain of evidence for climate change while embracing the most pathetic conspiracy theories and lame hoaxes based on no evidence whatsoever, can be called only one thing: Deniers”

    Please provide a list of where I have shown “paranoid hysteria” or “distortion”, where I have “lied”, or where I have denied “the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence”, or dismissed “the mountain of evidence for climate change”. Or where I have embraced “the most pathetic conspiracy theories and lame hoaxes” (I won’t discuss the ranting 😎 ) [5]

    Actually…why don’t you do that for each and every site that you so easily label as “Denier”… [6]

    Alternatively, you may decide one day to leave your absurdly one-dimensional view of the (climate) world. Once again, you obviously have the capability to do that, as shown in blog after blog…but your “green…fire” 😎 and climate swashbuckling are perhaps preventing you from doing that one last step. [7]

    4. Nice try and the perfect (for my argument) answer. The logical fallacy, in fact, is to pretend that every non-believer climate article has been refuted, only because you can provide a list of those that “have”. [8]

    And I am not going to investigate here the meaning of “refuted”. Why don’t you count how many refutations did the ideas of Elkanah Billings, Georg Gürich and Reg Sprigg get before being accepted as true? [9]
    —-

    [1] Believers in science? yes, we are.
    [2] a) they are cited whenever relevant, which is rare given b) they do no research, pump out the same memes, etc
    [3] Wormtongue has also front paged me twice, no surprise. They know full well their driods don’t actually read the posts or respond rationally, so no danger.
    [4] a) see [1], b) then build a scientific case for your claims. As ever, “Denier” is process/behaviour, NOT conclusions
    [5] When I have mentioned your site I documented the problems, giving specifics as appropriate. If you can refute those, do so. If not, own it.
    If I return to it I will be equally precise.
    [6] After you fully justify every usage of the word “science” on your site. See, I can make pointless, absurd requests trivializing your work too.
    [7] I insist on remaining reality based. Your time would be better spent trying to build a rational, empirical case for your claims rather than attempting sophistry to confuse the issue elsewhere.
    [8] I am VERY clear that only the ones I have refuted are known to be refuted by me. I merely point out that 150/150 being frauds suggests that the rest will be more of the same, particularly given that no one other than the wingnuts heard of such works.

    Let me guess … a business rips you off and defrauds you 150 times in a row, but you remain confident that the next 300 interactions will totally honest?

    Here, you refute those, there’s only 30,000 to 40,000, something on that order.
    [9] Why don’t you defend perpetual motion, alchemy, time travel, and every other piece of refuted garbage while you’re at it? Your cherry pick is irrelevant.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm omnologos

      The Ediacaran example shows how irrelevant it is to conduct a proper scientific analysis on the basis of the number of refutations (and on the basis of the peer-reviewedness of any publication)…have a look at it (there’s a summary in my blog, among the July 14, 2009 entries), then come back and explain exactly why would anyone have to follow Nature instead of E&E just because Nature is Nature, and E&E is not Nature (hint: one of the papers that turned out to be right was published in the “Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia”…and the only way to get Nature to change its mind and talk about it, was for a world authority in the field to become convinced).

      Another example you may want to investigate: the Urey vs Shoemaker debate on the origin of lunar craters. Funny enough, some of the same evidence Urey used to demonstrate the craters were of volcanic origin, is nowadays used to demonstrate the craters are born out of impacts. [1]

      ps Your “belief in Science” makes no sense. If you truly believed in Science, you wouldn’t find the need to publish post after post against the “deniers”. [2] The only way to make this blog of yours meaningful is if you believe in (a) catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 emissions due/linked to human activities, and (b) the need to “fight” against anybody not holding that same belief. Somehow, you have convinced yourself that there is something useful in those “fights”. [3]
      —-

      Your capacity for logical fallacies rivals Poptarts. Are you trying to work your way through the whole list?

      [1] You argue as though rare events were the norm … no doubt you’ve already spent the $30 million because you’re sure to win the lottery. Lame cherry pick … if your contention is that this is the norm or common, then show it and spare us the BS.

      [2] Straw man, red herring, and ad hominem. The blog is obviously to counter the disinformation, lies, and poor thinking of people like Poptart and yourself … duh!

      [3] I accept the scientific realities and write about them. You come here and try and spread poor thinking … please learn at least the basics of simple logic and try to abide by them.


      • on November 19, 2009 at 10:36 am Anarchist606

        Shark-jumping moment coming up…

        Quote: ‘Your “belief in Science” makes no sense. If you truly believed in Science, you wouldn’t find the need to publish post after post against the “deniers”.’

        Doh! That worked so well with the creationists. The problem is not with the science but people who for religious and/or ideological reasons refuse to accept reality.

        Quote: Somehow, you have convinced yourself that there is something useful in those “fights”.

        Double doh! How much of a point can you miss – yes we accept the evidence for human caused climate change – which means action is needed. Action that is hamstrung by aforementioned people who for religious and/or ideological reasons refuse to accept reality. Hence the need to counter the rubbish they put out. This is not some lofty academic discussion, this is literally a fight over the future against those (like you) who want to gamble the climate system in exchange for a handful of loose change from ExxonMobil and a some pseudo-science.


        • on November 19, 2009 at 11:09 am omnologos

          Anarchist606 – it has been argued in these pages that there is no point in debating people that disagree with catastrophical AGW predictions.

          If there isn’t, and those people “refuse to accept reality”, what is the point of responding to them? In other words…to whom is this blog written? Methinks, to the converted. [1]

          And I am leaving aside the obvious problem of how to deal with people that (a) accept the evidence for human caused climate change and (b) think that action is needed but (c) are not of the opinion that every worst-case scenario should be in focus, and every dire prediction should guide our choices. Incredibly, even they are thrown into the “Denier” bunch… [2]
          —-

          [1] This point has been addressed. Respond intelligently without mindlessly repeating your meme … or is Poptart your new role model?
          [2] As has your on-going pretense that “Denier” refers to conclusions rather than behaviour,

          what is it about intellectual honesty that you are having such difficulty with?


  7. on November 16, 2009 at 8:57 am jd

    I do not pretend to be a scientist.

    It does appear obvious that the climate is changing.

    It also appears obvious that humans are contributing to the rate of that change.

    the term, “anthropogenic climate change” is where I have trouble. It seems hard to believe that humans are the sole cause of climate change based on the fact that it has happened before and everything in life seems to happen in cycles.
    —-

    Like human flight, it’s not difficult to believe once you look at the facts

    Fable: “Modern changes simply part of natural cycle”
    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Modern_changes_simply_part_of_natural_cycle
    Science Reinforces Human Role as Climate Change Impacts Accelerate
    http://www.wri.org/press/2009/07/science-reinforces-human-role-climate-change-impacts-accelerate
    The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/the-human-hand-in-climate-change/langswitch_lang/in
    Attributing Mankind
    http://cce.890m.com/attributing-mankind/
    Understanding Why Climate Change is Human-Induced:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-goldstein/understanding-why-climate_b_225309.html
    Myth ‘Natural emissions dwarf human emissions http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33
    Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
    How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/langswitch_lang/in
    Humans cause climate change, US body accepts http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926683.300-humans-cause-climate-change-us-body-accepts.html


  8. on November 16, 2009 at 9:55 am Poptech

    I am sorry to break it to you but you are wrong.

    Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
    – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS

    http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf [1]

    Your “refutations” are links to blogs, realclimate wiki and youtube, [2] which is laughably bad. Any disputes with the papers would be published in the peer-reviewed literature, you have failed to provide this and if you get around to it, don’t forget to include the replies from the original authors.
    —-

    [1]
    A) I am sorry to break it to you, but while “Google Scholar, JournalSeek etc are useful, they are NOT limited to peer reviewed literature

    B) E&E does NOT appear on the Science Citation Index Master Journal List

    According to EBSCO, they use “the following tools to identify peer reviewed journals:

    1. The Serials Directory, an online directory of serials with descriptions
    2. The publisher of the journal
    3. Feedback from librarians and professors
    4. EBSCO Publishing staff librarians”
    1&4 are in-house to EBSCO, 2 is not reliable …

    Speaking of the publisher of the journal, no mention of peer-review in their description of themselves,

    So it looks like the former is an error unless you can show otherwise. See also here

    [2] Which base their discussions on peer-reviewed science which most of them source (excepting the videos, which are given in addition to, not as stand alone refutations). So how about you deal with them intelligently and honestly?


    • on November 16, 2009 at 1:59 pm Poptech

      Again you are wrong, Energy and Environment is listed as peer-reviewed in both:

      EBSCO Environment Complete

      Click to access eih-coverage.pdf

      EBSCO Environment Index
      http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/egh-coverage.pdf [1]

      So what it is not listed by the Thomson Reuters coporations commercial database? [2]

      “Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.

      I’ve spoke with the editor of Energy and Environment before publishing the list to confirm this.

      Please don’t link to wikipedia, it is embarrassing. [3]
      —-

      [1] My bad, they drop 2 columns between the 2 versions and I was looking in the wrong spot. I will amend the other comment accordingly
      [2] It’s still the ISI, and E&E’s “Peer review” process still fails the academic definition of peer review
      [3] i) Not nearly as embarrassing as your list;
      ii) ad hominem fallacy; refute what they say or accept it.


      • on November 16, 2009 at 2:47 pm TrueSceptic

        It is hilarious that someone says

        Please don’t link to wikipedia, it is embarrassing.

        yet considers E&E a reputable journal.

        It is peer-reviewed but the standard is so low that it is widely considered a joke.

        The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

        She has also said
        <“We climate skeptics have to look for little journals like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.

        IOW, papers too poor to get published elsewhere get published in E&E.


        • on November 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm Poptech

          The only ones who consider it a joke are alarmists who want to smear it.

          Wikipedia is a joke by anyone who actually understands it.

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/anti-wikipedia-resource.html [1]

          Many high quality papers do not get published elsewhere,

          The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
          http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n2/v30n2-1.pdf [2]
          —-

          [1] Logical fallacies are a joke by anyone who understands them
          [2] And you imagine that a long ideological rant demonstrates what exactly?


          • on November 16, 2009 at 3:39 pm Former Skeptic

            Poptech:

            Wikipedia is not a joke if you bother to verify the source info. What’s your beef against that?

            As for E&E – besides the objections raised by greenfrye, as well as the obvious point noted by TrueSceptic above about the rather peculiar editorial preference, the journal is of so low quality that even Roger Pielke Jr. said the following:

            …On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)

            If you still consider E&E to be a serious, reputable journal on a par with Nature, Science, PNAS et al., I suggest you better understand the peer-review process in scientific publication.


            • on November 16, 2009 at 3:46 pm Poptech

              Oh yes wikipedia is absolute joke by anyone with a rudimentary computer education.

              The whole locked E&E wikipedia page is one big smear. Please quote more.

              Yes E&E is a serious, reputable peer-reviewed academic journal.

              I understand your need to smear it into oblivion that way you can claim these papers do not exist.
              —-

              Third strike for:
              1) using an ad hominem (fallacy) as though it were a legitimate point,
              2) failing to provide any citation for your claims

              No wonder they keep deleting your wikipedia entries


              • on November 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm Former Skeptic

                Dude, which part of “verifying the source info” do you not understand? No one’s claiming that wikipedia is the be-all-end-all font of knowledge, so why raise this straw man?

                Yes E&E is a serious, reputable peer-reviewed academic journal.

                So the evidence by Pielke – from his own blog no less – is insufficient to illustrate how bad E&E is? How many scientific papers have you published, if you don’t mind me asking? But hey, I digress, since you’re the “expert.”

                I understand your need to smear it into oblivion that way you can claim these papers do not exist.

                Thank you for putting words in my mouth. Further proof that you’re a poor debater, with a tenuous grasp on reality, who is losing in this particular debate/discussion. Have a nice day. 🙂


                • on November 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm Poptech

                  “verifying sources” means nothing can be trusted since you have to do this. What part of that do you not understand.

                  I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial. [1]

                  You haven’t illustrated anything except your desperation to smear the journal since the papers from it in the list go against your religion. [2]

                  I didn’t put words in your mouth I am letting people know your intention. [3]
                  —-

                  [1] you could easily verify the claim, but obviously fact checking is not your strong suit
                  [2] Personal attack, ad hominem, straw man, and red herring … seriously, try speaking rationally
                  [3] You have no idea what his intention is, and even if you did it would be irrelevant as to whether his statements were true or not.

                  For God’s sake man, take a course in remedial logic.


              • on November 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm Former Skeptic

                Oh, and one more thing. Apart from telling you that E&E is a low quality journal, Roger Pielke Jr. is now aware of your silly list, and has told you to recheck it.

                LOL. Better reduce it to 429 then.

                Pwned.


                • on November 17, 2009 at 4:03 am Poptech

                  Sorry Pielke is wrong as there are still 450, I posted a response on his blog.


            • on November 16, 2009 at 3:47 pm TrueSceptic

              Agreed. Wiki articles are usually well referenced. The only problem is when politically motivated individuals attempt to edit articles to distort the truth. You can see this especially with articles concerning environmental issues. IMO Wiki bends over backwards to represent a NPOV.


              • on November 16, 2009 at 3:54 pm Poptech

                You mean like RealClimate.org’s William Connelly does?

                http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

                Regarding the mythical “NPOV”…

                – How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”?


                • on November 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm Former Skeptic

                  *chuckle* and you cite Lawrence Solomon’s op-ed as “proof” that the wiki on AGW is biased? Are you serious!?

                  Try posting THAT on stoat’s blog. I’d love to see the response you get,

                  Thanks dude, you just jumped the shark.


                • on November 16, 2009 at 4:13 pm Poptech

                  Anyone who understands that Wikipedia is nothing more than “truth based on who edits last” doesn’t need any editorial to realize it is biased.

                  There is a coorelation to people who take wikipedia seriously and low IQ.


          • on November 16, 2009 at 3:41 pm TrueSceptic

            It is not necessary to “smear” something with such low standards. It does it all on its own.

            You cite the Cato Institute? How shameless you are in your right-wing bias.


            • on November 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm Poptech

              The Cato Institute is not “right wing”. You can’t even grasp elementary political affiliations, why should I expect you understand the rest of the debate?


              • on November 16, 2009 at 4:07 pm Former Skeptic

                The Cato Institute is not “right wing”. You can’t even grasp elementary political affiliations, why should I expect you understand the rest of the debate?

                LOLThe googles disagrees with you. You have been majorly pwnd.


                • on November 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm Poptech

                  It is nice that you do not know the political affiliations of the institute either. It only proves my point.
                  —-

                  Not just the political affiliations, the other affiliations as well:
                  Here and here.


                • on November 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm Poptech

                  Unsubstantiated claim and ad hominem

                  You were advised that mindless repetition of the same drivel would be deleted

                  I wasn’t kidding


                • on November 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm Poptech

                  ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace.

                  http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

                  You can learn more about Greenpeace here:

                  http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7222

                  “Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become “dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity.””


  9. on November 16, 2009 at 10:45 am jd

    all of your posts in response to me support that humans are affecting climate change.. which I already agree is obvious.

    but nothing supports humans are the sole and only cause. which they cant, because there is no way to demonstrate that.

    geothermal, solar radiation, natural climatic patterns, these all affect the climate as well. [1]

    does this mean we shouldn’t combat CO2 emissions? of course not. but a realistic and balanced argument is far more persuasive than extremism. on any issue.
    —-

    [1] Yes, but most have been in a ‘cool phase’
    Sun, Sun, Sun … here it comes – NOT

    2008 was the hottest La Nina-influenced year (with no El Nino) ever recorded

    Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability

    Most of the natural factors have not been adding to the warming, they have been damping it. As those factors swing into their hot phase we are in deep, deep shit, which is why everyone who has a clue is totally freaking out … if it’s this hot
    Northern Hemisphere Sets 1300 Year Climate Warming Record
    when the Earth is supposed to be bitterly cold, what happens when it get’s hot?


    • on November 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm TrueSceptic

      geothermal, solar radiation, natural climatic patterns, these all affect the climate as well.

      Yes, of course, and there are both short- and long-term variations in all of those. They make up the natural variability but there is no long-term upward trend in those. The actual trend is upward and this has been shown to be due to increased CO2.


  10. on November 16, 2009 at 12:21 pm kfr

    re energy and environment – from the horses mouth so to speak (just copied the relevant, amusing bit – “competing for truth”, a real testament to the motives of the publication and just how far market principles have come. What need objectivity?):

    Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 September, 2009

    By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research. We do not claim to be right, but the editor – having researched the subject since the 1980s – believes that climate is too complex to be predicted for policy purposes, and that many voices – scientific communities? – should therefore be allowed to compete for truth. Science does not progress by consensus.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comments.asp?storycode=407763


    • on November 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm Poptech

      Yes E&E is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal which publishes papers from both natural and social sciences.


  11. on November 16, 2009 at 12:38 pm Marco

    There are a few more papers that are not even close to being skeptical of AGW. They may at best be perceived as critical of some aspects of climate change. For example, active volcanoes may play SOME role in the instability of the West-Antarctic ice sheet. Or take Myanna Lahsen’s article: not an inch critical of AGW, but in a way critical of the sometimes overly positive views of modelers of their models. Marco Tedesco has been quite unpleasantly surprised about his article on Antarctica being perceived as “skeptical). Julia Slingo had a comment in Nature noting that the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum was ALSO caused by other conditions than mere warming. Nothing skeptical of AGW there. Baker’s communication on coral reef bleaching explicitely mentions global warming as a threat, but coral bleaching as a possible natural mitigation strategy for coral reef survival. Not critical of AGW. They even have a paper on the list of which the abstract has as the first line “Anthropogenic climate change poses a serious threat to biodiversity” (Gooding et al). Seriously.

    Moreover, you could add two more categories:
    1. Double counting. For example, Craig Loehle’s reconstruction is counted twice: first the original paper, then the correction. There’s a few more of those corrections to papers that are listed. Another form of double-counting is the reply to comments. These replies are hardly ever peer-reviewed. In most cases the Editor briefly looks through them, but certainly does not review them. [1]

    2. Commentaries. There are several commentaries on the list, but these are hardly ever peer-reviewed. [2]

    3. Fringe journals. E&E is an obvious example (even Oliver Manuel was allowed to show off his ‘alternative’ hypothesis about the sun), but don’t discount the Journal of Scientific Exploration. It actively pursues ‘anomalies’. Those interested in an example:

    Click to access jseNelson.pdf

    (put your aluminium hats on before reading!).
    Outright crackpot: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Think “creationism” and “HIV denial” for some examples.

    Regarding E&E and peer-review: it actually is peer-reviewed, but in a construction that few other journals would ever dare to apply to their own journal. E&E actively requests articles ‘skeptical’ of AGW, and its peer-review system only includes those ‘skeptical’ of AGW. As a result many scientifically very poor scientific articles, and quite a few opinion articles sold as “peer-reviewed”, have been published in E&E. If a journal in my own field would become so obviously political, I’d actively prohibit my staff to publish anything with my name in that journal *even if I agree with its political stance*. [3]

    Mentioning peer-review: “American Scientist” isn’t peer-reviewed, but has scientifically-trained editors. It’s like “National Geographic”.
    —-

    [1] Good point, and probably more examples in there;
    [2] Yeah, but some are and I got bored with this one … didn’t feel like tracking down which ones were and which weren’t.
    [3] But that fails the scholarly definition of “peer review”, even if there is ‘a review’ by people that could be considered ‘peers.’


    • on November 16, 2009 at 1:57 pm Poptech

      Marco, try reading the note:

      Notes – The papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.

      There is no double counting! There are many more listings then the 450 papers.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 1:23 am Marco

        We still have the obvious papers that do NOT support skepticism of AGW or even the environmental and economic effects thereof. Take Zeebe’s paper: it explicitely ACCEPTS the CO2 sensitivity that mainstream climatologists have calculated for CO2, and which drives the current projections. Shilto’s commentary on Arctic Ice does not contradict either AGW or its impacts. And there’s quite a few more such papers. Even Loehle’s reconstruction is NOT skeptical of AGW in any way!


        • on November 17, 2009 at 4:06 am Poptech

          Zeebe’s paper explicity states that up to 70% of the warming is not caused by CO2.

          There is no “shilto”

          Loehle’s paper makes it clear that the 20th century temperature record was not abnormal.


          • on November 17, 2009 at 4:49 am Marco

            Zeebe’s paper explicitely states that up to 70% of the warming during the PETM is not caused by CO2. That statement is based on the *currently accepted CO2 sensitivity*. Get that? They use ‘alarmist’ CO2 sensitivity and find that even more factors are needed to explain the temperature increase. The other option is that temperature sensitivity to CO2 is even higher than currently accepted. And that’s skeptic of AGW? Not even close!

            And I miss-spelled Slingo (sorry Julia).

            Loehle’s paper may make the point that the 20th century was not abnormal, but the temperature reconstructions of the last century have little bearing on the CO2 temperature sensitivity calculated from pure and simple physics. It is thus NOT skeptic of AGW.


            • on November 17, 2009 at 7:50 am Poptech

              Of course it supports skepticism since alarmist theories cannot explain past climate [1] yet we are told they can predict the future?

              Slingo’s paper is saying that the Arctic ice loss is not from simply warming as is paraded about by the alarmists, this clearly supports skepticism.

              Loehle’s paper puts a further nail in the coffin of Mann’s fraudulent temperature reconstruction paraded about by the IPCC in 2001. Clearly this supports skepticism.
              —-

              [1] Your ignorance is absolutely staggering, even for a member of the general public. For someone who pretends familiarity with climate science it is beyond inexcusable … this is taught at the grade 5 level.


              • on November 17, 2009 at 1:13 pm Poptech

                Unsubstantiated claims & ad hominen

                You were advised that mindless repetition of the same drivel would be deleted

                I wasn’t kidding


              • on November 17, 2009 at 2:01 pm Poptech

                Greenfyre,

                What king of conclusion do you draw from this comment…

                “They use ‘alarmist’ CO2 sensitivity and find that even more factors are needed to explain the temperature increase.”


  12. on November 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm Poptech

    Again you are wrong, Energy and Environment is listed as peer-reviewed in both:

    EBSCO Environment Complete

    Click to access eih-coverage.pdf

    EBSCO Environment Index

    Click to access egh-coverage.pdf

    So what it is not listed by the Thomson Reuters coporations commercial database?

    “Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.

    I’ve spoke with the editor of Energy and Environment before publishing the list to confirm this.

    Please don’t link to wikipedia, it is embarrassing.

    Marco, try reading the note:

    Notes – The papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.

    There is no double counting! There are many more listings then the 450 papers.


  13. on November 16, 2009 at 1:08 pm svatli

    I’ll made another approach at this list (as seen on WUWT). I made a count of those who were represented many times on the list (more than 5 times – by using eye-count) What I got from that was a list of 15 people who were represented on 157 papers. Many papers of course have more than one author. Maybe it doesn’t say that much, but it’s a different approach:

    Name Papers
    Craig Loehle 6
    Robert C. Balling 5
    S. Fred Singer 6
    Patrick J. Michaels 26
    Ross McKitrick 14
    Roger A. Pielke Sr 10
    Roger A. Pielke Jr. 11
    John R. Christy 11
    David H. Douglass 6
    Richard S. Lindzen 15
    Willie H. Soon 13
    Sallie L. Baliunas 9
    Roy W. Spencer 6
    Henrik Svensmark 13
    Nir J. Shaviv 6
    157
    —-

    You have to be very, very, very careful with this line of reasoning as the pattern is characteristic of any of:
    a) A small, specialized sub-discipline
    b) a group of cranks
    c) bleeding edge science not yet embraced by the main stream (Most scientific paradigm shifts and new areas of study started this way, including climate change science).

    The author count alone tells you nothing about which of those you are dealing with. Of course climate science is not a small, specialized sub-discipline, nor is climate reactionarianism ‘cutting edge’ science; it is actually old paradigm rear guard. That is suggestive, but still not really evidence.

    There is never any substitute for refuting the actual claims. Many pieces of evidence may be suggestive, but in the end only credible refutation suffices.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm Poptech

      svatli, your number of “157” is misleading because the same names can appear on the same paper and does not mean there are 157 individual papers, it is more like 125.


      • on November 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm svatli

        Well, lets say it like this, they were represented 157 times on these 450 papers, I haven’t counted how many papers it is and I will not bother. Also I just counted those with more than 5 appearances (I could even have forgotten someone – and there are many names which are more than once and fewer than 5 times). But I think it’s something worth thinking about, why is it that the same names keep showing up on this list so many times.


    • on November 19, 2009 at 10:30 am Anarchist606

      This list does make a point – how a large % of the papers on the list is dependent on people funded by big oil. http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/11/failing-list-of-evidence-for-global.html

      Just another nail in the coffin of this shrinking pseudo-resource list.


  14. on November 16, 2009 at 1:22 pm A Siegel

    Sadly, the very term “peer-reviewed” can up leading to troubling ends.

    Energy & Environment could well be self-declared “peer reviewed” by having global warming deniers as the reviewers of other deniers. They, are, after all, “peers” to each other. That “peer review’, however, would give deceitful work zero additional credibility in fact even if it would in appearance.

    Sigh …

    Excellent work laying out this list’s deceptions.


  15. on November 16, 2009 at 1:44 pm Poptech

    svatli, you number of 157 is misleading because the same names can appear on the same paper and does not mean there are 157 individual papers from those authors, it is more like 125.


  16. on November 16, 2009 at 1:54 pm svatli

    Poptech, yes the actual number of papers could even be fewer than those 125 you mentioned, as I said, “Many papers of course have more than one author.” Also I just counted those with more than 5 appearances (I could even have forgot someone). But I think it’s something worth thinking about, why is it that the same names keep showing up on this list.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm Poptech

      There are a lot more then those 15 scientists in the list, some scientists are more active then others. You will find this with the non-skeptical group as well. But that is not the point, it is that an extensive amount of these papers exist.


  17. on November 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm Poptech

    Greenfyre, why are you talking about submitted papers when I explicitly mentioned in the note at the bottom that they are not included in the paper count? Why do you think I intentionally listed them as submitted?
    —-

    What is the title of your list?


    • on November 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm Poptech

      “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”

      Which is irrelevant because I added a note to clarify and CLEARLY labeled them “submitted”.

      This is a skeptical resource and I wanted skeptics aware of those papers.
      —-

      NO kidding your title was irrelevant … complete nonsense is more like it.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm Andrew

        No the title is irrelevant to the listing of the submitted papers which is clearly noted as NOT COUNTED in the peer-reviewed paper count.


  18. on November 16, 2009 at 3:29 pm Donald

    “Liberals, progressives and socialists never ending quest to control the lives of free men will always fail. ”

    Poptech on WUWT.

    “Decarbonisation is therefore sought by the ‘West’ for many reasons and climate change is but the ‘scariest’ and most popular justification for what is in fact a huge agenda of government intervention and control at all levels and in all areas of human existence.”

    Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen

    The usual circle of political ideologues.

    To complete the circle, Energy & Environment advertises on WUWT.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm Poptech

      …and the 450 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of still exist.

      Talk about political ideologues…

      The Truth about RealClimate.org
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html


    • on November 16, 2009 at 4:01 pm TrueSceptic

      Funny how this thread has become a debate about E&E.

      Poptech has been posting at the JREF forums for a while. There’s no science he won’t deny, no CT too extreme.


      • on November 16, 2009 at 4:20 pm Poptech

        Since I only posted there about climate science, please stop lying, thank you.


        • on November 16, 2009 at 7:40 pm TrueSceptic

          You have difficulty with simple reality, don’t you? All that I’ve read by you has been about climate change (plus huge amounts of related wingnut politics) and I’ve never said otherwise.

          You deny any science (climate science depends on multiple other sciences) that supports AGW/CC, no matter how well established, and in support of your delusion you support any CT, no matter how obviously political in origin.

          (If greenfyre chooses to delete this as being OT, so be it.)
          —-

          Getting to the border … let’s stay focused please, the issue is that the list is nonsense … no end of material there to substantiate the points you appear to be trying to make … just be sure to reference the list in question and cite credible refutations and then we’re still OT … deal?


          • on November 17, 2009 at 4:14 am Poptech

            You continue to lie as “wing-nut politics” is a smear about the conservative right, of which I am not a part of. I am well aware of the political illiteracy by people such as yourself. Please study up on politics!

            I don’t deny anything, I am skeptical of alarmist claims.


  19. on November 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm paulm

    Can I encourage you to purchase some EUAs (Emissions Allowances).
    (I think there might be a UK organization also, but haven’t found it yet).
    Its about 12E per ton at the moment.
    Visit …

    TheCompensators* » What we do
    http://www.thecompensators.org/2008/?page_id=65

    If we can get a few thousand, dear I say million, to purchase a few, then this will have an immediate direct big impact on reducing CO2 emissions and making a big splash in the media.

    BTW this is also a better mechanism for offsetting personal emissions than say purchasing airline offsets. It is more direct, transparent and immediate.

    Please pass on the link to anyone who you think might be interested (or not:),


  20. on November 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm Martha

    Poptart, it is you who evidently ‘can’t even grasp elementary political affiliations’.

    CATO self-identifies as a libertarian policy think-tank.

    Libertarianism places the value of individual liberty over all else and this is a distinctly conservative principle. Some libertarians like to say they are not right or left; but they are confused. Without question, libertarians form part of the conservative radical right.

    CATO’s libertarian economic ethic maintains that there is no basis for helping anybody. Moreover, consistent with libertarian principles, their greatest economic concern is a defense of the corporate holders of natural resources, who are seen as possessing the moral right to profit from these and any other worldly resources without limitations or interference with their (self-owned) power.

    Perhaps it’s no suprise that CATO was founded by an oil executive in the heyday of international resource exploitation by a handful of private corporations.

    To be sure, the irony of such blatant ideology masquerading as a critical defense of science is not lost on anyone reading either this post, or your comments. How embarrassing for you.


    • on November 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm Former Skeptic

      ([satireofpoptech]

      But Martha, you got your info based on *gasp* WIKIPEDIA! THEREFORE THAT INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT! I WIN! I WIN!!!!111111!!

      [/satireofpoptech])


    • on November 17, 2009 at 1:53 am omnologos

      Analysis of “elementary political affiliation” suggests that libertarianism cannot simply described using a simple left/right model.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 4:10 am Poptech

      It seems that elementary political affiliations are beyond the grasp of the readers of this blog.

      Libertarian is not right or left so stating is the “radical right” is impossible. There is nothing “conservative” about libertarians.

      Please stop embarrassing yourself with your absolute lack of political knowledge.
      —-

      Someone who trivializes the complex and nuanced differences in the political thought of others has no right to complain when a simple (and common) categorization is used to classify them in turn.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 4:53 am Marco

        Conservatives and libertarians, in particular in the US, have (on paper) the same dislike of government-imposed actions, in particular when dealing with economical issues. In that sense putting the two in the same area makes (political) sense.


        • on November 17, 2009 at 5:06 am omnologos

          Marco – one of the statements under discussion is the following: Without question, libertarians form part of the conservative radical right..

          Do you agree with that?
          —-

          Marco

          IF you respond, move it to the “mostly open” thread as this is way off topic.


        • on November 17, 2009 at 7:06 am Poptech

          It only makes sense if you have no remote grasp of political ideology. Using this logic you should place libertarians in the same political area as liberals because they oppose the war in Iraq.


  21. on November 16, 2009 at 9:29 pm Milan

    Thanks so much for this! I was getting trouble from someone arguing that this invalidates the Oreskes study.
    —-

    You are more than welcome.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 7:51 am Poptech

      Clearly it invalidates the Oreskes study since she is claiming none of these papers exist. People can see with their own eyes, that this is a lie.
      —-

      She is not claiming, she documents it with facts … a concept that is apparently foreign to you.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 10:54 am Poptech

        Oreskes study explicity states she used the words “climate change” yet later comes back and says she used the word “global climate change” (which left out 11,000 papers from her search) and concludes that no papers exists skeptical of AGW theory.

        Now do peer-reviewed papers exists skeptical of AGW theory? I clearly have proven they do thus invalidating Oreskes conclusion.


  22. on November 17, 2009 at 3:59 am Poptech

    Pielke’s comments are ridiculous as no one is stating he personally is skeptical of a human influence on climate (many skeptical scientists support the basic premise but are skeptical of the alarmist claims). [1]

    The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position on climate and will not be removed. [2]

    The fact that he used the word “assuming” means he was not even sure himself. [3]

    The papers on predictability call into question the forecasting ability of climate models, this supports skepticism of alarmist claims.

    The papers on hurricanes and natural disasters support skepticism of these events getting worse due to AGW, this supports skepticism of alarmist claims.

    ect…
    —-

    OK, if you actually made any sense or were at least amusing your verbiage might be tolerable, but you are both incoherent and tedious.

    [1] So Pielke is a brilliant scientist when you believe he is attacking climate science, but a fool when he points out that you don’t have a clue what the science says.

    [2] As usual cf Inhofe, Heartland etc. When the person should never have been on the list in the first place, how would pointing out that they don’t belong there change anything.

    [3] Incoherent, tedious, and apparently literacy challenged.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 5:08 am omnologos

      It would be nice to hear from Greenfyre his opinions about “warming denial” vs. “AGW skepticism” vs. “skepticism of alarmism” (in the sense of upcoming catastrophical climate-related events).
      —-

      This has been answered repeatedly.

      “Skeptic vs Denier” has ZERO, nada, zilch, nothing, gar nichts, mei you to do with conclusions, but with how they are arrived at, whether rational/empirical vs idiotology/zealotry (eg this list).

      What is so hard about that? I have never said, suggested, or implied anything else … in fact I am quite blunt about it.

      Got it?


      • on November 17, 2009 at 5:03 pm omnologos

        “how they are arrived at, whether rational/empirical vs idiotology/zealotry”

        Sounds like a very subjective way of judging somebody else’s thoughts, given that you believe the only rational/empirical way to interpret climate data is the one leading to the conviction that a catastrophe will hit us unless we mend our emitting ways fast and hard…

        Unless you can show me a list of whoever you consider a “skeptic” of catastrophical AGW rather than just a “denier”?


    • on November 17, 2009 at 10:49 am Poptech

      [1] I never Pielke was brilliant or not, I said his comment is ridiculous because assumes things I never stated. He assumed incorrectly that I was listing the papers “refuting” AGW and all the authors and their papers refuted AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth. I clearly stated they support skepticism (not his, mine and other skeptics).

      [2] Why would I remove a paper that supports my skepticism and others? Unless you can prove to me where I state Pielke supports that position he alleges.

      [3] There is nothing tedious about showing that he incorrectly “assumed” something.


  23. on November 17, 2009 at 8:28 am greenfyre

    Poptart (aka Poptech) is hereby put on notice

    IF you have anything new AND rational to contribute, fine – do it.

    However, any more of:
    – personal attacks
    – brainless repetitions that you are right and people with facts are wrong
    – unsubstantiated (and transparently false) claims, particularly those suggesting that you have a clue even as you add to the evidence that you do not
    – more egregious assaults on basic logic and rational thought

    will simply be deleted for the spam that it is.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 10:51 am Poptech

      Come on you are calling me “poptart”, claiming I am lying and then making statements that are untrue (I counted submitted papers), E&E is not peer-reviewed ect…


      • on November 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm omnologos

        Distorting “Poptech” to “Poptart” in a “notice” about the upcoming deletion of “personal attacks” is the pinnacle of unwitting irony!! Thanks for that, Greenfyre!


        • on November 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm Poptech

          So true.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm Ian Forrester

      Thanks for taking this necessary action. It will greatly reduce my heart rate and lower my blood pressure not to have to wade through all the nonsense put out by these lying spammers, Anti-Science Syndrome sufferers and those afflicted with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

      It is time the pruning shears came out for a number of continual offenders suffering from these aforementioned afflictions.

      This blog will be a lot more of a scientific discussion area and source for objective argument if these trolls no longer inflict us with their nonsense.

      Thanks.

      Ian


  24. on November 17, 2009 at 8:40 am Chris S.

    Is 450 meant to be a large number of papers?

    As a quick comparison I just did a search on ISI for 2008 (the latest complete year) with “climate” in the subject field and came up with 27,604 papers. (Of course, as E&E isn’t listed on ISI we’d have to add a few more to that…)
    —-

    Deniers are not very good at any science, including math “Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition ”

    Although you have to be careful with that argument. Fact remains, one correct study beats any number of false ones. What is significant about this list is that none of the papers are actually cause for any doubt about climate change for the various reasons described, even if there were 45,000,000,000 of them.

    Equally, if Poptart were able to find just one valid study, that would be highly significant.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 8:56 am Chris S.

      Having had a quick shufty through some of the 27k papers mentioned above I felt that “climate” was probably too broad a term [1] for comparison. I’ve redone the search with “climate change” as a subject and there’s only 11,522 papers from 2008.

      (I also did a search using “AGW” in the subject, but seeing as the first paper in that list was “Anogenital warts: a clinical, pathological and virological study” by Mataix Diaz, J; Betlloch Mas, I; Pastor Tomas, N, et al. I felt it was pretty useless to present those numbers!)
      —-
      [1] Yes and no. Many (most) relevant papers do not necessarily refer to climate at all. eg basic CO2 chemistry, studies of solar cycles, etc

      Here, it’s been done for you, at least for the 2907 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 am Chris S.

        Thanks Greenfyre, I was aware of the 2,907. My aim, really, was to highlight quite how paltry that 450 was – as I think my numbers above show, when the [b]annual[/b] output of climate change related papers (not including many relevant ones as you note in your answer [1]) is in the 10,000s a [i]total[/i] of 450 is less than a drop in the ocean.

        To further illustrate here is the result of a further search of ISI using climate change as a subject (whilst remembering the caveats) and the period between the earliest of poptech’s 450 and the most recent (1976 -2009) in the year field:

        82,958 papers in that period have climate change as a subject…

        And people say there is no consensus.


        • on November 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm Poptech

          There are thousands of papers on climate change but that is not what this discussion is about.


      • on December 22, 2009 at 6:23 am Clippo

        re:
        (I also did a search using “AGW” in the subject, but seeing as the first paper in that list was “Anogenital warts: a clinical, pathological and virological study” by Mataix Diaz, J; Betlloch Mas, I; Pastor Tomas, N, et al. I felt it was pretty useless to present those numbers!)

        Christopher Monckton is probably working on a worldwide cure for this -like his AIDS campaign (smile)


  25. on November 17, 2009 at 9:19 am Carbon Fixated » Blog Archive » Skeptical about 450 “peer reviewed” papers skeptical of global warming

    […] More analysis at greenfyre […]


    • on November 17, 2009 at 2:26 pm Chris S.

      Just want to flag this blog post as an interesting further discussion (quote: “There are standards in science, and one of them is peer review. Scientists know what it is and what it isn’t, and the review process in a sub standard vanity press journal like E&E, well, isn’t”)
      —-

      Chris, you have to give the link to Skeptical about 450 “peer reviewed” papers skeptical of global warming just so it’s clear that you are referring to the post in the comment above (and bloggers love being linked, even in a comment).


  26. on November 17, 2009 at 11:32 am Dano

    PopTech clearly doesn’t understand what he is compiling.

    Over at LowWattsUp I showed poor addled PopTech a few papers that he didn’t read that do not support his unsupportable claim. E&E as a peer-reviewed journal?!? Joke.

    Simply,

    Yet more noise from the Noise Machine before Copenhagen, and PopTech’s list clearly cannot stand auditing. He has nothing but making noise and a big hubbub before Copenhagen.

    It’s Hooey. Capital H. None of these lists – zero – can stand scrutiny. Auditing. Whatever. Noise before Copenhagen.

    Best,

    D


    • on November 17, 2009 at 12:59 pm Poptech

      Dano, I read all the papers and they all support skepticism.

      Yes E&E is a peer-reviewed journal.

      Click to access eih-coverage.pdf


      • on November 17, 2009 at 1:19 pm Dano

        It is not peer-reviewed by anyone practicing anyone. Nor is it on any databases that people use. Nor do libraries carry it (well, maybe 3 or 4).

        IOW: no one of any consequence reads it. It doesn’t exist. No real peers read it. It is not a real journal. It is reviewed by the usual suspect peers only, and they don’t count.

        You are embarrassing yourself. Anything can support skepticism if you are desperate enough.

        Best,

        D


        • on November 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm Poptech

          It is peer-reviewed by other scientists in related fields.

          It is in databases people use…

          EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Corporations, Government Institutions, K-12 Schools and Public Libraries.

          At least 39 libraries carry it (which is irrelevant)

          You want it not to exist so no one will read the papers published in it. [1]
          —-

          [1] You have no idea what his motivation is. Your accusation is both logically fallacious and childish … apparently you cannot distinguish between fact and things that you simply make up, or perhaps you are hoping other people can’t.

          Regardless, if you can’t substantiate a claim with a valid source, it is fiction … and I am going to start deleting entire comments that contain any more of this regardless of other content … got it?


          • on November 17, 2009 at 2:03 pm Poptech

            What conclusion should I take from “It doesn’t exist.”?


  27. on November 17, 2009 at 11:41 am PaulM

    I figured it was just a matter of days before it started making the rounds of the climate
    ranting abusive name-calling hysteria-sphere


    • on November 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm TrueSceptic

      Interesting in the context of what people actually mean and how it might be misinterpreted, but this could be either:-

      1. A description of the way that WUWT, etc., have picked up and promoted Poptech’s list, much as they do with any anti-AGW material;

      or

      2. A description of sites like this which are critically examining Poptech’s list.

      Depends on your perspective…


  28. on November 17, 2009 at 11:46 am Chris S.

    (I’ve posted this at WUWT as well – I’m interested in how the replies will differ).

    Can someone tell me how this reference fits on the list?

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/428799b.html

    Nature 428, 799 (22 April 2004) | doi:10.1038/428799b

    Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions
    Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker

    Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography & the Environment, Oxford University, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

    Sir
    Media coverage of conservation research is usually welcomed by the scientists involved, but there are pitfalls to heed. Damaging simplifications of research findings may expose conservationists to accusations of crying wolf, and play directly into the hands of anti-environmentalists. For example, in January 2004 it was widely reported in the UK print media that one million species would go extinct by 2050. The original report (Nature 427, 145–148; 2004), however, was based on 1,103 species and clearly stated that — as a consequence of climate change over the next 50 years — a variable proportion of land animals and plants might eventually go extinct.

    We reviewed 29 reports in the local and national UK press, and found that many of the errors could be traced back to the press releases and agency newswires. In a press release from the lead author’s university, the figure of a million species appears along with the claim that a quarter of all land animals and plants may go extinct — but eventually, not by 2050. Newswires ranged from the cautious (“Hundreds of species of land plants and animals around the globe could vanish or be on the road to extinction over the next 50 years if global warming continues” — Dow Jones International) to the sensational (“Global warming could wipe out a quarter of all species of plants and animals on earth by 2050″ — Reuters).

    Unsurprisingly, subsequent newspaper articles in the national and local press were highly inaccurate: 21 of the 29 reports we reviewed claimed that a million or more species would be extinct by 2050. Two reports even claimed that one-third of the entire world’s species would become extinct. No reports specified the full range of uncertainty (5.6% to 78.6% of the species studied would be committed to future extinction) and only two correctly stated that most species would become extinct well after 2050 (full details of our survey can be seen at http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/biodiversity/pubs/index.html).

    Politicians and conservationists repeated these statements. The European Union’s environment commissioner Margot Wallström, for example, commented on “the recently published study that suggests global warming could wipe out a third of the planet’s species by 2050″.

    How can the conservation community prevent a repeat of such wide-scale media misrepresentation? Practical steps might be for high-profile journals to restrict press releases in the climate-change arena to research papers that present clear and unequivocal findings, and for scientists to write to newspaper editors and politicians to clarify misleading media articles. More generally, any institute, journal or individual involved in putting out a press release has a responsibility to ensure that it is both accurate and perfectly clear.


    • on November 17, 2009 at 12:23 pm Poptech

      The paper explicitly states that the media is exaggerating claims of species extinction in relation to global warming. This supports skepticism of alarmist species extinction claims regarding global warming.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 1:07 pm Dano

        This supports skepticism of alarmist species extinction claims regarding global warming.

        If you scrunch your eyes hard enough and wish hard enough, you can make anything conform to your beliefs.

        Son, you are a hoot.

        Your original assertion of what the scientific papers do is

        support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects [there]of.

        You are conflating scientific evidence with media reports now.

        You are hoping.

        You got nothin’, boy. Except an ability to amuse us with your thrashing about. You are a hoot, and it will be fun in a few months to refer back to your wishing that your list was true, and how we can reflect on how the denialists and pseudoskeptics grasp at any straw to hold up their ideology and (often) their self-identity. You are embarrassing yourself. You should hope your list doesn’t go in the same category as the OISM – that’ll hurt your career for sure.

        Best,

        D


        • on November 17, 2009 at 1:21 pm Poptech

          No “beliefs” just skepticism. I am not conflating anything because these papers deal not just with the science but the politics of it as well. Media reports play into the politics.

          If I have nothing then why is everyone trying so hard to argue against “nothing”? It is illogical.
          —-

          Please do not abuse the word skeptic by using it to refer to the drivel you have posted.

          How many times have you commented here? 30? more

          How many times have you provided substantive evidence refuting the documentation that the papers on your list are gibberish, false, out of date, or do not belong there at all? Zero


          • on November 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm Dano

            If I have nothing then why is everyone trying so hard to argue against “nothing”? It is illogical.

            o Personally, I am seeing how many ways you can come up with to embarrass yourself.

            o And seeing if there is anything out there that is new from the Denialist Noise Machine.

            The only thing new is the level of the nadir of cluelessness that you have tapped. I, personally, wasn’t aware the cluelessness level was so low.

            Best,

            D


  29. on November 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm Dano

    Chris, it can’t.

    Poor PopTech didn’t read what was on his widdle list, and what he did read he didn’t understand; nevertheless, he needs to have that paper on his list.

    The list can’t stand auditing. It is the best they can do – hope no one audits their work. It is the standard noise before a big conference.

    Use it as one would use the OISM – whoever uses it cannot be taken seriously.

    Best,

    D


    • on November 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm Poptech

      I not only read them but understand them. You are confusing explicit rejection of AGW theory with supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.

      Actually I have quite a bit more than 450 papers on the list. I just added 5 more today.


      • on November 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm Dano

        My dog pooped on a paper inside yesterday, right on an article that said Obama was backing away from Copenhagen.

        Therefore, using your logic, the dog cr*p is supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects [there]of.

        Today, I shall go out to the bark park and place journal articles praising AGW on the ground. The dog cr*p on these journals will be supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects [there]of. We can add these titles to your list as well.

        Then, we can – like the dim-bulbs at LowWatt and their photographing thermometers and calling it good – gather our credulous minions and go to other bark parks across the country and place journal articles on the ground there and photograph the titles and add them to your list.

        Soon, there will be THOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUsssssssssssssannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddds!!!!!! of titles and you’ll be a big name and soon you will be Kinnnnnnggggggggg of the Worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld!

        Yeeeahhhhhhh!!

        [/piling on someone embarrassing themselves]

        Best,

        D


        • on November 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm Poptech

          This post does not make any sense.


          • on November 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm Dano

            I used your logic. No wonder it doesn’t make any sense.

            Using your logic, anything I choose supports my ideology.

            You are embarrassing yourself, son.

            I wonder what a prospective employer would say out loud if you put this in your cover letter? I wonder if they would say out loud that such a list and such logic is embarrassing?

            Best,

            D


            • on November 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm Poptech

              I made no mention of pooping on papers.


              • on November 18, 2009 at 6:56 am Dano

                I’m going to bookmark this thread.

                Either PopTech is epically clueless on a new scale, or a parody character and I’ve been pwned magnificently.

                Best,

                D


  30. on November 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm J SMITH

    Has anyone noticed that one of the papers (at least) is shown twice :

    – Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)
    – L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

    – Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June 2008)
    – L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

    And they’re only about 10 papers apart. Wonder how many more there are.

    Lots more about that original paper here :

    http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00%2B01%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=10

    (Sorry if this has already been posted – my memory is not as good as it used to be ! Feel free to delete if this only duplicates what someone else has stated)


    • on November 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm Poptech

      That was a typo and corrected but irrelevant as none of the responses were counted in the peer-reviewed paper count and there are many more listings than the 450 papers (actually there are more than 450 papers, this intentional).


  31. on November 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm Chris S.

    I think there’s a delicious irony in the fact that the first author of the paper I quote in full above has another paper in Nature titled “Citations: poor practices by authors reduce their value” containing the memorable line: ” Papers cited can be inappropriate or ambiguous in their support and, in some cases, the authors may not have read the papers they cite.”

    🙂

    See more from this author here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5099764.stm

    As he says: “One of the challenges of living in a media world without gatekeepers is that we need to take far more personal responsibility for assessing the quality of scientific information that we receive…Check the data – strong scientific arguments are based on information from recognised sources that is available for public scrutiny, while weak or spurious arguments are often backed up with data from secondary sources or often no data at all…There are no easy answers but if we don’t respond quickly we run the risk of creating a generation of eco-illiterate consumers and voters at a crucial time for the Earth’s diminishing resources.”


    • on November 17, 2009 at 1:06 pm Poptech

      I do not know what the irony is of a paper that explicitly states the media is exaggerating and outright lying about claims of species extinction in relation to global warming?

      I agree on checking the data,

      Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

      Click to access CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf


  32. on November 17, 2009 at 9:15 pm Nelthon

    Though – or probably because – it’s such glorious fun watching another list/petition/open letter disintegrate while PopTech pokes and prods as one would an interesting dog turd, part of me is convinced that it’s just a lovechild of DenialDepot. It’s just too outrageously stupid.[1]

    Fantastic takedown nonetheless. Bad smells do indeed spread fast.
    —-

    [1] While you are correct that “outrageously stupid” is certainly Morano’s calling card, there is also the problem of what one might call a corollary of Poe’s Law, viz Denier sites seem to parody one another.


  33. on November 18, 2009 at 4:25 am General AGW discussion thread - Page 79 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

    […] need to waste time on that 450-list, it's rubbish as usual: https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…hange-deniers/ https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…e-denier-lies/ __________________ "Stupidity gets […]


  34. on November 18, 2009 at 8:40 am Chris S.

    It seems it’s not just Pielke who’s surprised to find his paper in the list – Harold Brroks, author of ”
    Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999
    (Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
    – Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III”

    Has commented at Real Climate (post 127 here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer-reviewed-literature/comment-page-3/#comments )

    Quote: “I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming.”


    • on November 18, 2009 at 9:07 am Poptech

      Maybe he needs to read the disclaimer? As it supports skepticism of the environmental effects.

      “Using wealth and inflation adjustment, it seems clear
      that the most damaging tornado in U.S. history was the
      1896 Saint Louis–East Saint Louis tornado, which produced damage equivalent to $2.9 billion in modern
      terms.”

      Amazing before SUVs!

      And the nail in the coffin,

      “We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual
      tornadoes has increased through time”


  35. on November 18, 2009 at 8:52 am Huang Feng

    With regards to Energy & Environment; EBSCO clearly rates them as a peer reviewed journal so let’s take that at face value for the moment. Only a handful of E&E’s articles are claimed by the journal to be peer reviewed in each issue. Sometimes E&E fail to label their articles adequately making it impossible to differentiate peer reviewed articles from viewpoints. I suggest that perhaps there are no peer reviewed articles in issues that categorise this way, and certainly there is no way to counter this challenge from the way those issues are published.

    I went through the 84 E&E articles listed in the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”. I noted what sections, if any, that each article was published under and here is what I found:

    2 articles listed as “Climate sceptic voices”
    1 as letters
    1 as “Report”
    9 as “Viewpoints”
    5 were completely undesignated
    46 were listed as “Articles”
    1 as “Peer reviewed papers”
    19 as “Refereed papers”

    Admittedly there is a chance that those listed as “Articles” may in fact be peer reviewed, however in at least one issue of a volume of E&E, there was a “Refereed papers” section and an “Articles” section. Further, often when a listing of “Articles” was designated to everything, it would include many more items than was usual to be labelled as “Refereed papers” found in the properly labelled issues, some were obviously book reviews. This would seem to imply that none of the “Articles” were refereed or that some were but you cannot be sure, but you could be reasonably sure that they at least some were not refereed.

    You cannot state for certainty that any paper labelled under “Articles” is a peer reviewed paper.

    As for the 2 “climate sceptic voices” and 9 “viewpoints” – these should be immediately removed from the 450 list if you want to maintain any pretension to credibility with the title. If you want to have a stronger listing then I suggest removing everything except the 19 “Refereed papers” and the single “Peer reviewed paper”. Or you could change the title to say “possibly peer reviewed”.

    So a reduction from 84 down to 20 papers. With this you stand on much stronger ground with claims to peer review.

    This is really sloppy work by E&E and does not help the sceptic stand point at all. Is simple proper categorisation so hard? I would be furious if I had published a peer review article in E&E only to have it designated under “Articles” alongside “Viewpoints”.

    Your list should only contain articles that are clearly designated as peer reviewed and have been published. Now go back and do the whole list again and have it on my desk by Monday.


    • on November 18, 2009 at 9:10 am Poptech

      Nope the articles (research articles) are definitely peer-reviewed as well as other content, contact the editor.

      Sorry to disappoint you.


      • on November 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm TrueSceptic

        Why should we take your word? Perhaps you could ask Sonja to post a message explicitly supporting that claim or, with her permission of course, sharing her reply to you.


      • on November 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm Huang Feng

        The claim is that articles appearing in the journal “Energy & Environment” that are listed under the “Articles” category are peer reviewed.

        Examining the most recent three volumes I found the following:

        a) In the latest issue (Vol 20, #7) there is a section called “Refereed Papers” with 5 articles and a section called “Articles” with 1 paper. “Articles” is clearly made to be different and separate from refereed papers in this issue.

        b) In issue #7-8 of volume 18 there are 13 articles under the category “Articles”. One is clearly labelled “Food for thought”.

        c) In issue #2 of volume 17 there is no categorisation at all. There are clearly articles which are editorial, fuel for thought, letters, reports and book reviews.

        d) In issues that separate Refereed from Viewpoints there are 8 to 10 articles in total in these sections combined, with viewpoints being 25% to 60% of these. However, in issues where there is no differentiation between Refereed and Viewpoints and everything is categorised as “Articles” there are 7-19 articles. While there is the possibility that all of these articles are refereed, I would strongly suggest that the numbers make this appear to NOT be the case.

        If the suggestion is that the categorisation of “Articles” always means “Refereed Papers” then (a)-(c) are incorrectly categorised, therefore a error has been made.

        Finally, why are there no “Viewpoints” in issues where “Articles” is used for refereed papers?

        I suggest that an article appearing in any issue of Energy & Environment under the general category of “Articles” cannot be claimed to be peer reviewed.

        If Sonja claims otherwise then I suggest this raises extreme doubt on the validity of Energy & Environment as a peer reviewed publication, and further suggest a petition to EBSCO to have the peer reviewed status be removed from that publication.


        • on November 18, 2009 at 8:48 pm Poptech

          Research articles are peer-reviewed, contact the editor. As you are unfamiliar with the peer-review process you will notice that journals do not explicitly say which publications are peer-reviewed and almost all include non peer-reviewed content such as editorials and book reviews.

          Your “claims” are meaningless, what matters is the truth.

          Now using your logic you should petition EBSCO to remove the journal Nature since you cannot determine if their Coorespondances are peer-reviewed or not as they clearly state they “may be”.


          • on November 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm Ian Forrester

            The funny thing is that a “peer” is someone of “equal rank.”. Thus, if a paper is written by a “dishonest, ignorant denier” it will be reviewed by a “dishonest, ignorant denier”. Thus it will remain a dishonest piece of ignorant denier garbage. This is why E & E has no standing in scientific and academic circles.

            Did you ever get past third grade in your education? It may help your case if you advanced yourself up the educational ladder before inflicting your denier garbage on an educated body of people.


            • on December 26, 2009 at 9:16 pm Poptech

              Nothing you have said can be supported with evidence.


              • on December 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm Ian Forrester

                Poptart, you provide evidence to support my comments every time you post your garbage and lies.


                • on December 26, 2009 at 11:10 pm Poptech

                  Every time you call me juvenile names, you prove that you have long ago lost the debate.

                  And you still cannot back up any of your slanderous accusations.


  36. on November 19, 2009 at 11:34 am Chris S.

    Regarding E&E: I did a quick straw poll around my institute, including quite a few people with an h-index well in excess of 40, some of whom are leading figures in the fields of bioenergy, agricultural responses to climate & agricultural ecology.

    Number of scientists who had heard of E&E: 0 (or 1 if you include me…)
    —-

    That’s good news and bad news
    – Good, because anything from E&E is not worth knowing about;
    – Bad, because if and when something from E&E does come to their attention it would be good if they were alert to the probable quality of what they are dealing with.


  37. on December 1, 2009 at 5:52 pm The BRAD BLOG : 'Green News Report' - December 1, 2009

    […] 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers (Carbon Fixated) […]


  38. on December 6, 2009 at 9:41 am Val

    I was looking for some good links on Climate Change to send to a friend who is sceptical and stumbled upon your site.

    I will however, not be directing them to this sight……anyone who can only support their argument by name calling and abusing those that disagree with thier oppinions, are not interested in a balance debate on the subject…..

    “The hysteric paranoids who rant, distort, and lie, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, who dismiss the mountain of evidence for climate change while embracing the most pathetic conspiracy theories and lame hoaxes based on no evidence whatsoever, can be called only one thing: Deniers”

    Offensive comments like these are the reason why people are turning their backs on the Global Warming cause

    Frankly, this is the worst sight I have ever seen……..
    —-

    1) Where on this site does it say that those “that disagree with thier [sic] oppinions [sic]” are Deniers? It is very clear that skeptic/denier is based on method, not conclusion.
    2) It is about scientific facts, not opinions.

    Please try reading what is actually written on this site, not projecting your biases.


  39. on December 16, 2009 at 3:50 am Clippo

    Superb thread!!

    Since entering internet debating, I have posted mostly on http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ and by far the most on their Energy and Environment sub section. I am completely pro-AGW but since the website was originally set up to support the UKIP party, most of its adherents tend to be right of centre – and in the E & E subsection, some are openly Libertarian and therefore industry ‘shills’.

    Why am I telling you this – simply because ‘Popart’ / ‘Poptech’ occasionally also posts there. Indeed, recently he, (I assume), posted exactly the same story as this, in exactly the same way, and this led to a bitter exchange between us. Like you, but not so comprehensively, I tried to point out the flaws in considering E & E a peer-reviewed journal, or even the Cato Institute journal !!!!! – which is on the list.
    But no luck I’m afraid. So, it’s an immense pleasure to see your thoroughly sceptic-crusher article and which I will refer to when I can. (*- I’m currently banned for a few days for calling the poster named in the next para a ‘cretin’ after particularly bad tempered exchange by both of us).

    For many years, I had a sneaking suspicion that Poptech was an alternative name used by a computer professional who post regularly on said forum, an mpkdavies, – as a moderator once said there, he would easily know the ways to post with multiple identities and indeed, we caught him out clearly several years ago. But I have to say I’m not so sure now – Poptech /Poptart is definitely better at propagating fraud.

    ( I also note Omnologos posting here as well – as a supporter of Silvio Berlusconi, he should be treated with respect !!!)

    Anyway thanks for a fantastic article!


    • on December 17, 2009 at 11:02 pm Poptech

      Juvenile personal attack deleted. Being Libertarian has nothing to do with shilling for anyone. It is merely a label to represent the political positions one holds.

      I would not recommend attempting to use this article somewhere I can fully respond to it.

      No I am not associated with any other poster there and as further evidence of I am who I say I am, I post under the same name there as here.


      • on December 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm TrueSceptic

        I would not recommend attempting to use this article somewhere I can fully respond to it.

        Is that a threat?


        • on December 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm Poptech

          No it is a promise.


    • on December 18, 2009 at 7:02 am Donald

      Not the same person.

      Poptech’s real name is Andrew Khan and he lives in New Jersey, USA, not Woking UK.

      http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514


      • on December 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm Poptech

        Actually my name is not Andrew Khan but I do live in the United States.


        • on December 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm TrueSceptic

          Is this correct?

          Popular Technology …. Its author goes by many names- Andrew, Andrew K, Poptech, Popular Tech, Mastertech, GeneralAres (he’s using that name on digg at the moment) and has been caught out using many sock puppets in comment sections, as well as banned from countless tech sites for trolling and spamming.


          • on December 19, 2009 at 4:04 am Donald

            The sock puppet part was proved at these two blogs using IP address:

            http://blog.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/

            http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/

            I haven’t seen any evidence of such abuse here, but worth keeping an eye out.

            A few years ago the blogger now known as poptech caused a bit of a stir on the interwebs with his Firefox Myths page. He would post the page under various names without admitting being the author, and get into somewhat heated discussions about it, which often ended up in a ban.

            The whole thing is parodied here:

            http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/

            There’s a list of aliases used at the top and bottom of the page, and a list of forums he was banned from at the bottom. Some of the links may be dead, because in internet terms, this is ancient history.


            • on December 19, 2009 at 8:40 am TrueSceptic

              Thanks.

              The funny thing is that PopTech’s propaganda about FF looks a bit like the stuff at Shelley The Republican.


              • on December 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm Poptech

                My pages are not propaganda, have nothing to do with her and are fully sourced.


                • on December 27, 2009 at 8:25 am TrueSceptic

                  What’s funny is that you just don’t get it, namely that your wingnut idiocy once again proves Poe’s Law.


                • on December 27, 2009 at 8:57 am Poptech

                  Wrong smear, I am a libertarian not a right-winger thus the “wingnut” smear is not appropriate. Please get your smears right.


            • on December 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm Poptech

              The IPs listed at those blogs were never mine. I challenged both authors to confirm my IP and they never got back to me. At that time there were rabid fanboys on both sides resorting to all sorts of dishonesty. I’ve never used a sock puppet account.

              I have been banned from various sites but not for trolling or spamming but for refusing to change my opinion on a subject.

              Any page I post, I post under Poptech. This is confirmed here, J. Randi forums and WUWT among others.

              The Firefox Fables site is pariodied here,

              http://www.firefoxfables.com/

              Firefox fanboys are a dirty bunch of dishonest liars who have done everything in their power to smear me.


    • on December 18, 2009 at 4:58 pm TrueSceptic

      Clippo,

      PopTech has also been posting at the JREF forum. Much the same anti-science stuff you see here and elsewhere.


      • on December 26, 2009 at 11:13 pm Poptech

        Everything I have posted there is science (all sourced).


    • on December 18, 2009 at 5:09 pm TrueSceptic

      Oh, and PopTech has never called himself PopTart.
      —-

      [citation needed] 😉


      • on December 19, 2009 at 8:18 pm TrueSceptic

        You got me. 😉

        I do know that others call him that, though. 🙂


        • on December 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm S2

          I do like your new avatar …


        • on December 21, 2009 at 8:17 pm TrueSceptic

          Thanks,

          I’ve had (a different) one at JREF for a while but never bothered anywhere else until saw this one used here in another thread. (Thanks, Greenfyre!)

          I found a good image at Plognark.

          Took a while for it to take, though (and trying to register at WordPress and Typepad with the same ID is fun).


  40. on December 18, 2009 at 3:58 am climate criminal

    I am the wag that commented on DeSmogBlog about E&E: “Where bad science goes to die”

    It’s nice to know that some of my comments are read and appreciated by some.
    —-

    Well, quoted here is hardly fame and glory, but I like to acknowledge wit.


  41. on December 18, 2009 at 5:20 am Clippo

    In the personal attack deleted, Poptech criticises my understanding of Climate Science and from the thread I referred to in another place, implied that I had a false misunderstanding of the peer-review process.

    Well, let me be clear to anybody else who reads this, I am a retired PhD Organic Chemist who has had several papers published in approved peer-reviewed literature. In my practical scientific career, I have used quite detailed mathematical / statistical methods to analyse time series data and all sorts of other data. I am (was) very proficient in the design and analysis of experimental data. (I admit I’m nowhere near the standard of many of the Scienceblog analysts tho’).

    Even before retirement, I was extremely interested in Climate Change science and have had a lifelong interest in all aspects of Geology – so….

    I think I can claim I do understand Climate science and the scientific process.

    With respect to this ‘450 paper’ fraud, I tried to point out to you that papers published in ‘E &E’ aren’t worth the paper they are written on, and I even gave you a link to Christiansen’s actual political statement. I also tried to persuade you that journals like the Cato Institute journal, and?World Economics? Etc. etc. and many others on your list aren’t reliable scientifically peer-reviewed in the accepted sense.

    But No, you just can’t break free from your Libertarian mindset.

    I challenge you, Poptech, to read “ The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney and then try, “Limits to Growth – the 30 year update” by Meadows(2) & Rander.


    • on December 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm Poptech

      I am not surprised you do not even have an undergraduate degree in computer science, that would explain your illogical faith in computer climate models. [1]

      There is nothing fraudulent about the papers, they are all real and sourced (just click on them).

      Your opinions about E&E are just that.

      Sonja’s statement is simply in regards to the content she is interested in for the journal. Every journal editor has their own bias in this regard.

      All the journals listed are peer-reviewed by academic standards. And clearly economic related journals are not science journals but those papers support skepticism of the economic effects of AGW.

      I am not interested in any fabricated war on science from a left-wing author. And there is no limit to growth, why would I read such nonsense? [2]

      —-

      [1] Do you have (at least) an undergraduate degree in computer science?

      [2] Why, indeed – unless you had an open mind.
      Nobody with any sense can accept that unlimited growth can continue forever.

      S2


      • on December 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm guthrie

        Oddly enough I’ve seen people with decades of computer experience say there’s nothing abnormal or wrong about the stuff they’ve seen. I’d believe them over your bluster any day. Perhaps you can point to exactly what is wrong with the coding?

        And claiming everyone is biased isn’t an argument, more a statement of desperation. When you have no science, such as the 450 papers lie, you bluster.

        —-

        Aye, I’m one of those people with “decades of computer experience”. 🙂

        If you want to pick holes you need to attack the science – computers are just glorified slide rules (but don’t tell my boss that). 🙂

        S2


        • on December 26, 2009 at 9:09 pm Poptech

          Whoever you talked to obviously never looked at the code,

          CRU’s programming ‘below commercial standards’ (BBC)
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm


          • on December 27, 2009 at 2:16 am Donald

            Newsnight failed to spot that the code is nothing to do with the CRU temperature data (although clearly implying it was).

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones


      • on December 19, 2009 at 4:23 am Clippo

        You have no idea what Computer science qualifications I have – only your usual biased assumptions that I have none.
        It is possible for many people to have qualifications in different scientific fields. I only gave you my highest.

        I was programming databases probably as you were being born – but as I said, I am now retired and the detail of computer science now seems less important to me .
        Therefore, I have now to rely on my judgement of ‘authority’ – i.e. who do I believe when a statement is made to me.
        In the case of all aspects of climate science, computer models as well, I believe the scientists who can quote and back up their claims with reliable peer-review over industry shills funded by Libertarian ‘Institutes’ or ‘Centers’


        • on December 26, 2009 at 9:13 pm Poptech

          Programming databases has nothing to do with having a full understanding of computer science. I have dealt with many natural scientists and engineers at universities who had “computer experience” and no remote idea of the limitations of computer systems.

          The last person I would believe in regards to computer models is anyone who does not at the minimum have an undergraduate degree in computer science.


          • on December 27, 2009 at 4:31 am Clippo

            Well Poptech, ‘reversing’ your argument, do you accept that say, McIntyre or McKittrick have the ‘authority’ to comment on Climate Science, since I believe neither have minimum degrees in Climatology, Meteorology or ‘Geology’, or ‘Chemistry, or Physics etc. etc. – (yes, I know one is a mathematician & the other an Economist, but… ) or other directly related subjects.

            Also, in my first ‘chemical’ job, even before I got my Bsc., I worked with an Oxford 1st class graduate who, practically, was a menace to society. So much so that he was eventually moved to a ‘literature’ collating job. So, just because somebody has a degree in a subject, doesn’t mean they are the world expert on it. I suspect that if he wished to, Michael Mann, for example, could easily get an undergraduate degree in ‘computer science’ (of which programming is only one aspect). I’m even tempted slightly to take an Open University degree – (a UK system for US readers), – in a new subject. I’m sure I could get a new degree in several subjects now.

            Your arguments display an astonishing naivety about human capabilities and the mechanics of science publication. Furthermore, you continue to close your mind to the well published acceptance of AGW by the US right wing vested interests.

            You seem unable to realise that the vast consensus of world scientists, politicians and many other ‘illuminati’, recognise the ‘authority’, or persuasiveness, of the work of ‘AGW believing’ scientists, published in truly politically independent journals, over your vested-interested sources.

            Quite simply, you, (your denialist side) are losers. You lost this debate 15-20 years ago and there’s NO WAY you will persuade open-minded people without powerful and almost irrefutable science – something that’s been lacking from denialism from the start.


            • on December 27, 2009 at 8:54 am Poptech

              McIntyre or McKittrick are more than qualified to comment on any statistical analysis as they have.

              Michael Mann is a computer illiterate ignoramus who wrote fraudulent code that fooled all the other computer illiterates who believe that if FORTRAN code compiles it must be right.

              My arguments are directly related to the existence of widespread computer illiteracy where those who “use” computers falsely believe they understand them.

              First of all I am not right-wing but libertarian which is neither left nor right. Your unsubstantiated nonsense about U.S. right-wing acceptance is laughable.

              There is no vast “consensus”.

              The skeptics haven’t lost at all, to the contrary the disaster that was Copenhagen only shows how the skeptics are winning. Climategate will be the final nail in the AGW alarmist coffin.


              • on December 27, 2009 at 9:48 am TrueSceptic

                McIntyre might be less careless but McKitrick has made errors on more than one occasion that would embarrass someone of high school level.

                On one occasion (a paper he published with Pat Michaels) he used degrees instead of radians in a formula.

                On another (a book co-written with Christopher Essex), he replaced missing values with zeroes when calculating average temperatures.

                Are these evidence of simple but unbelievable incompetence or of deliberate deception? In each case, the results and claimed conclusions go away when the correct methods are used.

                Whatever the explanation, McKitrick is unfit to be employed at any university.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 8:41 am Poptech

                  TrueSkeptic please stop lying, the conclusions of the paper did not change when the mathematical error was corrected,

                  A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
                  (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
                  – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

                  “Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that published temperature data are contaminated with nonclimatic influences that add up to a net warming bias, and that efforts should be made to properly quantify these effects.”

                  I realize you read only alarmist sites which make no mention of replies to criticism in papers or corrections. Please get your facts straight next time.

                  Now you resort to outright lying about McKitrick’s qualifications? Unbelievable.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 9:25 am TrueSceptic

                  Those were simple statements of fact. It’s a shame you are too delusional or dishonest to admit it.

                  Citing the authors of incompetent or fraudulent work on that same work is just not on, you know.

                  Once again you accuse someone of lying while blatantly doing that very thing yourself. I made no claim about McKitrick’s qualifications. I referred to what he has done, not what he might be qualified to do. He has on several occasions shown himself to be incompetent, dishonest, or both. He has made errors a child would be ashamed of.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 11:38 am Poptech

                  Even when proven wrong you continue to lie. You claimed his paper due to a math error changed his conclusion, I have just proven it did not,

                  “Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that published temperature data are contaminated with nonclimatic influences that add up to a net warming bias, and that efforts should be made to properly quantify these effects.”

                  Please stop lying.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 12:04 pm TrueSceptic

                  You quote the author of an article as “proof” of the validity of that article?

                  You are even less connected to reality than I thought.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 12:16 pm Poptech

                  Yes I quoted the erratum which corrected the original math error and still got the same conclusions.

                  Yet you still repeat the same lies about the paper,


              • on December 27, 2009 at 10:10 am Clippo

                Poptek,
                What a tedious little oik you are. Not in any particular order but

                re: Copenhagen

                What had this to do with Climate ‘Science’. As far as I understood it, ALL participants at Copenhagen didn’t doubt the ‘science’ one bit and from reports I have seen, the tactics of China were thoroughly exposed as the reasons why no emissions cut agreements were made.

                Politics matey-boy, politics.

                Nevertheless, that process WILL go on – even more in earnest next year.

                Re:AGW consensus
                If you honestly believe there is NO consensus, then, politely, I think you should go and see a shrink – because you are living in your own cloud-cuckoo land. One quick link which you are too scared to read:-

                http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

                There are so many influential groups of people worldwide, of all walks of life and ‘disciplines’, agreeing that AGW ‘science’ is by far and away the best explanation for current warming reality that you need to come up with something pretty conclusive to doubt it. Denialists have failed every time to do this and they therefore descend into left wing/ communist / fascist /you-name-it conspiracies. What’s your crazy specialist conspiracy – did you discuss it with Elvis in the supermarket this morning 🙂

                Re: Michael Mann etc.

                My understanding of the ‘Hockey Stick’ affair was that M & M picked up one small subsection where Mann had ‘un-conventially ‘ used a stastistical procedure – that relating to dendrochronology. What don’t you understand from the statement by the US Statistical association and Congress I believe, that :-

                Analysing that data in the conventional way makes ****** all difference to the end result

                i.e. – the last decades of the 20th century showed unprecedented warming and, in the opinion of all those who understand related sciences, is >95% attributable to CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuels.
                And there again, have M & M, found statistical fault with any of the ‘Hockey sticks’ ? – how many now? I’ve lost count – and which all completely support MBH98
                Re: Computer science,

                In my opinion, your main problem is that you seem to think that there is something ‘magical’ about different computational ‘codes’ for analysing data and because you claim to be a ‘specialist in one, you reject all others.

                I have seen, but can’t remember the link, that many of the Climate models, could have been produced in MS Excel.

                I have also visited Tamino’s data analysis website regularly and found he has the gift of exposing the puffed up hypocrisy of the likes of yourself.

                Finally, (‘cos I’ve wasted too much time on you and your crazy ideas), do you never consider why none of your 500 (or is it 600 or 700 now) papers have obviously not affected the conclusions of most people? Could it be those papers are flawed ??? 🙂 🙂 🙂

                You’re still a troll – and to say being a Libertarian isn’t right-wing (in the US at least) suggests you don’t know even what day it is.


            • on December 27, 2009 at 9:21 am Martha

              Well-written, Clippo. But somehow honest and accurate feedback seems lost on these individuals.

              The personality is excessively attention-seeking, stimulated by negative interaction, and without feelings of accountability.

              We see the result: obsessive on-line behaviour with excessive harassment of science sites and repetitively posted denier spam, on open forums.

              It is little wonder that sites devoted to the public sometimes try to assist these individuals by offering intervention i.e., deletion.


              • on December 27, 2009 at 9:30 am Poptech

                Honesty and accuracy is what Skeptics are attempting to get out of the alarmists. Thanks to climategate, exposing fraudulent data and methods will be much easier now.

                If you are refering to my personality you are wrong, as I have no interest in attention only the truth.

                I am of no surprise that you support censorship.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 1:37 am Donald

                  Anybody interested in poptech’s feelings on censorship should try posting a critical comment on his blog and see how long it lasts.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 7:49 am Poptech

                  Just last year I had the comments open but was tired of dealing with the spam. I simply don’t have the time. Since it is my publication and not an open forum I reserve the right to not allow lies about me or someone else and spam to be posted. If you have something that does not fit into these categories please feel free to submit a comment.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 10:35 am Ian Forrester

                  Poptart said:

                  Since it is my publication and not an open forum I reserve the right to not allow lies about me or someone else and spam to be posted.

                  What a hypocrite. That is exactly what you are doing on this blog. Your dishonesty know no bounds.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 11:23 am Poptech

                  Prove it.


          • on December 27, 2009 at 8:33 am TrueSceptic

            The last person I would ask about the limitations of computer systems would be you. Not only are you an arrogant ignoramus but you can’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything, no matter how simple and whatever the subject.

            No one gets banned from a forum for not changing their mind; it happens because they are offensive trolls who can’t even follow the rules.


            • on December 27, 2009 at 9:06 am Poptech

              Of course you would not have any interest in understanding them.

              I have consistently told the truth.

              You apparently have limited experience with forums as well. You can get banned for any reason, especially on subjects the admins are passionate about. It is not hard to get banned for holding conflicting views and refusing to change your mind at the whims of the administration.

              Calling someone a troll is a typical propaganda tactic used by those who have lost the debate and want to get the administrators to censor their opponent.

              Funny you talk about the “rules”, which are usually a joke. Take this site, where the admin states that no personal attacks are allowed yet allows anyone to personally attack me, just does not allow me to do the same to them. This is standard practice on many forums like JREF.


              • on December 27, 2009 at 10:07 am TrueSceptic

                I understand. You do not. You are incapable of recognising truth on any level.

                Even now you add more false claims to the list.

                To support your delusions you whine about getting banned for “any reason” at the “whims” of the administration.

                I have not called you a troll. It is the action of other forums that shows you to be.

                Every word you post anywhere is part of an attack on others. You can hardly expect no one to respond.


                • on December 27, 2009 at 7:11 pm Poptech

                  I have stated the truth and will not change my freely derived opinion to prevent myself from being banned from some forum.

                  I am well aware of what derives trollish behavior and I have never engaged in it. I have without question defended my position on any issue until I am no longer allowed the ability to respond.

                  Attacking someone’s position is part of any debate. I expect people to respond if they support their position, I do not expect to be banned for defending mine.


  42. on December 18, 2009 at 11:07 am Clippo

    Thanks Donald.

    As I indicated, I did have doubts – but the absolute AGW denial attitude of both is so similar that it makes me generally suspicious of these sorts of posters who can’t separate their ‘politics’ from science.


  43. on December 20, 2009 at 2:17 pm 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

    […] […]


  44. on December 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming - Page 2

    […] […]


  45. on December 22, 2009 at 6:37 am Clippo

    Sorry not to post this in a relevant thread – just getting used to your superb site however, ….. re E & E, I’m sure most of of you have seen this:-

    http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html

    says it all about E & Es’ respect in the real scientific community.


    • on December 22, 2009 at 12:02 pm truesceptic

      That’s a been a favourite of mine for a while now. 🙂


      • on December 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm S2

        Mine as well. 🙂

        I liked Nexus 6, it’s a shame he’s been so quiet lately.
        His personal E&E favourite was this one (updated here).

        I still think Alexander & Bailey were worse, though. 🙂

        Thanks for the reminder, Clippo.


        • on December 22, 2009 at 4:49 pm TrueSceptic

          Yes, I remember that one.

          It might be fun some time to list the contenders for all-time worst in E&E.


      • on December 22, 2009 at 3:20 pm Clippo

        Thanks for those S2,

        Hadn’t seen them before (in detail) and I will file them away for another E & E debunking session. 🙂


    • on December 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm Poptech

      That link is childish as it does nothing but make an unsupported smear of an academic journal with nonsense UFO believers. So sad.


      • on December 28, 2009 at 4:17 am Marco

        Actually, it is very much supported by the facts. You can find wildly contradictory papers in Energy & Environment. The only criterium is that it attacks some part of AGW. That it by proxy attacks another paper in E&E is not of any importance to the E&E editors and reviewers. You could, just for the fun of it, read all the papers from E&E you listed.


        • on December 28, 2009 at 5:41 am omnologos

          Marco – what do you exactly mean by “attack”?


          • on December 28, 2009 at 11:16 am Marco

            By “attack” I mean that its content tries to sow doubt on firmly established scientific procedures and measurements, with all required semantics, but with very questionable data and data analysis. Take Beck’s CO2 story, for example. E&E must have loved the introduction, in which Beck openly claims that Callendar and Keeling selectively used data to fit the AGW hypothesis. (Note that the man also has given presentations entitled “the falsified history of CO2”.)
            That his own data requires one to believe HUGE swings in CO2 concentrations which miraculously stopped when people started measuring using IR spectrometers on remote locations..eh, who cares?


            • on December 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm Poptech

              E&E published a comment on that paper from Keeling and the reply from Beck, which destroys one of your criticisms,

              Comments on “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” (PDF)
              (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)
              – Ernst-Georg Beck

              —-

              Indeed – but the comment came from Ralph Keeling, not Charles (who died in 2005).

              For those that are interested, Keeling’s comment is available here, and the comment from Harro Meijer is here.

              The last paragraphs of each are particularly interesting.

              S2


        • on December 28, 2009 at 7:46 am Poptech

          So journals should only publish convenient science and ban inconvenient papers?

          All the smears of E&E are unsupported by the facts. If you actually research the journal and speak to the editors and scientists who have submitted papers you will get a completely different story.

          Journals are not supposed to be gatekeepers of inconvenient science but this is what Climategate has revealed to be true,

          A Climatology Conspiracy?


          • on December 28, 2009 at 10:30 am Ian Forrester

            Poptart, you show your ignorance by not understanding the difference between dissenting results supported by hard data and dishonest rubbish published in E&E.

            You must be really stupid to keep on writing the same nonsense over and over again, each time showing how increasingly stupid and dishonest you are.

            Time for you to go I think, dishonesty is not welcome in scientific discussions.


            • on December 28, 2009 at 11:23 am Poptech

              Lets see you continue to call me childish names again proving my point.

              You declaring something dishonest rubbish does not make it so.

              You have yet to prove a single thing that I have said that is dishonest. But I am not surprised you wish to silence me as you have nothing to support your position.


          • on December 28, 2009 at 11:26 am Marco

            Strawman attack, Poptech. It’s not about not publishing inconvenient science. It’s about not publishing BAD science, which does not appropriately discuss prior science. And “appropriately” already starts with the semantics used to discuss such papers. A journal and its reviewers that do not ask to take into account prior knowledge is not a scientific journal, but an advocacy journal.

            Ay, there’s the rub with Energy & Environment: it’s an advocacy journal.

            Speaking to the editors and the scientists who have submitted to E&E is like entering a vicious circle. OF COURSE they will be happy with the results: the author for getting his ‘skeptic’ article published without many difficult comments from reviewers, the editor for getting yet another paper she can tout as a “nail in the coffin of AGW”. I already mentioned Beck’s article on CO2, according to Arthur Rorsch the most extensively reviewed paper of Energy & Environment, ever. A *good* and *objective* reviewer would have asked Beck to either provide a solid refutation of others, or to significantly reduce the claims on his ‘own’ data and interpretation. They clearly did neither.


            • on December 28, 2009 at 11:49 am Poptech

              All unsupported allegations. The papers and reviewers take into account prior science.

              You seem to have a problem with anything being published that does not fit into your opinion on science. Too bad that is not how science works.


              • on December 28, 2009 at 1:35 pm Marco

                All supported allegations. The papers and reviewers do not appropriately discuss prior work.

                I have a problem with bad science being published. Fortunately, it usually is in poor journals with little impact, like Energy & Environment. People like you, who can’t even see that a paper on the PETM directly supports the CO2 sensitivity or considers it TOO LOW, will obviously not see the problem with E&E. You are the same as the editor and reviewers of E&E: as long as it contradicts E&E, you will support it.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm Poptech

                  You have yet to support a single allegation.

                  Impact factor is a subjective opinion of popularity and irrelevant to the science.

                  The paper on the PETM states that up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing. Yes that supports skepticism since this is using IPCC accepted CO2 forcings which do not even match empirical measurements.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 4:16 am Marco

                  Poptech, I have already pointed to the paper by Ernst-Georg Beck elsewhere. The best example of a fundamentally flawed paper, and according to Arthur Rorsch it was the most heavily reviewed paper of E&E. And still it got through, containing an explicit allegation of data fraud by Callendar and Keeling, a completely unexplained huge variation of CO2 through the 19th and first half of the 20th century…until measurements in remote places, and a claim to see plant respiration but failing to comment on the huge drop in CO2 concentrations well before sunrise. To just name a few issues.

                  Oh, and a paper that notes we are missing a forcing (and they discussed what that could be) is, in your opinion, skeptical of AGW? That shows your opinion is worth diddly-squat.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 8:11 am Poptech

                  Marco,

                  You are obsessed with a paper that is
                  not even on the list! Regardless,

                  E&E published a comment on that paper from Keeling and the reply from Beck, which destroys one of your criticisms,

                  Comments on “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” (PDF)
                  (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)
                  – Ernst-Georg Beck

                  A paper that shows that the current IPCC accepted CO2 forcing cannot explain 89% of a historical warming clearly supports skepticism.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am Donald

                  RealClimate has a good explanation of how deniers got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

                  “The problems probably started with the title of the paper “Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming” which on it’s own might have been unproblematic. However, it was paired with a press release from Rice University that was titled “Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong”, containing the statement from Jerry Dickens that “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models”.

                  Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for ‘alarmist’ global warming science on WUWT … The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that ‘climate models are wrong’ with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make … ”

                  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/


                • on December 29, 2009 at 11:34 am Poptech

                  What can be concluded from “Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming” is that up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing.

                  I’ve read the excuses but if CO2 sensitivity was higher than currently presented by the IPCC, all their models would not come close to historic reconstructions.

                  Keep spinning.


              • on December 28, 2009 at 1:38 pm TrueSceptic

                You seem to have a problem with anything being published that does not fit into your opinion on science. Too bad that is not how science works.

                I must stop reading your idiotic garbage. My ironymeter just broke again.


          • on December 28, 2009 at 12:06 pm Clippo

            Although you trolling deniers don’t like it as a source, (because it posts inconvenient truths for you to accept), here is the whole Wikipedia article about E & E.

            (I put the whole article in here but the post wasn’t accepted so I suggest you go and read it personallly)

            I draw your attention to a number of points,

            1. Roger Pielke’s comments

            2. A co-editor is Benny Peiser – look up his credentials & credibility here:-
            http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

            3. If it were a respected scientific journal, one would expect a ‘balance’ of papers in favour of / against any certain hypothesis. The wiki article lists anti-AGW authors, so would you provide a list of authors on the ‘pro-AGW’ side who have published in E & E.

            4. The link on Boehmer-Christiansen leads one to Sourcewatch – whose purpose is:-

            SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). It was created by the CMD’s research director, Sheldon Rampton. According to the project’s website, it “aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.”[1]

            So, in my opinion, if you continue to quote E & E’s papers as ‘proof’ of the fraud of ‘AGW’ then you are either a) a Libertarian, USA right-wing-business-as-usual ‘shill’ or b) so stupid not to realise you’ve been conned by the AGW ‘doubt’ machine and therefore have no serious credibility to discuss any science at all.
            And, I ask you again to consider why the massive consensus of scientists, politicians and other people worldwide who know even a little about AGW don’t pay ANY attention to the fraudulent claims of a few personalities obviously in the pay of the denial machine.


            • on December 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm Poptech

              Wikipedia is not used as a credible source because a 5 year old can edit it and put whatever they want on it.

              1. Pielke’s blog comments are irrelevant.

              2. Benny Pieser is an editor not a reviewer,

              Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropolog

              3. Is that a joke? Please provide the “balance” in other scientific journals.

              4. Sourcewatch? LMAO!!!

              $$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

              – Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

              “These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities… […]

              As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate — we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” […]

              …The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.”

              – Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

              “An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda”.

              In CMD’s view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides “information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists,” characterizes CMD as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.” […]

              CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center’s Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

              The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD’s Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan’s efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of “social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism.”

              An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: “These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

              Guess what Clippo? I will continue to quote from the peer-reviewed academic journal E&E and there is nothing you can do about it.

              There is no massive consensus – there is an imaginary one.

              You have nothing to support you conspiracy theories.


              • on December 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm Clippo

                Poptech
                1. Aaahh ! – The usual wiki ‘cry’ from those who can’t take it 🙂

                2. Why are Roger Pielke’s own comments on his own blog irrelevent ? By the same argument, one could say that YOUR own comments on YOUR blog are irrelevant. 🙂

                3. Find me one piece of the Wiki article about E & E that you think is untrue

                4. If wiki is so editable, why haven’t E & E and those quoted therein corrected their Wiki untruths?

                5. I didn’t claim Benny Peiser was a reviewer – please re-read it. However, and the point why I raised it – as an Editor, he will have considerable input to what is published. I also see you admit his relevance to ‘Climate Science publications. 🙂

                6 Re: balance, perhaps ‘real’ scientific journals haven’t had any worthwhile ant-AGW science to publish.

                So, again, I ask you to draw me up a list of ‘pro-AGW’ papers published in E & E.

                6. You did say somewhere that you are a Libertarian BUT NOT RIGHT WING – well, I’m afraid to say, considering your Sourcewatch comments, you that I consider you to be lying

                7 No matter how many times you try to ‘parrot’ the ‘no-AGW-consensus’ line, (perhaps one of your “if-I repeat-it-this lie-enough-it’ll become truth’ false assumptions ), the overwhelming evidence from around the world is that there is. Apart from the silly Oregon Petition, please give me links to ‘reliable’ surveys of scientists, politicians, (and I’ll even include Economists) which claim a consensus AGAINST AGW.

                8 Yes, be my guest and read your self-satisfying propaganda

                9 I never claimed I had an anti-AGW conspiracy – from your garbage postings, it is evident that you think there is. That is why I asked YOU to explain who the Conspirators were and the detail of their anti-AGW conspiracy theory.


                • on December 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm Poptech

                  1. There is nothing to take. Anyone computer literate knows Wikipedia is nothing more than “truth based on who edits last”. Citing it is as worthless as citing graffiti on a wall.

                  2. I was refering to Pielke’s blog comments that are sourced on Wiki. They are an opinion by him and have nothing to do with any facts about E&E.

                  3. Which page of the Wiki E&E article am I looking at?

                  4. LOL, maybe because it was locked by William Connelly! It is now editable and cleaned up some, though constant reverts are going on.

                  5. You will find the editors of any non-specialized journal to have qualifications outside of some of the papers that get published. Which is why they rely on reviewers who have qualifications in the scientific field the paper is in for peer-review.

                  6. If you cannot do the same for other journals then I have no reason to waste my time on this.

                  6b. I exposed Sourcewatch to be a left wing, anti-right wing activist site. It has nothing to do with my personal politics.

                  7. There is no evidence of any alleged consensus. Give me evidence of the consensus.

                  8. I enjoy reading inconvenient science.

                  9. Your conspiratorial claims are of an AGW ‘doubt’ machine. No evidence of such exists.


  46. on December 27, 2009 at 4:44 am Clippo

    Poptech is still trolling around other sites with his rubbish. Although I linked it earlier, he has done it again at:-

    http://democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/69703-500-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skepticism-man-made-global-warming-4.html#post782357

    His last post there is worth consulting because he claims how he has out-debated ‘greenfyre’.


    • on December 27, 2009 at 9:31 am Poptech

      I am not trolling anywhere but sharing information. I don’t claim, I have.


      • on December 27, 2009 at 10:11 am TrueSceptic

        Repeating nonsense and lies over and over does not stop them being nonsense and lies.


        • on December 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm Poptech

          I have not repeated any nonsense or lies.


          • on December 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm Clippo

            Can’t seem to put this in the sub thread above but:-
            Poptech in fantasy land again:-

            1. Still E & E haven’t responded at all !! See the discussion page where this active discussion about minutiae.

            2. Pielke’s opinions are highly relevant. They are an analysis of the veracity of E & E by a scientist who is considered to be an AGW denier. Even he thinks it’s rubbish.

            3. Re point 5, yes – but Editor’s do have a predominant say on what is going to be published – much to the personal detriment of the Editor (forget his name at the moment) who allowed the famous fraudulent Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas paper to be published. He got sacked because he over-rode more rational sub-editors and the journal lost commercial credibility.

            4. Re 6, I gave possible reasons why other journals may not have balance – and I asked you first to produce ‘pro AGW’ papers from E & E. Obviously you can’t so your thoroughly beaten.

            5. Re 9, you are still avoiding the point. I, me, dear old Clippo, don’t have any anti-AGW conspiratorial views. Contrary to your claims, there is ample factual & published evidence that USA right-wing business, conspired to create doubt in AGW science – using the same doubt tactics, (and some of the same scientists), used in the smoking / lung cancer links several decade before. Your previous posts, with their ludicrous anti-liberal views typical of a USA right-wing shill, suggest that you share those liberal / commie/ leftist AGW conspiracies. I gave you an opportunity to confirm or deny that – yet you again throw it back to me. Conclusion – you are a troll

            Down & out for the count again Poptech


            • on December 29, 2009 at 8:34 am Poptech

              1. Responded to what? Wikipedia? What are you talking about? Why would an editor of a journal respond to a website that any 5 year old can edit at will?

              2. First of all Pielke’s comment is in relation to whether E&E was listed in the ISI, which is irrelevant and shows nothing but his personal opinion about the journal. He said nothing about it being rubbish. Pielke doesn’t even consider himself a skeptic, so please stop your lies about him being a “denier”.

              3. Of course editors choose what is to be published in their journals. This is true of all of them. You act like there is some magical non-biased science fairy that makes sure of what gets published. Regarding to the Climate Research paper, no one was sacked, an editor resigned.

              4. If you cannot produce a list of skeptics published from other journals in “balance” then your whole argument is flawed as you are demanding that E&E be held to a standard you do not hold any of the other journals to. Hypocrite.

              5. You are stating a conspiracy of a right wing denial machine and cannot produce ANY evidence to suppor these conspiracy theories.

              Clippo you have yet to substantiate one of your points. Please try harder.


              • on December 29, 2009 at 9:04 am Donald

                “Clippo you have yet to substantiate one of your points. Please try harder.”

                Classic troll bait formula:

                You have failed to prove that white is white.

                Or.

                You have failed to disprove my argument that black is white.

                Add condescending insult.

                Troll: do not feed.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 11:18 am Poptech

                  Substantiate as in support with evidence. Making blanket unsupported statements is typical of those who cannot back up what they say.


              • on December 29, 2009 at 11:28 am Clippo

                Poptech all at sea again:-
                1. If E & E considered the comments about them in Wikipedia seriously flawed, they have the opportunity to try to correct them. Any attempts to change any wiki article are recorded in the discussions page. I gave you the hint to read it but you’ve obviously realised what bull you have been spouting. There is NO discussion from E & E or a representative.
                Furthermore, on the only other database it is listed on, Scopus, E &E is listed as a ‘trade journal’ – make what you will of that.
                2. Are you so thick that you can’t appreciate the implications of what people write? To refresh your memory, here is the Wiki cut & paste, (and from wki’s criticism section):-

                Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature’s blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: “…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”[7]

                So he DOESN’T think it rubbish then ?? Here’s a chance for you to get one back on me, because I haven’t checked, but…. has Pielke published anything in E & E SINCE he made those comments?
                3. Re: the Climate research paper, one of the editors was Chris de Freitas, another Hans von Storch. De Freitas is a known AGW sceptic and obviously allowed the Soon & baliunas paper thro’ on very dicky refereeing. When Von Storch realised, and studied, the storm of protest from the general climate science community, he and two other sub editors resigned. However, De Freitas is NOT now listed as an editor of Climate research or is he listed as having resigned. The obvious conclusion is that the journals chief editor, a Dr.Klinne ? obviously pushed, i.e. sacked De Freitas. And an interesting sub script is that despite all the flaws in the Soon & Baliunas paper, then went on to publish more flawed papers in guess what journal :).
                4. Re balance in journals – I have clearly stated to you several times that the real reason virtually no anti-agw papers have been published in other journals is almost certainly because the science therein is too weak to survive sensible peer-review. I asked you clearly first to provide evidence of balance from E & E – so stop avoiding the point. Put your money where your mouth is !!!!
                5. Re. Conspiracy – I’ve only asked YOU if you subscribe to any theories. Once again answer the question and STOP AVOIDING THE POINT BY BACK ACCUSATIONS. Furthermore, I believe other posters here have asked you direct questions which you have failed to answer.
                Remind me again please – what academic qualifications in any science or related disciplines do you have?

                I agree with you completely Donald, this guy is a complete troll and unless he comes up with some FACTS and verifiable answers, I will not feed him anymore.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 11:53 am Poptech

                  Clippo,

                  1. They cannot correct anything that is locked. But apparently you are ignorant to how wikipedia works. Corrections have been made but they keep being reverted. E&E editors not wasting time on juvenile project like wikipedia is hardly surprising.

                  I have already dealt with the trade journal nonsense,

                  Scopus incorrectly lists Energy & Environment as a “trade” journal, which is illogical as it is not associated with any specific “trade” such as “chemical engineering”. EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal.

                  Please tell me what “trade” E&E represents?

                  2. His comment is related to ISI and citations, he makes no comments about the quality of legitimacy of the journal. Have you informed Pielke yet that he is a denier?

                  3. You have nothing to support your allegations of the peer-review quality of that paper nor about anyone being fired. What is interesting is that their papers were never commented on in the journal because it would have allowed the authors to reply, this is a confirmed tactic exposed in the Climategate emails.

                  4. You demands are illogical since you believe that only E&E should have this alleged “balance”. This is hypocritical and anyone with an ounce of logic can see right through it.

                  5. You keep spouting conspiracy theories of a “denial machine” yet fail to produce evidence of this conspiracy.

                  I have a degree in Computer Science.

                  Yes of course calling me a troll is easier when you cannot back up your BS.


                • on December 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm TrueSceptic

                  We know how Wikipedia works. That page is locked for a reason. If you had a shred of honesty and intelligence you would understand that reason. To make it easy even for someone of your limited abilities, I’ll help you with this.

                  But enough.

                  Intelligent dialogue with you is impossible.

                  Go and bother someone else. You might find your level at Watts.


  47. on December 27, 2009 at 12:32 pm Martha

    “I have no interest in attention”
    I suppose the evidence for his claim that he is not seeking attention would be that he has not posted non-stop to this thread in the past 24 hours (to not compensate for the fact that no one is listening).

    “You support censorship”.
    I guess he is trying to identify with libertarian concerns about censorship. Fair enough, but no self-respecting libertarian would confuse the value of individual freedom or liberty with the activity of forcing opinions (never mind that they are lies and frauds) on others against their will by repetitively spamming and obsessively posting on public forums.

    And look … here he comes now to respond to this comment which is not addressed to him, even though he doesn’t want my attention.

    I wonder when he first confused truth-telling with outright lying.

    See Anarchist606’s blog, where some of this is being explored.


    • on December 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm Poptech

      Your confusion is with my correcting or responding to misinformation vs someone who wants attention.

      It is not possible to force an opinion, I can only provide and defend mine. Not one thing that I have stated is a lie.

      Spamming is the act of posting links for solicitation or the same exact thing repetitively to filibuster a conversation. I have done neither. I have responded to each comment made towards me.

      Your comment is directly about me and I will respond to it because it contains misinformation about me.

      Please post one thing I have lied about.


      • on December 28, 2009 at 1:00 am Martha

        “Please post one thing I have lied about.”

        Sure.

        Please join me on the proper thread — Challenging the Core Science.


        • on December 28, 2009 at 7:42 am Poptech

          So you have nothing.


          • on December 28, 2009 at 1:38 pm Marco

            So you are a blog-illiterate, and can’t find the proper thread called “Challenging the Core Science”, where Martha points out some of your howlers.


  48. on December 29, 2009 at 1:23 pm omnologos

    I am puzzled…is Poptech under the impression that somehow all he needs, is to write just a single new comment, and TrueSceptic will admit defeat, write an eulogy of Poptech, and convert to Poptech’s cause? (viceversa, the same question applies to TrueSceptic, Marco and the others, about the hope of seeing Poptech magically convinced, by yet another comment, to change his mind)

    You guys convinced me that there is indeed at least one circumstance in which closing down comments to a blog is not only the best thing to do, is the only thing to do.


    • on December 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm TrueSceptic

      Are you suggesting that there is any equivalence?

      But I agree: this thread is pointless.


  49. on December 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm S2

    Good grief …

    60+ comments in as many hours is somewhat OTT.

    In recognition of this (and the rare agreement between TrueSkeptic and omnogolos) I’m disabling further comments (at least for the time being).

    I think I’ve got some housekeeping to do.

    S2


  50. on January 14, 2010 at 5:45 pm Are We Still Pretending That the PLANET Is NOT Having Severe Winter? - Page 39 - Political Forum

    […] […]


  51. on June 29, 2011 at 9:00 pm Poptech’s list of Confusion « itsnotnova

    […] Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” as Watts and others noted. Poptech’s ALARM was added later when he realised his mistake in listing certain […]


  52. on February 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change - Page 31 (politics)

    […] what context the phrases appeared in the results. Your list has been debunked numerous times. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…hange-deniers/ https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/…ain-900-times/ […]


  53. on June 10, 2013 at 10:30 pm Anonymous

    […] Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt […]



Comments are closed.

  • CO2 Widget

    Current CO2 Level in the Atmosphere

  • Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Pages

    • About
    • Archive
    • Blogroll
    • Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    • Denier vs Skeptic
      • Denier Myths
    • Spam
    • The Science
  • Recent Posts

    • Dan’s constant
    • Dan Pangburn
    • Global Warming is real (according to Dellingpole)
    • Very brief comment
    • Observable, dramatic, immediate!
    • Rap Attack: I’m A Climate Scientist
    • Media Strategy for the Tyndall Gas Effect
    • This is what Demockracy looks like
    • High Praise for Greenfyre’s from Judith Curry
    • RotFL! too funny! “The Truth About Greenfyre”
    • Der, den du am meisten nährst!
    • ChamberGate, some points to ponder
    • The media, you get what they paid for
    • Method without Science, tactics without strategy
    • Tornadoes and Earthquakes and Storms, oh my!
  • Recent Comments

    Can’t think of… on Myth making by Scientific…
    Ricomparsa del metan… on Richard Muller is a well bad…
    Rigore – L… on Myth making by Scientific…
    Michael Goguen on The media, you get what they p…
    On being ripped off… on That “Denier vs Septic…
    ナイキダウンシフト8 on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
    Gun Control Means a… on David Bellamy: victim! but of…
    قیمت سنگ پله on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
    سنگ دیوار ارزان on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
    “You think I k… on That “Denier vs Septic…
  • Woody Guthrie Award for A Thinking Blogger
  • Tea Bagger Hate list

    Patriots Hate list
  • Tag Cloud

    1970s Cooling Myth Activism Agriculture Alan Carlin Al Gore Anthony Watts Arctic Ice Bjorn Lomborg Chamber of Commerce Christopher Booker Christopher Monckton Climate Change climate change Deniers Climate Justice Climate Justice Fast climate politics CO2 myths Communicating Science consumption Copenhagen Corporate funded denial CRU Hack David Bellamy David Evans Denier Conspiracy Delusions Denier Culture Denier Lists Deniers EPA Exposing Deniers Flooding Fred Singer Frontier Centre for Public Policy George Will Global Cooling Myth Global Warming grassroots action Ian Plimer International Climate Science Coalition James Inhofe John Coleman Jonathan Manthrope Judith Curry Koch Industries livestock logic Lorne Gunter machinima Marc Morano Meat Media media strategy Michael Asher Milloy junkscience.com Nonviolent action Nonviolent resistance Oregon Petition Political Action Politics PopTech popular education Potholer54 psychology of climate denierism psychology of climate deniers Republicans Rick Hodgin Sea Level Solar Myth Superfreakonomics Tea Party The Consensus The Great Global Warming Swindle The Spectator Tim Ball Urban Heat Islands
  • Feed Me

    Subscribe in a reader
  • Technorati

    Add to Technorati Favorites
  • RSS Climate Ark

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Climate – ENN

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS IPS – Inter Press

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS One World

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Archives

    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
  • November 2009
    M T W T F S S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
    « Oct   Dec »
  • hit counter
    View My Stats
  • RSS

  • Who links to my website?

    Who links to my website?
  • Networked Blogs

    Follow this blog
  • Climate Blogs Search Engine

    Climate Blogs Search Engine
  • Global Warming Blog Directory
  • w3counter(27946);
    W3Counter
  • Site Meter
  • Climate Tweets

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Climate Source

  • Blog Stats

    • 621,681 399311
  • if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget('3843fa76-fec4-48e4-b3c5-426bfa2fb818');Get the Climate Interactive Scoreboard widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Greenfyre's
    • Join 66 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Greenfyre's
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: