BPSDB 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The following are NOT peer-reviewed Journals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
Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 
is 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 
“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:
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.
Greenfyre's 
Good compendium, thanks.
Not really considering E&E is peer-reviewed and I did not count the submitted papers in the paper count.
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.
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.
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?
—-
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]
—-
The minute you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist.
—-
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. 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”:
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]
—-
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]
—-
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.
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]
—-
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.
—-
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.
—-
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]
—-
It is hilarious that someone says
yet considers E&E a reputable journal.
It is peer-reviewed but the standard is so low that it is widely considered a joke.
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.
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]
—-
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:
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.
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.
—-
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?
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.”
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. 🙂
“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]
—-
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.
Sorry Pielke is wrong as there are still 450, I posted a response on his blog.
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.
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”?
*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.
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.
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.
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.
It is nice that you do not know the political affiliations of the institute either. It only proves my point.
—-
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.””
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.
—-
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.
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
Yes E&E is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal which publishes papers from both natural and social sciences.
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”.
—-
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
—-
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.”
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.
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
—-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
—-
“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 the title is irrelevant to the listing of the submitted papers which is clearly noted as NOT COUNTED in the peer-reviewed paper count.
“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.
…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
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.
Since I only posted there about climate science, please stop lying, thank you.
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.)
—-
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.
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:),
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.
([satireofpoptech]
But Martha, you got your info based on *gasp* WIKIPEDIA! THEREFORE THAT INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT! I WIN! I WIN!!!!111111!!
[/satireofpoptech])
Analysis of “elementary political affiliation” suggests that libertarianism cannot simply described using a simple left/right model.
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.
—-
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.
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?
—-
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.
Thanks so much for this! I was getting trouble from someone arguing that this invalidates the Oreskes study.
—-
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.
—-
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.
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…
—-
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).
—-
“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”?
[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.
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.
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…
Distorting “Poptech” to “Poptart” in a “notice” about the upcoming deletion of “personal attacks” is the pinnacle of unwitting irony!! Thanks for that, Greenfyre!
So true.
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
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…)
—-
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.
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.
There are thousands of papers on climate change but that is not what this discussion is about.
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)
[…] More analysis at greenfyre […]
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”)
—-
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
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
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
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]
—-
What conclusion should I take from “It doesn’t exist.”?
I figured it was just a matter of days before it started making the rounds of the climate
ranting abusive name-calling hysteria-sphere
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…
(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.
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.
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
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.
—-
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
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
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.
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
This post does not make any sense.
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
I made no mention of pooping on papers.
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
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)
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).
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.”
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
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.
—-
[…] 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 […]
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.”
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”
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.
Nope the articles (research articles) are definitely peer-reviewed as well as other content, contact the editor.
Sorry to disappoint you.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Nothing you have said can be supported with evidence.
Poptart, you provide evidence to support my comments every time you post your garbage and lies.
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.
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…)
—-
[…] 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers (Carbon Fixated) […]
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……..
—-
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!
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.
Is that a threat?
No it is a promise.
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
Actually my name is not Andrew Khan but I do live in the United States.
Is this correct?
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.
Thanks.
The funny thing is that PopTech’s propaganda about FF looks a bit like the stuff at Shelley The Republican.
My pages are not propaganda, have nothing to do with her and are fully sourced.
What’s funny is that you just don’t get it, namely that your wingnut idiocy once again proves Poe’s Law.
Wrong smear, I am a libertarian not a right-winger thus the “wingnut” smear is not appropriate. Please get your smears right.
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.
Clippo,
PopTech has also been posting at the JREF forum. Much the same anti-science stuff you see here and elsewhere.
Everything I have posted there is science (all sourced).
Oh, and PopTech has never called himself PopTart.
—-
You got me. 😉
I do know that others call him that, though. 🙂
I do like your new avatar …
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).
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.
—-
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.
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]
—-
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.
—-
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
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
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’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
Anybody interested in poptech’s feelings on censorship should try posting a critical comment on his blog and see how long it lasts.
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.
Poptart said:
What a hypocrite. That is exactly what you are doing on this blog. Your dishonesty know no bounds.
Prove it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[…] […]
[…] […]
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.
That’s a been a favourite of mine for a while now. 🙂
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.
Yes, I remember that one.
It might be fun some time to list the contenders for all-time worst in E&E.
Thanks for those S2,
Hadn’t seen them before (in detail) and I will file them away for another E & E debunking session. 🙂
That link is childish as it does nothing but make an unsupported smear of an academic journal with nonsense UFO believers. So sad.
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.
Marco – what do you exactly mean by “attack”?
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?
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
—-
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I must stop reading your idiotic garbage. My ironymeter just broke again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
I am not trolling anywhere but sharing information. I don’t claim, I have.
Repeating nonsense and lies over and over does not stop them being nonsense and lies.
I have not repeated any nonsense or lies.
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
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.
“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.
Substantiate as in support with evidence. Making blanket unsupported statements is typical of those who cannot back up what they say.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“Please post one thing I have lied about.”
Sure.
Please join me on the proper thread — Challenging the Core Science.
So you have nothing.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that there is any equivalence?
But I agree: this thread is pointless.
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
[…] […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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/ […]
[…] 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 […]