BPSDB The other day I posted “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers” and the response has been interesting.
This has given fodder for sharing some more examples and reasons why the list is total nonsense.
By sampling approximately one third of the references from “450 320 299 286 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” I showed that, of the references I looked at, all were:
-
-
- not peer reviewed, and/or
- known to be false, and/or
- irrelevant, and/or
- Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or
- not supportive of climate change Denial*
-
*(I use the appropriate term (Denier) with respect to what the author was struggling to say when he mis-used the word “skepticism“).
-
- Pielke dumps (on) the list
- Energy & Environment is peer reviewed
- Some more struck from the list
- Poptart and other Denier’s respond react say stuff
- What did anyone expect?
The author of the 450 list (Andrew) has commented on this blog 45 54 65 (and counting) times. (aka Poptech and more, rechristianed “Poptart” because he keeps popping up all hot and smoking, but turns out to be ‘nutritionally’ valueless). Some of his comments are worth sharing for the insight they give into the alleged thinking that went into compiling the list.
Pielke dumps (on) the list
As noted in an update on the original post:
Pielke pulls 21 papers off the list! 21 papers on the list were authored by Pielke Jr or Sr (both scientists), who said “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)
Here is what Poptech (the list’s author) has had to say about Pielke’s comment (emphasis added):
“I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”
So blog comments by Poptech are substantial, but not Pielke? and who else would post to Pielke’s blog if not Pielke? Let me guess … Al Gore!
“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).
The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position on climate and will not be removed.
The fact that he used the word “assuming” means he was not even sure himself. “
Sorry Pielke is wrongas there are still 450,
1) Pielke is perfectly literate and quite capable of understanding what the list claims to be, but rather than address Pielke’s statements honestly Poptech simply dismisses them.
2) Apparently (according to Poptech) Pielke is a competent enough scientist as to conduct 
complex climate research worthy of being on the list, but such a moron that he can’t understand a simple list. Got it.
3) “The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position” So now we’re shifting the definition of what the list actually is … except I can’t help noticing no amendment or clarification posted to the list.
I guess everyone’s supposed to understand that “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” doesn’t actually mean “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” since the papers are not necessarily skeptical of either global warming or that it is caused by humans. Got it.
4) “will not be removed.” Nothing new there cf Inhofe, Heartland etc. Once the Deniers put you on a list nothing can get you off. “means he was not even sure himself” But Poptech is sure, and certainly no need to discuss it with Pielke himself. Denier zealots know the opinions of scientists and the meaning of their work far better than the scientists themselves. Got it.
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.
Finally some honesty, albeit clearly unintended.
Word to the wise Poptart … so far Pielke has refrained from saying what he really thinks of the rest of your list, but I’m sure if you piss him off enough he will reconsider … just so you know.
Energy & Environment is peer reviewed
Peer review is a process that helps ensure the quality of science. It is not a perfect process (and here), but nonetheless a valuable one. I stated that Energy & Environment (hereafter E&E), a journal which published 82 of the papers on the list, is not peer reviewed. Poptech insists that E&E is a peer reviewed journal, so what are the facts?
1) E&E does NOT appear on the Science Citation Index Master Journal List. The ISI is considered “the” listing of peer reviewed journals, and for the most part if a journal does not appear there, it is not peer reviewed.
2) EBSCO (another index) does include E&E as peer reviewed
According to EBSCO, they use “the following tools to identify peer reviewed journals:
1. The Serials Directory, an online directory of serials with descriptions
2. The publisher of the journal
3. Feedback from librarians and professors
4. EBSCO Publishing staff librarians”
1 & 4 are in-house to EBSCO, and 2 is not necessarily reliable … so it is unclear to me how meaningful this inclusion on EBSCO is.
4) Scopus, another journal index, lists E&E as a trade publication as distinct and separate from peer reviewed journals.
3) There is no mention of peer-review in E&E’s description of themselves, a pretty significant omission if it actually is peer reviewed.
4) E&E openly admits to allowing politics to influence editorial decisions (here). Not only that, but the editor has stated:
In addition, she “says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming.” For Boehmer-Christiansen, the more consensus there is among scientists, the greater reason there is for skepticism. I wonder how she feels about heliocentrism.
Thanks to Kfr we know that she has also said (emphasis added):
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 …
Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 Sept, 2009
More unintended honesty, and here is what an astute commenter on digg.com found:
Um … here’s something curious: E&E is sometimes clearly marked into different sections which distinguish editorial, viewpoints, book reviews and refereed articles. But E&E is inconsistent, they curiously have a section called just “articles”, sometimes bundling everything under this title.
Everything was generic “article” and it wasn’t until I got down to the 10th article “Climate outlook to 2030” only to find this is a viewpoint and not a refereed article.
The next is “Dangerous global warming remains unproven” which is a non refereed report.
The first refereed paper from E&E is the 16th E&E article listed: “Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature”. All the previous are generic “article” or some other.
So while E&E is a peer reviewed journal according to EBSCO, not all of the articles are claimed by the journal to be peer reviewed. A cursory examination of the first 16 E&E articles in the 450 list shows that only one is claimed to be peer reviewed by the journal.
UPDATE: 10:00 But Huangfeng has not stopped there:
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 volume parts, 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”.
UPDATE Nov 19: as the debate rages HuangFeng continues to offer rational, thoughtful, empirical input:
“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.”
HuangFeng’s findings are shared by others. See John Hunter’s experience here.
When E&E does do peer review, it seems that the process is not to choose as reviewers scientists who will scrutinize the quality of the science, but rather those who will approve of the conclusions. The result is that E&E has an appalling record for publishing work that no self-respecting journal would touch (see here, here, here, here, and here).
However, if those are unconvincing, Carbon Fixated draws our attention to this gem EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009: (full paper @icap)
Seriously, you have to read this (emphasis added):
3. CONCLUSIONS
IPCC reports on the dangers of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are based on an obsolete model of the Sun, a misunderstanding of the many ways that Earth is connected to its heat source, and on politically driven conclusions. The scientists are not at fault. The die for the present disaster was likely cast in the late 1940s or early 1950s, when federal research agencies like NSF started using the anonymous review system to obtain consensus opinions. Politicians realized that knowledge is power when World War II ended with an explosive and decisive display of success by the Manhattan Project. I have seen the unholy alliance between politics and science grow since my scientific career started in 1960, despite this warning by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 17 January 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”
This is supposed to be s scientific journal? seriously?
Summary on E&E
A given paper in E&E may have been peer reviewed (but unlikely). If it was, the review process might have been up to the normal standards for science (but unlikely). Hence E&E’s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all.
Further, even the editor states that it is not a science journal and that it is 
politically motivated/influenced. Finally, at least some of what it publishes is just plain loony.
Since it seems that the majority of the the E&E papers on Poptech’s list were NOT peer reviewed, and since the probability that the few that were reviewed met the minimum standards for science is low, it is fair to say that E&E publications on the list are not peer reviewed, at least until Poptech cleans up the list (like that’s going to happen).
Regardless, it looks like the E&E papers would all fail at least one of the other tests listed above (known to be false, not relevant, etc) anyway.
Some more struck from the list
Thanks to J. Smith for:
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. ChilingarAnd they’re only about 10 papers apart. Wonder how many more there are.
Lots more about that original paper here :
and Marco for
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.
UPDATE: and Former Skeptic for
Harold E. Brooks says this on RC:
Re: The 450 papers list
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.
and you can toss out Henrik Svensmark’s 13 papers too (here, here, here, here, here, usw)
Poptart and other Denier’s respond react say stuff
Predictably the Denier’s response to valid criticisms of the list is incoherent babble. Two I enjoyed were:
- The claim that since I didn’t show that every paper on the list is invalid it follows that all of the papers are valid, and
- Another commenter was looking forward to me publishing the article in Nature or Science, but until then everything I said was false ie a Denier blog is true until refuted in one of the two premier science journals in the world. Double standards much?
But surely the best has to be from the author Poptart himself. Not only has he been rabbiting around the comments on my article, he has been doing it on other forums where others dare to question the accuracy of his list.
In 45+ comments on this blog Poptart’s responses amount to:
-
- the list is valid because he says so
- all articles refuting the validity of any of the papers on the list are politically motivated nonsense
- those who question the validity of the list want to oppress/censor/etc “real” science
Not a single instance of citing a credible source to defend any part of the list (of course how could he? there are none) or justify anything on it. Indeed no references to actual science at all. Just a collection of ad hominem attacks, red herrings, straw men, other logical fallacies and both explicit and implicit claims that he knows best.
In fact Poptart is so consistent at ignoring the substantive criticisms and mindlessly reiterating that the list is valid just because he says so that I really think he should rename it “Superfreakopeer-reviewed…”
What did anyone expect?
Naturally one understands how the lay person might be confused by Poptart’s list. They do not know the literature, nor do they typically have the skills to assess scientific papers.
For anyone even slightly familiar with climate science the news that the list is completely bogus is no surprise. The only way it could be otherwise would be if:
- there were some critical, legitimate paper(s) that no one had ever heard of. If you know anything about science, you know that just isn’t going to happen. If there really were such paper(s) absolutely everyone would know about it, and talk of little else; or
- you actually believe the Denier conspiracy theories that tens of millions of scientists from 140 nations are in on a plot to create a hoax (it’s true, they meet Thursdays, it’s potluck so bring something). If you believe that then you probably believe that your cat answers back when you talk to it. In fact your cat is probably the one who told you about the conspiracy.
Conclusion
So, the list is not 450 papers, and many are not peer reviewed, not skeptical of global warming, nor supportive of it, not skeptical of anthropogenic causation of climate change, not actually papers, and not actually skepticism, which leaves us with the correct title ““450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”.”
That’s right, the correct title for Poptart’s post is “ ______.”
I look forward to seeing the correction.
UPDATE: see 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers
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:
pop tart ice cream sandwich by Rakka
Poptarts Cinnamon Roll by renaissancechambara
Brown Sugar and Cinnamon Poptarts by Rachel D
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 
“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.
Not being listed in one commercial database over another is hardly conclusive of anything. Unless of course you are claiming EBSCO is lying of which you would have to prove not inject unsubstantiated speculation as 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.
Scopus incorrectly lists the journal as a trade journal which is illogical because E&E has nothing to do with any specific “trade” such as chemical engineering. And both of the editors are out of universities.
EBSCO correctly lists the journal as an academic journal.
Click to access eih-coverage.pdf
I’ve contacted the editor of E&E to confirm the peer-review process before posting the list.
Yes that is correct E&E is not a pure science journal, it is an interdisciplinary academic journal that publishes papers from both natural and social sciences.
No offense to Dr. Pielke but he can’t have it both ways. He frequently questions various aspects of the environmental and economic effects of AGW but never wants to be labeled “skeptical”. You can clearly see by the comments he received on his post that no one that frequently reads his posts believes this. Regardless I never assigned any position to any of the authors of the papers and am well aware of Dr. Pielke’s verbal repeated position.
Take for instance his father’s paper,
Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12, pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.
This clearly brings into question the predictive abilities of climate models of which all the current alarm is based. Thus it supports skepticism.
Unfortunately Huang is wrong, Research articles are refereed in E&E, sometimes they are explicitly listed as such and others just as a “research article” depending on the issue.
Unbelievable you continue to post lies, I stated Replies were never counted! Not to mention that reply by Chilingar was added after you initially looked at the list (actually 5 more papers were also added), was a typo and is now corrected as I noted in the reply to J. Smith. Marco’s comments are also nonsense as I never counted corrections either. Notice the “-” before the paper? All of those are NOT counted. So are any that are italicized.
None of those are published rebuttals of Svensmark’s papers.
I look forward to your correction.
—-
Yes the Scopus listing is wrong unless of course you can tell me what “trade” E&E is affiliated with? [1]
I made no claim of knowing Pielke’s work better than him. But I do know my work better than him, which is my point. His papers support skepticism of alarmist claims without refuting AGW, on topics such as hurricanes, floods, storms ect… [2]
– Pielke Blog comment,
Yes, people have had to dig for anything they can find to attack E&E they resort to a blog comment from Pielke stating that E&E is not indexed in ISI (I already spoke about this irrelevance) and thus he would have chosen not to publish there if he had known this ect… – Yes I do not find this substantial, I consider it desperate. [3]
A bigger question is why is the Wikipedia page on E&E locked? Could it be to prevent information from being added that would refute much of this? [4]
—-
[1] This is logical reasoning. What specific “trade” does E&E represent? It clearly states on their home page that they are an “interdisciplinary” journal.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
[2] You are misunderstanding. I know why I listed them, Pielke didn’t, which is why he explicitly used the word “assume” without clarifying why they were listed yet made ridiculous declarations. Likely because he received someone’s hysterical email.
[3] Because everything that appears on wiki is what keeps getting brought up about E&E and a more balanced view is needed but not when the page is locked and no one is allowed to add the balance. This violates a NPOV.
[4] So you support censoring E&E on wiki that EBSCO lists E&E as a peer-reviewed journal? Currently wiki is written to agree with a certain politic.
Dr. Pielke incorrectly assumed his papers were on the list to “deny” AGW, which is nonsense, anyone who has been involved with this debate for more than a few months knows his outspoken position.
It is our Wikipedia. It is easy enough for anyone to read the history and discussion behind any article there.
In short, some articles are locked to prevent people with a personal or political bias from pulling it too far from a NPOV, or from telling blatant lies.
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”?
Stop repeating your rabid claims and just go read up on the subject, will you? It’s not hard to find this stuff.
But I’ll say that the E&E article bends over backwards to be fair. If people like you were allowed a free reign at Wiki it would soon look like Conservapedia, STR, or DD (or even PT) in no time.
BTW I’m catching up with the JREF thread. Most entertaining.
It was not a claim but a question with no answer, to prove a point.
Funny, that. Perhaps this is because Pielke wants to be recognised as an actual sceptic, not an AGWSceptic? Why would he want to be associated with the liars, delusionals, and wingnuts that make up the vast majority of the anti-science crowd?
Look in the mirror, pal. It is because people like you have abused and corrupted the word that Pielke does not want to be labelled with it.
That is illogical because the list has nothing to do with any author’s personal position on AGW.
Can’t you read? Read what I responded too.
I did, which is why the proposition is illogical since having a paper on the list has nothing to do with his personal beliefs.
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.
Sorry that this is the second posting here, but this is in direct response to support my position against PopTech claiming that I am wrong (above).
—-
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”.
You are wrong.
Placing your Tu Coqcue argument aside; I am stating that it is false for Sonja to claim that all category “Articles” are, in fact, peer reviewed. This affects your claim to peer review on your list.
Does Nature claim that all correspondences are peer reviewed?
If Sonja claims that all articles in category “Articles” are peer reviewed then I agree that this should be enough for you and your list (apart from your Viewpoints, Voice, Report usage). However for the general observer of E&E as a publication, this claim of Sonja’s is exceedingly dubious and has easily identifiable counter examples as shown above.
To make your list stronger you should remove anything that is not explicitly peer reviewed. Remove the weak points and your argument is stronger.
If you were being completely thorough, you would categorise the papers by conclusions that state AGW is false or less likely, versus those that might imply it, versus those that offer some support.
[[ am we meant to be mirroring digg here? ]]
Nature claims that their correspondences “may be” at the discretion of the editor and there is no way to know.
http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/peer_review.html
“The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.”
Thus you have no way to know.
—-
“Further, the evidence is overwhelmingly that E&E is NOT consistently peer reviewed”
You have no evidence to support this claim, zero, nada, zilch, nothing, gar nichts, mei
“…and that the standard of review if and when it happens is far below the minimum acceptable to be even remotely acceptable.”
You have no evidence to support this claim, zero, nada, zilch, nothing, gar nichts, mei
BTW what is “minimum acceptable” and who determines this?
It is irrelevant if E&E is included in the Thompson Reuters corporations commercial databases (ISI).
As for the Scopus listing, I ask again “What trade does E&E belong to?”.
—-
Yes I agree that the peer-review process is not clearly defined at E&E, as I have contacted them about making this more clear. I believe that is why within the last year they have started clearly defining refereed articles in the appropriate section.
I have also contacted the author of a few papers in the editions where the categories are not labeled “refereed”, they responded that their papers were peer-reviewed. I do not know what else you would like me to do besides contact the editor and the authors of the papers to confirm these things?
I took the time to do this before posting the list, knowing this would be a point of contention.
—-
Look poptart, what is important is not whether they say it is “peer reviewed” o r not. What really counts is the quality and honesty of the papers it publishes.
Any one with even a limited understanding of science and has read real papers in the scientific literature can see at once that the papers in E & E fail miserably in these two categories.
The papers are full of junk science, misinformation, data fraud, cherry picking and obfuscation. This journal is a travesty of scientific journals.
You show yourself to be completely ignorant of science, climate science and the scientific method by your continual support for this piece of fish wrap.
That is all subjective opinion and unsubstantiated.
Ahh, Oliver K. Manuel.
For amusement, take a look at his comments under Physics World on APS.
—-
Yes two papers are on the list from Dr. Manuel which support a radical theory, which is not a commonly supported position by skeptics. Nonetheless those papers are skeptical of AGW.
What I actually stated…
“…the list is valid because he says so”
It is valid because I have shown it to be (nothing about evidence from my word only).
“…all articles refuting the validity of any of the papers on the list are politically motivated nonsense”
Blog posts, wiki links and youtube videos are not how peer-reviewed literature is “refuted”. This process is done through the peer-review literature (which includes rebuttals from the authors of the original paper), which you failed to provide.
“…those who question the validity of the list want to oppress/censor/etc “real” science”
Questioning the validity and stating untruths are two different things. My comments about someone’s motives of not wanting these papers to exist was in direct response to a comment explicitly stating “they do not exist”. I made no mention of “real” science or “non-real” science.
“…Not a single instance of citing a credible source to defend any part of the list (of course how could he? there are none) or justify anything on it.”
I’ve included the published replies to any published rebuttals of the papers and have since added more such as Chilingars’ when a criticism was brought up. You are correct as I do not necessarily have a blog post to directly refute each of your blog posts but since that has nothing to with the peer-reviewed literature or credible sources, I am not concerned.
Popular Technology is a notorious troll blog, and its author a notorious self-publicist. Its author goes by many names- Andrew, Andrew K, Poptech, Popular Tech, Mastertech, GeneralAres (he’s using that name on digg at the moment) and has been caught out using many sock puppets in comment sections, as well as banned from countless tech sites for trolling and spamming.
http://blog.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/
http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/
http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Panel_Consensus_on_the_Need_to_Reduce_Harmful_Emissions
The blog (for it is just a blog- populartechnology.net is an anonymous redirect to a Google blog, and the “contributing editors” listed have never made a post) is probably best denied the oxygen of publicity.
LOL, that didn’t take long. Once the attacks go personal like this I know I hit a nerve. Thanks for the confirmation.
I don’t use sock puppets as you can clearly see I am posting under my name here. Yes there was a lot of attacks against me four years ago for my posting of,
“Firefox A New Religion?”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2005/01/firefox-new-religion.html
…and Yes that is true I have been banned from various sites but not for trolling or spamming but rather refusing to accept someone elses opinion I did not agree with.
So what is the difference of me using Blogger for my site vs WordPress being used here? Nothing.
The contributing editors have made posts,
Windows Wish List
http://www.populartechnology.net/2004/12/windows-wish-list.html
America’s Technological Wall is Falling
http://www.populartechnology.net/2005/05/americas-technological-wall-is-falling.html
Now they mostly just submit commentary on my articles.
Anyway thanks again for the confirmation!
Poptart: “2 + 2 = 5”
JohnDoe: “No, 2 + 2 = 4”
Poptart: “Ooh! Personal attack! I must be right!”
Genius.
That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when applied to certain liars and delusionals.
You are absolutely right that it makes no sense.
But you do it anyway.
Best,
D
What I see from this poor soul is that he is defining “supporting skepticism” as anything he says it does.
I think his massive cluelessness is instructive, and I hope folks come back here in the future, to better understand the mentality of denialists and pseudoskeptics. Judging from some of the comments on blogs in the echo chamber (and the sad saps at RP Jr’s blog wondering why he pulled his papers), you’d think there was a pill put in the water by the CIA to make drinkers clueless. I must have gone to a good public school, as we didn’t know anyone this sort of flawed brain back in the day, and surely someone is going to study this personality type.
Best,
D
Since Pielke did not submit any papers, there is nothing for him to “pull”. The commenters at his blog are wondering why someone who acts skeptical of all sorts of global warming related issues says he is not. This is besides the point as no position is being applied to him personally by the list.
This obviously backfired on whomever sent Pielke the hysterical email.
Roger is merely stating the papers do not support your vague assertion.
He suggested you re-name the title of your post to be accurate (Roger is, like, dude an uber-stickler for accuracy and you don’t pass his test).
His papers do not support your vague assertion. Your wishing for the papers to do so is a huge clue for the clueless if they choose to see it; the disappointment of the crowd in Roger’s comments is another clue.
That is: as I stated elsewhere here, your definition is so vague, any paper – a-n-y – can be construed to support your vague assertion – even all the global multiproxy papers after MBH98.
Why do all the global multiproxy papers after MBH98 support your assertion?
They refute the MBH98 paper, which is used to support alarmism. Thus they are skeptical of MBH98’s findings and are entirely in line with your “reasoning” for including other papers on your list. Therefore,
Please include all the global multiproxy papers after MBH98 to be consistent with your prior reasoning for including other papers.
Best,
D
The wording clearly states what the intention of the list are. I have added a disclaimer for those who are confused.
Thanks Dano but I will select the papers for my list.
Try harder next time!
The papers clearly are skeptical of the hockey stick.
The papers support skepticism.
This is the same logic you used in support of other papers.
In order not to look like a hypocrite or to look like you are biased in your choices as the papers support skepticism, you’ll want to include all the global multiproxy papers after MBH98 to be consistent with your prior reasoning for including other papers.
They are skeptical of the hockey stick, which does not show the Medieval Warm Period. The global multiproxy papers after MBH98 all show the MWP and support skepticism.
HTH
Best,
D
The Hockey Stick papers listed are the most robust case supporting skepticism. The papers you are refering to not necessarily. It is thoroughly refuted by eight papers, which is more than enough.
Just curious – if 8 is “more than enough” why did you feel it necessary to list 450?
Eight is more than enough on the Hockey Stick not everything else.
Dano,
Yes. It’s good if this stuff stays available. You might also want to skim through the JREF thread.
Just wondering…I was tempted to use “Poptart” but someone beat me to it. Was it Martha or Greenfyre?
But I’m puzzled. “Popular Technology” appears not to be about popular technology. That would be stuff like computers, phones, games, home and in-car entertainment, and gadgets, wouldn’t it? Well, to some degree it is, but only when it can support Microsoft and attack Open Source, Apple, etc. It is mostly a political/ideological propaganda site. Currently listed as “Resources” on the home page are:-
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
The Anti “Green” Energy Resource
The Anti Marijuana Resource
The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories*
Firefox Myths
Optimize Guides
(*I haven’t read this yet but if it is what it appears to be then I have no problem with it.)
IOW it is somewhat like STR
“Just wondering…I was tempted to use “Poptart” but someone beat me to it. Was it Martha or Greenfyre?”
I think Wilbur gets the credit:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/08/05/the-global-warming-deniers/#comment-64759
—-
Thanks, good find. I didn’t know that Poptart has been at it for so long.
Greenfyre, re the JREF link, I’m a member of that forum and I can tell you that Poptech has been spamming there for some time. He started threads, all anti-AGW, on:-
20 Jun (x2)
23 Jun
25 Jun
26 Jun
27 Jun
9 Jul
18 Oct (this topic but 390 papers).
I recommend reading that last one.
This is typical behaviour of a fanatic spamming a forum.
If anyone wants more links I can provide them. 🙂
—-
I’ve never spammed JREF, I posted source links in response to queries or incorrect information. I have also started topics on papers not discussed there only to have them locked, moved or deleted.
Spamming in this context is described as starting multiple threads on similar topics in quick succession.
Why do you think that any of your stuff gets locked, moved, or deleted? The JREF goes out of its way to let “sceptics” have their say.
No sorry, starting a new topic on a completely separate discussion is not spamming anything. The JREF science forums are supposed to discuss science yet when certain science discussions are started they get censored.
I have no idea why discussions about published papers or studies would get locked, moved or deleted, that is my point!
Poptart,
You are as delusional about the JREF forums as you are about Wikipedia (not that the 2 should be compared in any other way). When the JREF mods take any action, they are very open about.
No, I saw the censorship on JREF when the science was not of an alarmist persuasion.
Obvious nonsense. There are several posters there who have posted many, many messages like yours over a long period of time. Mhaze is the most obvious example. You have to be really extreme, like GMB (Graeme Bird) to get banned.
If anything, IMO the JREF mods are too tolerant even of people who tell obvious lies, even about other posts (Mhaze again).
You just love playing the victim, don’t you?
What is nonsense is censoring posts discussing scientific research from universities. FACT, it happened on JREF multiple times!
This is somewhat OT but I post it so that others may judge the veracity of Poptart’s claims. I previously listed a number of dates when he started threads at JREF. I’ve widened the search as some threads were moved or split. Here are the titles. Remember that his claim is that “starting a new topic on a completely separate discussion is not spamming anything”.
20 Jun: Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago
20 Jun: 89% of U.S. temperature stations are biased by +1-5 °C
23 Jun: Split from: No Methane ‘Burp’ Accelerating Climate Change (AAH)
23 Jun: Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery (AAH)
23 Jun: No Methane ‘Burp’ Accelerating Climate Change
25 Jun: Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery
26 Jun: Coral Reefs Survive being Nuked and Water Temperatures of 55,000°C
27 Jun: Split from:4 Things You May Not Know About Climate Change (AAH)
27 Jun: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
3 Jul Split from: Boston Globe peddling AGW “Truth” (AAH)
5 Jul: Boston Globe peddling AGW “Truth” (FM)
9 Jul: Merged: Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
26 Jul: Split From: Recent climate observations disagreement (AAH)
27 Jul: Censorship (FM)
18 Oct: Moderated: 390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
20 Oct: Split from: 390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warmi (AAH)
26 Oct: Split from: Global Warming Debunked? (FM)
In addition, at least one other thread was merged into one of those.
(AAH – Abandon All Hope, a section the mods move threads to when rational discussion breaks down.
FM = Forum Management, where members discuss issues of “censorship”, etc.)
It is clear that these are all on essentially the same topic: attacks on climate science.
It will be of interest that despite JREF being extremely tolerant, Poptech has forced the mods to take action many times. He, of course, whinges and whines about “censorship”, that AGW dissent is being suppressed, etc.
I did not start these,
23 Jun: Split from: No Methane ‘Burp’ Accelerating Climate Change (AAH)
27 Jun: Split from:4 Things You May Not Know About Climate Change (AAH)
3 Jul Split from: Boston Globe peddling AGW “Truth” (AAH)
26 Jul: Split From: Recent climate observations disagreement (AAH)
20 Oct: Split from: 390 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warmi (AAH)
Yes the following were clearly a dangerous read at JREF,
23 Jun: “Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery” (AAH)
This one was buried in another thread,
“Recent climate observations disagreement with projections”
Clearly it was dangerous to have these papers be known.
And you missed some, including,
Merged: “Global Warming Temperature Data Disappears (like magic)”
Moving and burrying threads that offend some alarmists is common practice at JREF.
I’ll not quibble about the detail. I explained what AAH is, and you are listed as thread starter in the search.
I also said that there were other merged threads. That would make my list longer, wouldn’t it?
Your claim was that you were not spamming the forum, i.e. starting multiple similar topics in a short space of time. Admit this.
How can I split a thread at a forum where I am not a moderator?
Wait do you not understand how moderation works in forums?
If you point was to list all the threads I started, you failed because all the split threads and the Boston one I never started.
I was not spamming anything. I started various threads about completely separate topics for discussion at different times. All the started threads were clearly science based discussions.
MM? If you’re quessing who I am there, I use the same ID as here, but I don’t post there much at present. 🙂
“I have been banned from various sites but not for trolling or spamming but rather refusing to accept someone elses opinion I did not agree with.”
I suppose it’s no accident that 90 percent of Poptart’s comments here on this site are personal expressions of self-styled libertarianism in which he insists on his freedom to take endless advantage of an open forum and waste everyone else’s time, without limits; and perceives lies and frauds to be something of democratic value and actually, of the highest value. [1]
p..s. 2007? Really? That’s a very stale poptart. 😦 [2]
—-
Yes I believe in freedom of speech but my comments here are to correct misinformation such as your wrong assertions on my position on lies and fraud.
No, you don’t.
You believe in your “right” to abuse that freedom to spew out whatever lies you like, and to complain like a spoilt brat when you are called on it.
Seriously, you have a problem, and I base that on not only what I read here, but on your history at JREF.
That is illogical, I have not asked to restrict anyone’s speech. So clearly I believe in freedom of speech.
There is no such thing as an abuse of free speech. Either you have freedom or you do not. I believe in freedom.
Yes I have problem being censored.
—-
“Yes I have problem being censored.”
You don’t seem to have the same problem with censoring other people, as negatives comments to your own blog are regularly censored.
I suggest everybody here leaves a comment on poptech’s blog; if they are censored, he should be shown the same courtesy here.
Poptart asked:
Poptech/Andrew/whatever sock puppet you are today:
Yet ANOTHER author you have included on your silly list has responded to say you are utterly mistaken.
Harold E. Brooks says this on RC:
LOL. Pwnd yet again! 🙂
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! [1]
And the nail in the coffin,
“We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual
tornadoes has increased through time” [2]
—-
LOL! You see (or imagine) out-of-context quotes in the text to support your mistaken definition of skepticism when the lead author – I repeat, LEAD AUTHOR, not some Joe Schmuck commentator – of the paper majorly pwnd you by categorically stating “I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming.”.
WTF? You do know that this ain’t some middle school literature assignment on Shakespeare where you can be liberal with interpretations of reality, right?
Prove that my quotes are out of context.
Again, the paper supports skepticism of “the environmental effects of”.
That is nice that the lead author of that paper has no idea why he is on the list, maybe he should read it before commenting in the future so he does not make ridiculous comments like that.
This is a whole new level of arrogant, ignorant, Dunning-Kruger subject we have here. You claim to know more about a paper than the lead author!
Someone take this lunatic to a padded cell, please.
I make no claims about the author. [uncited and false claim removed, as promised]
[uncited and false claim removed, as promised]
It is logical.
[uncited and false claim removed, as promised]
I’m calling you on this.
You said
You now say
Are you that cretinous? Really? Do you know what would happen if you behaved like that in person?
Forgot to close off a quote there. The last para should be back in line with the first.
I make no claims about the author…’s personal position by including his paper in the list.
[2] Harold Brooks paper is in the list,
Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999 (PDF)
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
– Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III
Click to access i1520-0434-16-1-168.pdf
The quotes are directly from the paper,
“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.”
“We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual tornadoes has increased through time”
—-
And those quotes say nothing about anthropogenic global warming, since I’m unaware of anything in the scientific literature discussing the relationship of damage from individual tornadoes and global temperature.
One of the alleged affects of AGW is increase Tornado activity and consequently damage. Unless of course you are conceding that damage has not increased and thus there is no need for any alarmism regarding Tornadoes.
—-
It is relevant to the “economic effects of.” climate change.
Can you provide one citation in the scientific literature AGW will lead to increased “tornado activity?” Also, the relationship between “activity” and damage is not at all direct. All that we looked at were the most damaging individual tornadoes and the relationship between those tornadoes and overall activity is not obvious.
Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts
Harold, you wrote a paper on the issue and are unaware of the alarmist claims? Fascinating.
The paper cited in the press release uses the word “tornado” once, in a sentence “the central part of the United States has more severe thunderstorms and tornadoes than any other part of the world.” The scientific paper says nothing about tornadoes, despite the impression given by the press release. The variables looked at in the paper are focused on severe thunderstorms, not tornadoes. Again, find a reference in the scientific literature.
Your argument is a strawman as I made no no assertion that the global warming will cause increased tornadoes or more tornado destruction argument was one held in the scientific literature. It is one held by alarmists and one of concern by the media which is the reason for a paper you published,
Does Global Warming Influence Tornado Activity?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO530001.shtml
For the record in Brooks own words,
“We really don’t have a very good handle on what the expectations would be for tornadoes to change—or if they would change—as a result of global warming,”
“If I had to bet, I would say that we won’t see a huge change in tornadoes.”
The sockpuppet comment is illogical as my name is “Poptech” a shortened version of “Popular Technology” and clicking on my name takes me directly to, http://www.populartechnology.net ….so that makes no sense.
It’s amazing that you put so much effort into rebutting this nonsense, Greenfyre.
At the same time, it is an unfortunate reminder of how effective deniers are at wasting everyone’s time.
—-
The never ending question: is it better to ignore propaganda and risk claims of it not being refuted, or tackle it and risk giving it publicity? Edmund Burke said “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
First you have to be able to refute, something no one here has been able to do.
Speaking of refuting, your list lacks a number of papers that refute the hockey stick and show the MWP, thus supporting skepticism.
Will you please post them, as you have numerous papers in your list that are there, as you say, because they refute some overstated environmental or economic assertion.
Here they are:
P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956
M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270
K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.
M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
You are welcome.
Best,
D
So you are claiming Mann refutes himself twice?
Your post is nonsensical as those papers do not support skepticism of the Hockey Stick (MBH98), Moberg’s does and is already include (check better next time).
I clearly stated that they refuted the hockey stick by showing the MWP. Thus they support skepticism by refuting the iconic hockey stick.
I’m merely following the criteria you have stated you used for including other papers.
Therefore, using your criteria, which should be replicable and systemic, these papers are includable in your list.
Please also give me the same benefit of the doubt that you give yourself wrt double-counting. I’m adding papers to your list and helping you.
Best,
D
—-
I agree with Dano. Using Poptech’s extremely elastic interpretation of what is a ‘sceptical’ paper, every single paleoclimate reconstruction post MBH98 needs to be added to the list. Including works by those same authors.
By Poptech’s standards, any paper that shows any hint or sign of any sort of natural variation in climate seems to qualify. These must, as well.
In fact, we should also add every single paper that in any way mentions the ice ages. Those were natural, so therefore noting that fact must somehow be counter to the ‘alarmist’ position.
By the time we are done, this list will have thousands of works on it.
I hadn’t been aware of this website before.
Papers displaying evidence of the MWP are in that section, the papers directly refuting MBH98 are in the Hockey Stick Section. Please stop making up things I never stated, thank you.
Dano, you clearly do not understand the MBH98 debate as you comments come off as uninformed.
I haven’t double counted anything.
Boy, you are either magnificent performance art, or a new level of clueless.
I hope you are a parody character in someone’s performance art piece. I sure wouldn’t want you to be a real person and reproducing, that’s for sure.
Nonetheless,
Please include the list of papers I gave you. By your own written criteria, they are valid papers for the list. You can put them in the hockey stick section for all I care, but every single one supports skepticism according to your criteria.
Unless your criteria are arbitrary and capricious and exist to validate your self-identity…oh, wait: that’s snork illogical.
Having authors ask you to remove their papers and you not doing so means your widdle list is for clowns and Morans, destined to be alongside the OISM and 650…620 650 scientists lists, boy.
For ego and spam and misinformation purposes only, lad.
You are starting to bore us with your doltish spam. Buh-bye from me, boy.
Best,
D
Dano, you do not get to redefine my criteria. Sorry to break it to you but those papers do not support skepticism of man-made global warming or the environmental or economic effects, which is why they are not included.
No author has asked me to remove anything (which is irrelevant) because I am not making any claims about the author’s personal positions. This is clearly noted at the top.
Briefly, explain exactly why a paper that notes a MWP counts as a sceptic paper.
Hardly. The current understanding is that there was regional warming in the ‘MWP’ at different time periods. It is unclear to what extent it was a single simultaneous global event, especially given the sparsity of data from the Southern Hemisphere. Different reconstructions show it to different extents. As more proxies are collected and they are better understood, the picture will get clearer.
But in any case, exactly none of the ‘alarmist’ argument is that the MWP didn’t exist. It clearly did exist, at least on the regional level. Even if it was a truly global event, that wouldn’t much matter. Nobody has ever said the climate couldn’t change due to natural reasons.
You might do a better job of knowing what supports scepticism, if you had any idea what the actual science was in the first place.
Everything you have claimed has been refuted many times over, both here and at JREF. You are simply too delusional or dishonest to admit, or possibly, recognise, it.
Oh, and if you actually did have anything, surely you would submit an “anti-Oreskes” paper to E&E? They’d love to publish it, I’m sure.
Repeating this does not make it true.
You can pretend these papers don’t exist but anyone can see the truth with their own eyes.
Congratulations, Poptech! You have conclusively shown why epistemological nihilism = epic fail.
—-
You are totally oblivious to the irony of that claim, aren’t you?
Who are you are JREF Truskeptic? I use the same name (contrary to the claims made here).
Thanks for putting up that link. It is a tricky business to deal with these deniers. I don’t want to give them a platform to spread bad information unopposed. I also don’t want to feed their paranoid sense that they are being inappropriately silenced. Finally, I don’t want to have to spend too much of my own time dealing with them. Your site has been quite helpful, in terms of thinking about how to balance those drives.
A few hours ago, I got what is perhaps the silliest denier comment in the history of my site. Not too surprisingly, it is from the author of that supposed list of 450 peer-reviewed papers.
—-
I don’t think the majority of these comments are being left by bots, though I do wonder about the biographies and motivations of their authors. I think at least a few are true believers convinced that their alternative explanations are correct. Some others may actually be paid to spread misinformation.
Evidence for them not coming from bots comes partially from server logs. Denier commentors on my site, at least, seem to run ordinary browsers and rely on bookmarks to return to conversations they are participating in. I think bots would leave a different sort of trail.
—-
Attn Poptart
STOP spamming this site with the endless repetition of the same vacuous claims.
IF you can substantiate a point from a credible source, fine … but continued postings of permutations of “I’m right and you’re wrong” is a waste of everyone’s time.
Further, learn basic logic and rational thinking
1) you would be more effective in making your points and would not have to post dozens of times;
2) You would never have compiled the list in the first place.
You are on the very edge of being banned from yet another site (which you can then pretend was censorship rather than due to your spamming).
You failed to address this point,
“I stated Replies were never counted! Not to mention that reply by Chilingar was added after you initially looked at the list (actually 5 more papers were also added), was a typo and is now corrected as I noted in the reply to J. Smith. Marco’s comments are also nonsense as I never counted corrections either. Notice the “-” before the paper? All of those are NOT counted. So are any that are italicized.”
So why do you post above implying I am counting replies or typos of duplicate replies when I clearly noted (now moved to the top in a disclaimer) that I did no such thing?
—-
Oh no! He’ll claim:-
Censored! Again! By the ecofascist environazis, who hate the Truth and Freedom and stifle all dissent as they establish the Socialist New World Order!
As said elsewhere, Fred Singer cited a list of legitimate climate scientists as co-authors* in a recent book (‘Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years’ I think) and refused to remove them when asked.
If you are going to emulate a practised liar, emulate the best! Fred’s being doing it for decades.
*It’s funny how real scientists are worth citing for a book one minute but a bunch of lying leftist frauds the next. 😉
—-
I said “I think” and I’m not sure if this is it.
Avery, Singer’s (real) co-author, wrote
500 Scientists, in which it says
The list is linked as a PDF.
I can’t find a reference now to “co-authors” but that is what I remember.
I make it quite clear at the top of the page,
“The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.”
1) Something you have failed to establish. Yet you keep making unsubstantiated claims that certain papers are not peer-reviewed, which is dishonest. You stating something as “silly” does not prove a paper is not peer-reviewed or supports skepticism as I defined. You have yet to prove that a single citation is “nonsense”.
2) Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. I am not pulling them off because they defend various papers from various published criticism, something you again have failed to provide. The other submitted paper will be published soon and the status of it will change on the list.
3) You haven’t even tried to count it, anyone who has will realize exactly how many papers are listed (this was done intentionally).
4) Why would I remove something because you make unsubstantiated claims about it not being peer-reviewed or don’t like it? That is illogical.
Warning: This site has been PopTeched(apologies if someone has already pointed this out)
PopTech is also:
Mastertech, Andrew K., David Dobsen, FFeLEET, GeneralAres, Jim, Joe Somebody, Mike G., MT, NewsHound, Realist, TheHardTruth, Thor, Vincent,
He has achieved his own Urban Dictionary entry: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mastertech&defid=1599689
and probably holds a record in number of sites banning him.
—-
This could be performance art, but I think he is trying to get site traffic for ad revenue.
Does that actually pay?
> …probably holds a record in number of sites banning him.
I’m hoping he increments his record by one very shortly. 🙂
This was part of an online smear campaign launched by disgruntled Firefox users over my Firefox A New Religion? post. As you can see they are a dirty group. They also signed me up for various spam under different names as well. Contrary to their beliefs I post under my actual site name. This is confirmed here, at Watts and JREF.
1. Go to STR: Technical.
2. Read.
3. Learn (if that’s possible).
In particular, if someone with mathematical training and a bit of spare time wants to debunk his claims about the “time-integral of sunspots,” it would be welcome.
I’ll give it a go if you like. 🙂
It will take me a few days (I’m kind of busy) but as I’m studying Maths & Physics and as one of my hobbies is Astronomy it’s a task I would welcome.
At Deltoid he
said
That’s the level of Dunning-Kruger we are dealing with.
Really? He’s a wonderful example of Dunning-Kruger, isn’t he?
He tried in on at Deltoid but left when challenged. The Wiki link you gave looks old; got anything newer?
Looks like Dan needs a plug at Denial Depot. That way, his Blog Science reputation is secure.
Don’t lecture anyone here on how things work.
All your threads have been anti-AGW. The subforum is called “Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology” , not “Climate Science”.
I see so you consider it acceptable to censor a perfectly legitimate science discussion because you consider it anti-global warming. Clearly you have shown your bias for censorship of “inconvenient” science.
—-
Thanks Greenfyre.
Note how he lied (or is staggeringly incompetent at simple English comprehension) yet again in his reply.
Time to killfile this incorrigible liar.
Has anyone come across anyone as dishonest as Poptart elsewhere (someone not in jail, that is)?
—-
One option I am considering for abusive denier commentors is using .htaccess to simply redirect them elsewhere. The IPCC homepage seems a decent choice.
The appropriate syntax would look like:
RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} ^64\.126\.81\.30$ [OR]
RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} ^75\.117\.244\.27$
RewriteRule .* http://www.ipcc.ch
With those random IP addresses replaced by those of the computers of abusive visitors.
I’d be cautious about doing that. Not many of us have a dedicated ip address – usually we’re assigned a temporary one when we connect to our ISP, but once we’ve disconnected the ip address is returned to the “pool”. We’ll get a different one the next time that we connect.
Unless you are really sure that his address is a permanent one, he’ll be back on a different address – and you will have locked someone else out (albeit temporarily).
(To find out your own ip address on a Windows PC, click on Start then Run. Enter cmd, then type ipconfig (or ipconfig /all).
Yesterday I contacted EBSCO to suggest that they examine the peer-reviewed status of E&E, and pointed them to this website.
I just had an email from EBSCO saying that their Publishing Editorial Department agrees that E&E is not peer-reviewed, and will be changing its designation accordingly.
It will take 3-4 weeks for this change to be visible on their database, due to the sequencing of their periodic database rebuilds.
Thank you, Greenfyre, for the ammunition.
—-
I’ll make sure to have both editors of the journal contact EBSCO to correct any misinformation you attempted to give them.
—-
And Poptart has still failed to get Sonja (E&E founder/editor) to support his claims about the alleged status of E&E, or even to sanction his sharing of her relies [1] to his requests to verify the same.
BTW PopTart has appeared at DD. [2]
—-
1. Oh, yes, but just bad typing. 🙂
2. There are many caricatures there, but some are the real thing (but don’t realise it). The gift of Poe’s Law in action as we watch. 😉
(I’m a regular there but if PT’s appeared before I missed it.)
What “facts” did he give them? E&E clearly shows “refereed papers” here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, ect…
I will make sure EBSCO gets the REAL information and not the lies posted here.
—-
OMG I can’t even read all this ridiculous backing and forthing.
The science is finished. We are headed for climaticide. Perhaps, maybe, if we’re really lucky, we could avert it by radically changing our pattern of overconsumption and eliminating the use of burning fossil and biofuels, tomorrow. This might buy a little time from our hurtling towards runaway warming, for the most brilliant to devise some technological fix to reverse course.
Otherwise, it’s all over but the shooting.
“I see so you consider it acceptable to censor a perfectly legitimate science discussion because you consider it anti-global warming. Clearly you have shown your bias for censorship of ‘inconvenient’ science.”
I see so there are endless rationalizations and strong ego-defenses to justify nonstop spamming of lies and frauds, imposed on others against their will.
They don’t call it ‘denial’ for nothing. 😦
It is an unacceptable abuse of the moral force of the word ‘censorship’ for anyone to pretend that pragmatic limit-setting in response to such mindless, repetitive Internet spam interferes with the notions of individual liberty and freedom of speech, in any meaningful way.
My (current) all time favourite E&E paper is SOLAR ACTIVITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE — A SUMMARY, by W.J.R. Alexander and F. Bailey (ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 6 2007).
I think I read it originally on the Lavoisier Group website, but it’s not there any more. However there is a copy at The Heartland Institute (it is just 4 pages long).
They start with
Obviously (to them) this means that it’s the Sun wot done it (ignoring the fact that the solar magnetic cycle averages 22.2 years, not 21, and that South Africa is not the planet).
But they go further! They explain that the solar cycles in turn are driven by the motion of the four gas giants :
Who knew? Clearly not NASA. Even Theodor Landscheidt hadn’t thought of this.
Then comes the punchline:
That is hilarious. I’m just an amateur astronomer, but I know that the outer planets align very rarely (certainly not every 21 years) – and anyone who can use a search engine can check this out (try orbital period planets).
And planetary alignments don’t have much of an effect on the Sun. Jupiter does, because it is so big – but Saturn’s tug on the Sun is only about the same as that from the Earth (because it is so much further away). Uranus and Neptune have next to no effect.
If E&E did put this to peer review then the reviewers should be ashamed of themselves.
Incidentally I did a search on the university’s library – and they don’t subscribe to E&E. 🙂
Excellent, I just realized this was not on the list, thanks!
Solar Activity and Climate Change – A Summary (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 801-804, November 2007)
– W.J.R. Alexander, F. Bailey
BTW there is no need for your library to subscribe to E&E as it is available online.
—-
On the list of *what*?
You’re more than welcome – though why you think that having a paper by a couple of (very bad) astrologers is excellent beats me.
As are virtually all the proper journals. And like them it is hidden behind a paywall, and I’m not paying $18 per article when I can read all the real journals online for free (courtesy of the library).
Which is a bit of a shame – the current issue has
Tim accepts that it’s getting warmer, but claims that we need to increase emissions to compensate otherwise we’ll all be starving by 2080.
And that’s in just one issue. 🙂
If there was a single, cohesive argument against anthropic effects then it would be worth considering. Even if there were a few competing ones, they could be.
But when we have a plethora of alternative viewpoints with minimal exposure to peer review – who are you going to believe? 🙂
But – and I don’t want to appear as pedantic or glib – how many of these 450 papers are left? I mean, I realize that what has been discovered so far casts the entire “list of 450” in doubt, but it would be useful to have a sort of summary of how many of the studies failed, and why.
Perhaps I should actually be convinced that the rest of the papers are lacking in substance or relevance, but I think it would be useful to really cut the head of the entire travesty.
—-
Axel,
That’s the whole problem with denialist liars: they use the classic Gish Gallop and spew out hundreds of claims. They then demand that every single one is refuted, regardless of the fact that they use the opposite “logic” when attacking science, i.e., even one tiny mistake falsifies all of it. They even claim that the author of a paper doesn’t understand his own paper if he objects to being falsely included in such a list.
I hope you can see the problem with this.
—-
I first found this list here:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
That’s from April 2008. The person who comments the most is “Andrew” and his blogger profile points to PopTech’s blog. He argues with the guy who posted the article that the list was his and the original is here: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050 which was created Feb 2007.
Looks like he’s been at it a while.
—-
I investigated issues related to E&E, ISI, Scopus and such a while ago while editing wikipedia; I think I can clarify a few points here.
(1) Whether E&E is “a trade journal” is completely orthogonal to whether it is peer reviewed. What defines something as a “trade journal” is whether it accepts advertisements and what sort of advertisements it accepts. “Trade journals” pay a large chunk of their costs by selling targeted advertisements aimed at the sort of people who read them . Academic journals charge high subscription fees or find benefactors. Either kind of journal might or might not be peer reviewed. Anyone who wants to argue that it’s no longer a “trade journal” or was falsely classified as such should probably count and categorize the advertisements in a couple issues in order to make their case. Both sides should be aware there’s no particular reason to think a “trade journal” is bad at science. Some “trade journals” have very high standards, just as some “academic journals” have low standards.
(2) ISI does not claim to be a definitive list of peer-reviewed journals or even of the “best” peer-reviewed journals. It does attempt to be a somewhat *representative* list. If you look at ISI’s own stated inclusion criteria they want to cover breadth more than depth. They are less likely to include periodical A if they already happen to include periodical B that covers very similar territory. There are far more peer-reviewed journals not listed in ISI than listed in it. One of ISI’s criteria is frequency and consistency of publication – it is much more likely to carry something that publishes every week than that publishes roughly 8 times a year as E&E does. Not keeping a meticulous schedule is more likely to disqualify than not meeting somebody’s vague notion of what constitutes acceptably or unacceptably stringent publication criteria. ISI also concerns itself with focus, so a journal that is central to one specific field is more likely to make the cut than something as weirdly interdisciplinary as E&E defines itself to be.
In short, E&E detractors would like to have some hard line criterion to follow, some clear basis on which they could say E&E isn’t *really* a peer-reviewed journal, but as far as I can tell, no such line exists. “It’s not in ISI” or “Scopus calls it a trade journal” don’t constitute such a line. The line is fuzzy, but E&E is pretty clearly a “peer-reviewed journal” and some fraction of the papers they publish are clearly “papers published in the peer-reviewed literature” according to any reasonable definition of the terms. It would certainly be more convenient if you didn’t have to deal with the fact that some published papers are still bad papers and some journals are poor gatekeepers, but such is life.
Glen,
Thanks for that. The issue, I believe, is not whether E&E is peer-reviewed, but whether the quality of that review process is sufficient for it to be taken seriously, especially given the stated aims of the founder/editor.
I actually find that “given the stated aims” caveat silly. Do you really think editors of other journals don’t have any personal biases? Or that if they do have biases, that they never make use of them in deciding which articles they want to give more attention too? Or do you just think editors should pretend to have no opinions if anybody asks directly?
In short, the “yeah, I’ve got some opinions and I’m following them, a bit anyway, as is my right as an editor” quote actually gives me more respect for E&E than I might otherwise have.
Some journal editors like long papers. Some like short papers. Some like papers with lots of charts and graphs. Some have a really narrow idea of what constitutes a novel or interesting or field-relevant result, some have a wider view. Some like papers that challenge conventional wisdom on specific subjects. Some like papers that make small contributions to existing well-established fields. Some like papers that boldly stake out new territory. All of these are biases that inform an editor’s choices, are they not? Saying “Yeah, I tend to like articles that speak to bias X” marks an editor as unusually self-aware, not as unusually biased. The existence of bias is a given, whether stated or not.
(I say this as someone who accepted your claims in good faith.)
The stated aims of Sonja/E&E are a matter of record. The abysmal standards of “peer review” at E&E are also a matter of record.
Just what are you asserting now?
I think we should all read the history of the E&E wiki article
to see what happened there.
Sonja’s stated aims are allowing skeptics papers to undergo E&E’s peer-review process as opposed to being simply denied because a journal editor does not support the position of a paper’s author. This does not mean an automatic publication of a skeptic’s paper.
There is no record of any abysmal standard of peer-review at E&E.
If you notice in the history you have Fenton Communication’s affiliate William M. Connolley does his best to keep the page in line with the alarmist meme,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
All I’m asserting is that the “stated aims” of the editor in that wiki quote aren’t relevant to whether the journal is good. I’m not saying the journal *is* good, just that you can’t seriously claim it’s not on the basis of that statement. There’s nothing wrong with an editor giving skeptics a fair shake, and there’s nothing that is “a matter of record” suggesting anything more than that is being given.
Generally I think articles should be reviewed on their own merit rather than on the basis of who publishes them, so I find the ongoing attempts to sling mud at E&E – and thereby dismiss anything published there – annoying. In particular, the ISI thing, but I’m sure that will stay in the wikipedia article for as long as WMC is around as an editor. (I made some of my objections known on the associated talk page)
I do agree with you in most of the larger issues at play in your original post, in particular that E&E articles from the Letters section and such shouldn’t be categorized as “peer-reviewed” unless we have reason to think they are.
Regarding ISI, I recommend this article to you: “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research” http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2126010&blobtype=pdf
(the article was written a decade ago so you shouldn’t trust the coverage estimates, but essentially the same issues are in play today as were then.)
All of these issues (Peer-Review, Trade Journal, ISI) are corrected in this post,
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
This whole post is completely refuted here,
Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
Poptart is an absolute psycho. Apparently he’s written some code to stalk out every time this link is used so he can jackboot his way over all debate
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17853070&postcount=167
He’s cyberstalking you Greenfyre’s! What a deviant.
I’ve described PopTart as borderline psychotic before, in describing his behaviour in various forums. This only confirms it.
Stating lies about someone to smear them does not make them true.
shiznit, has utterly failed to challenge anything I stated which is why he has desperately posted here for “help”. Something that will not be forthcoming.
LOL, I didn’t post here for help, I posted here to laugh at how much of an obsessive and deranged personality you really are.
But, keep at it Cap’n Spam-bot, one of these days you are going to win the internet!
Yes I am obsessive about correcting misinformation spread about the list I created. I have a problem with lies, I can understand why you would not.
Poptart, the only lies being spread around are the ones being spread by you.
Keep it up, you do a good job of showing how dishonest you are and how out of touch with scientific reality the deniers (including you) are.
I have not stated a single lie and will continue to defend myself against all smears.
Telling the truth about what you post is not a smear. But, as I said before, keep it up, you continue to show the absence of ethics, scientific knowledge and honesty displayed by you deniers.
And besides, keeping you responding to all my replies means that you are prevented from doing something even more dastardly and dishonest on other blogs.
You have done no such thing but smear me with lies and continue to. I have impeccable ethics, scientific knowledge and honesty.
You posting here does not stop or remotely delay me from spreading the truth. Nothing you can say or do will ever stop me so get over it.
“I have impeccable ethics, scientific knowledge and honesty.”
Sure, anything you say.
Why is it that you get banned from so many sites?
Only a few and the administration was all climate alarmists who practiced censorship instead of open debate.
“And besides, keeping you responding to all my replies means that you are prevented from doing something even more dastardly and dishonest on other blogs.’
MAybe we could set up a google bomb spam bot that would link poptechs list and greenfyres rebuttal all over teh interwebz so that Cap’n Underpants-on-the-Outside here will be too busy responding to that than to jackboot actual forums for discussion?
I see that when involved in debates about human-made global climate change, Calgary-based biologist Ian Forrester continues with his practice of adding vitually nothing constructive but merely throws ad hominems at anyone who dares to challenge the “consensus”. His comments of 19th November @ 19:15, 18th November @10:06 and 24th May @ 9:15 and 10:16 are typical but relatively mild examples of his “contributions”. He has insulted others on numerous Internet blogs but it seems only when debating climate change, a subject in which he appears to have no significant expertise and only capable of repeating the UN-inspired propaganda. When debating within his area of research expertise – plant biology – he presents his arguments in a reasonable and rational manner. He is just the opposite when debating global climate change.
I thought initially that these were two different Ian Forresters but found them to be the same person. I was very puzzled by Ian’s apparent dual personality, and decided to try to find out something about the psychology of people like this so started a thread “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer angry” (Note 1). Here is one of my comments with some examples of his ad hominems.
QUOTE:
As I have mentioned in previous comments, exchanges with Ian Forrester provide a useful case study when trying to understand what makes a DAGWer angry. In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments). It doesn’t matter who they are, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. If you are interested in checking this out for yourself I can give your links to many many examples, particularly on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist.
I accept that he considers all of the above to describe myself (not to forget “bully”, “stalker” and “sick puppy/person”). Ian doesn’t debate the poorly understood science behind global climate processes and drivers, he merely pontificates arrogantly, which doesn’t help his cause. I am not the only person to find him somewhat irritating. In a recent debate on Deltoid (Note 2) Ian’s final comment was QUOTE: David Duff, perhaps if you stopped writing rubbish all over the internet people would be a little bit kinder to you if you make an error. However, since most of the stuff you write is full of mistakes and nonsense one can quite correctly assume that they are not in fact mistakes but deliberate attempts at misinformation and obfuscation. .. Posted by: Ian Forrester | February 19, 2010 5:11 PM UNQUOTE.
David Duff responded QUOTE: In future I must remember that Mr. Forrest is one of the new 21st c. style gentlemen possessed as he is of all the wit, charm and courtesy of a rabid rat. .. UNQUOTE.
UNQUOTE.
Another example that I came across only yesterday is (Note 3) QUOTE: Ian Forrester says: November 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm: Mackay really shows how much of a bottom feeding scum ball he is. He has edited my last post so that it says the exact opposite of what I said. Why do you keep showing anyome who reads this blog how psychotic you are? UNQUOTE.
I invited Ian (and anyone else who’s interested) to join in the debate. Ian has not yet made a comment, which is a shame because it is important for us sceptics to try to understand the attitude of people like him so that we can make allowances for such outbursts. Lets hope that he joins in soon. It may help him to adopt a more reasonable position during debate, after all “a problem shared is a problem halved”. I also invite you to take a look at my blog Global Political Chenanigans (Note 4) and have a chat.
You will also see several comments from Ben Lawson, another enthusiastic supporter of the UN’s propaganda about climate change, who said in one comment QUOTE: .. I’m with Ian Forrester .. UNQUOTE (although not in the context of “scum ball”). Ben runs a blog watsupwiththat in which he makes a feeble attempt to undermine Anthony Watt’s fine sceptical blog. You may be interested in looking at it (Note 5) but be warned that he cuts out what he doesn’t like, regardless of whether it is factual or not.
There is one comment that I do fully support, which I think Ian must have been looking in the mirror when he wrote it on tth March 2008 @ 03.37 (Note 6) QUOTE: .. Seems to me there is an old saying that the less some one knows about a subject the more they think they know. That applies to quite a few here .. UNQUOTE. Incidently, I couldn’t find one ad hominem in that series of comments by Ian. He must have degenerated since then.
NOTES: NB: In order to post the comment I had to remove http:// from Notes 2) to 6) and http:www. from 1)
1) see stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30/
2) see tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others/
3) see cammackay.com/?p=5
4) see globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/
5) see wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/dr-richard-lindzen’s-heartland-2010-keynote-address/#comment-583
6) see tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I’m sure Ian will answer for himself but many “sceptics” have repeatedly shown themselves to be most of the things, and commit many of the offences, you quote. I recall him behaving that way only with people who deserve it.
“UN’s propaganda” and “Anthony Watt’s fine sceptical blog” tell us a lot about you, of course.
Pete Ridley is a pathetic person. His big kick is stalking people who disagree with the nonsense he posts all over the internet. He has been banned from several sites because of his nasty habits.
He is a geriatric person who never achieved anything worthwhile in his life time so he thinks that he is making the “big time” supporting all the slime balls who attack honest scientists.
He should be ignored since anyone who responds will be subjected to the same type of stalking he has performed on me and others.
By the way Ridley, I am not a “biologist” so you didn’t even get that right.
Sorry Ian, Biochemist.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ian, in my earlier comment I should have quoted this (Note 1) from another person involved in your invective. On 1st Feb 2008 @ 01 12:17 you threatened QUOTE: I think it is time that this blog started identifying posters who post nonsense and remain hidden behind a screen of anonymity. I would prefer to know who Paul S/G is so if I ever met him I could give him smart kick on the backside for being such an arrogant boor. Ian Forrester UNQUOTE.
The response was from Rob on 2nd Feb @ 18:08 was QUOTE: Anonymity is protection against loudmouth psychotics with guns
.. Ian, it sounds to me like you just threatened physical assault. Now, from my experience, pipsqueeks like you are seldom ever likely to make good on those threats, as more often than not, you are the one likely to get his ass kicked in such a situation, rather than the person you are threatening. In short, you are all mouth. However, certain relevant facts have come to my attention. I could be wrong, but I believe you are possibly the same Ian Forrester who posts on this web forum: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
It is a forum for collectors of double-barrel shotguns.
After registering and looking at your profile, we learn that the Ian Forrester on that gun forum lives in Calgary and claims to be a biochemist.
As I said, I could be wrong on the identification, but for the sake of public safety, I believe the Calgary police might be interested in someone who –
a) makes threats of physical assault,
and
b) owns firearms
So, you might want to make sure all your paperwork is in order, Ian.
UNQUOTE.
Rob came pretty close with his identificatin, didn’t he.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.desmogblog.com/harper-government-muzzling-environment-canada-scientists
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley continues with his cyber stalking, putting personal information out there for everyone to see. That is pathetic and probably illegal. Can steps be taken against such morons?
I know that there is a lot of ongoing discussions on what should be done in regard to people such as Ridley, they are so stupid that they don’t even know when they have crossed the line into potentially illegal activities.
Perhaps the “experts” contributing to this blog can show where Dr. Geoffry Glassman has gone wrong in his 48 page paper “The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun –
THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH’S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW.” published last month (Note 1).
If that’s too technical for you perhaps you’d like to comment on “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” (Note 2)
Responses eagerly awaited.
NOTES:
1) see http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf
2) see http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Does this belong here? Is it in PopTech’s list?
It is not in my list and I will add it once I can confirm it is peer-reviewed. Regardless it is a science article, written by a scientist and fully sourced.
It was “peer” reviewed by Monckton. It is as full of pseudo science as anything VMB has ever written. I just don’t understand why fanatical deniers like you and Ridley missed out in getting a basic science education. If you had even a junior high school level of science you would be laughing your heads off at the silly pretense of science shown by the people you worship.
They are junk scientists and cranks. Why do you think that they are telling the truth about climate science when it is obvious that you have no understanding of the science but are willing to believe any junk which supports your arrogant, selfish and political views?
I got a computer science education in college.
You have not supported any of your smears and instead just continue to engage is ad hominem attacks.
Poptart said:
WOW Poptart, don’t let on which college. People will stay away in droves if you are an example of what they turn out.
Deleted by S2
This is disgraceful.
Can a mod remove this ASAP?
You are absolutely right.
What this site needs is more mods.
You should not insult computer scientists.
LMAO, wow, poptart is such a “computer scientist” that he can use google!
Just goes to show how deeply unethical climate deniers are, that they would urge other to harass people who disagree with them
I have not urged anyone to do anything. I simply provided Dr. Forrester’s contact information in case anyone was interested.
TrueSceptic, I should hope that any blog that purports to debate the poorly understood processes and drivers of global climates would welcome discussion on any paper, whether pro- of anti- the UN’s propaganda. Open debate by open minds is needed, not bigotted opinions.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
We are guests here. One of the house rules is that we stay on topic.
TrueSceptic, thanks for trying to help but I prefer to leave it to Mike to notify me if I’m breaking any of his rules. Your puerile retorts to Poptech in this blog have been left alone so he is obviously very tolerant.
When you say QUOTE: It is because people like you have abused and corrupted the word .. UNQUOTE do you include Dr. Glassman? If so perhaps you’d like to apply your (so far hidden) expertise in climate processes and drivers to pointing out the errors in his paper. Those of you subscribing to this blog who are supporters of the UN’s propaganda should have no difficulty in providing a convincing rebuttal. When you have done that I’m sure that Dr. Glassman will be delighted to respond. Please keep me posted on progress because it should be an interesting set of exchanges.
Of course it would be better to see these exchanges taking place on the Rocket Science blog (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html) rather than on a non-scientific environmental activists blog. I’ll keep my eye open there for scientific challenges from yourself, Mike, Ian, Milan, Shiznit, S2, witsendnj and even Martha but I won’t hold my breath.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
This thread is about PopTech and his claims.
I suggest that before making ignorant and insulting claims, you observe PopTech’s behaviour in many forums. He deserves nothing better than “puerile” retorts; certainly, reason and rational discussion is something he left behind long ago.
The rest of your comment indicates that you are an anti-science fanatic, someone whose ideology prevents any possibility of a sceptical and open-minded analysis of any science that you feel threatens you in some way.
If you want to discuss the science, take it to the thread indicated.
(I understand Mike is busy elsewhere and someone is deputising for him at the moment.)
Please stop stating lies about me as I have always directly addressed whatever criticisms were brought up with reason and rational discussion.
Pete has presented a science based argument and has done absolutely nothing supported in your smears of him.
It appears you are incapable of doing much else but stating lies and smears about people.
Oh, Pete, just to show you why so many people do not even want to rebut the stuff you come up with, here a quick rebuttal to one howler of a mistake that your rocket scientist makes.
Glassman states:
“Every molecule of CO2 created from burning in the atmosphere should consume one molecule of O2 decline”
(what he clearly means is that every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere should result in one less molecule of O2 in the atmosphere).
Well, that is simply wrong. Your rocket scientist is clearly ignorant of basic chemistry. Yes, C + O2 => CO2. But we’re not burning carbon (graphite or diamond). We’re burning:
1. Coal, which is a complex group of compounds that contains a lot of carbon, hydrogen, and some oxygen. Burning coal requires about 1.2 oxygen molecules per carbon;
2. Liquid fuels (oil and such), consisting mainly of carbon and hydrogen. Burning those requires about 1.45 oxygen molecules per carbon;
3. Natural gas, consisting mainly of methane. Burning methane requires 2 oxygen molecules per carbon.
Add the fact that half the CO2 produced in all that burning of fossil fuels ends up in the oceans, and you would expect the oxygen levels to drop much faster than the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. About a factor of three faster. Gee, that fits the data.
Ergo, Glassman is wrong on such a very simple and basic point. It took me less than five minutes to find all relevant information to rebut this claim. My high school chemistry was already enough for that. YOUR high school chemistry should be enough to see that. GLASSMAN’s high school chemistry should be enough to see how wrong he is. And yet, he makes this mistake. And you expect us to rebut everything such a crank comes up with. Sorry, Pete, but if he can’t even get the basics right, I’m definately not inclined to see how much he f-ed the rest of his stuff up.
I’m not sure what he did there. It is true that one CO2 molecule requires one O2 molecule, but is he ignoring the fact that hydrocarbons aren’t just carbon (the clue is in the name)?
I invite Pete Ridley or PopTech to give us the chemical reaction for complete combustion of methane, a very simply hydrocarbon. They can then look at Glassman’s claim about oxygen depletion with that in mind.
TrueScepticmay I respectfully suggest that you change your false name to “closedmind”. It is absolutely clear from your comments on this thread that you are incapable of rational debate about the horrendously complex scientific subject of the processes and drivers of global climates. You present yourself as a bigot. For your own good try to listen to the sceptical arguments, even if you haven’t the capacity to understand them.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
It’s hilarious how unaware you are of your own condition.
If you want to discuss the science, do it in the appropriate threads.
If you want to discuss scepticism, do it in the appropriate thread.
Pete, all you do is come up with crackpots publishing online stuff that supposedly throws out x decades of science. You then demand ‘we’ rebut it. If we’d answer to all those demands, we’d be doing nothing else for the rest of our lifes. There are a LOT of people who believe they know better than everyone else. 58 years ago a book already dissed homeopathy and various other areas where some people claimed science got it all wrong. We’re still ‘discussing’ with people who believe the same things as their ‘grandparents’ (not necessarily in a familial relationship) did.
Perhaps you might want to get yourself an actual education in climate science (you could, for example, by Pierre Rayhumbert’s textbook as soon as it is available), so you do not need to depend on what the people on the sites you visit tell you to believe. You may also finally get away from Roger Taguchi, whose comments you for some inexplicable reason take as authorative. He’s a high school teacher!
So it seems.
Alternatively for Peter, there is the information on this and other credible science sites.
He chooses to ignore what is right in front of him.
Darn. Ray Pierrehumbert, not Pierre Rayhumbert.
Marco, my God, that’s funny. 🙂
Ian, ref. your comments on 28th May @ 18:48 and 20.12, once again you offer nothing but rant. Why don’t you for once in your life make a worthwhile scientific contribution to the debate on global climate processes and drivers. You have the opportunity to show us all whether or not you actually have any real understanding of any of the many disciplines involved in improving what is presently a very poor understanding of the science. Go to Dr. Glassman’s site and show him how wrong his analysis is. I’d be delighted to see it and will be the first to congratulate you if you succeed.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, what is YOUR worthwhile contribution to the debate? Pointing to people who throw stuff on the internet, supposedly debunking decades of scientific research, and then essentially demand we rebut that, is not worthwhile. Especially since you will be completely incapable of determining whether we’ve rebutted the analysis.
I strongly recommend YOU try to rebut the analysis. That is, try and find the errors. Question everything. Can you?
Best regards, my ass.
Please consider making a positive impact within your sphere of influence rather than stalking people on the internet.
Truesceptic, Marco and Martha, I can do no better than Poptech did in summing you all up QUOTE: It appears you are incapable of doing much else but stating lies and smears about people. UNQUOTE. Like Ian, you do nothing but rant. All of the ranting in the world will not validate the UN’s propaganda about our use of fossil fuels driving the globe into climate catastrophe. Your gullibility is priceless.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
And your arrogance and ignorance of science is pathetic. Grow up, you are acting like a spoiled six year old kid who can’t get an ice cream. You are pathetic, you spread your rubbish all over the internet and have the arrogance to ask people to waste their time telling you why you are wrong. If you want to know why these papers you keep on quoting are wrong then I suggest you get an education.
Pete, instead of doing actual work yourself, you demand others do so. But in those instances where people HAVE rebutted those references you gave…you simply do not acknowledge this. Either because you do not understand, because you do not want to understand, or a combination of the two. Josh Halpern has tried, but apparently he can’t compete with the school teacher Roger Taguchi in your view. Chris Colose tried, but his explanations are clearly too scientific for you, too.
Your reference to “the UN’s propaganda” also shows me that you really do not understand anything. THOUSANDS of climate scientists, and those in fields that see the impact of climate change and increasing CO2 concentrations are reporting in the literature that we’re heading for highly uncertain territory, and that dangerous changes are much more likely than benign changes of the climate. The UN has nothing to do with what is reported in the scientific literature. In fact, the IPCC reports are considered rather conservative by most climate scientists.
In other words, it is completely useless for us to rebut all the references you give, because you will not move an inch. You have decided your ideological position, and you can no longer move. You’re like the Duesberg follower of the 1980s who can’t admit to himself that Duesberg is wrong, and thus dabbles with the writings of various fringe groups.
Poptech (Andrew Johnson?), I thought I’d drop by for a look at your blog and found that you too had recently commented on “Greenman” and “Goreman” – on your “Rebuttal to “Crock of the Week – 32000 Scientists” thread. You may be interested in reading a related comment on my blog at globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, email me at
populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com
Peter, your beliefs are also obviously not relevant to this science site, and for the same reason: they have nothing to do with the science.
Your main argument is that climate scientists, the public and positional leaders are all in on a conspiracy to form ‘one world government’ that you are concerned will engage in the activity of the ‘re-distribution of wealth’.
That’s quite a theory, my friend, but it is not a scientific theory. Regarding the conspiracy part, I wonder if you pulled that directly out of your own ass, or whether it comes from your membership in the U.K. Independence party.
cheers
Pete, “invitation” in your case comes down to a demand. It is clear from your comment “Those of you subscribing to this blog who are supporters of the UN’s propaganda should have no difficulty in providing a convincing rebuttal”.
I’ve seen you tout Jaworowski, despite him being shown wrong. On Chris’ website you get pointed to Hans Oeschger’s comment to Jaworowski (by Chris himself), and what do you do? With a handwave you dismiss Oeschger’s reply (the expert in ice cores), in favor of Jaworowski (who’s a nuclear physicist, and has NO experience in the matter). This is just one of the examples where you show that you simply do not accept rebuttals whenever they contradict your desired(*) outcome.
(*) That this is “desired” is clear from everything you write, and your preferred links. Discredited organisations? Pete refers to it. Jaworowski? Pete refers to him. Roger Taguchi, a complete nobody? Pete refers to him as if he is some kind of wonderscientist. WUWT? Well, who would be surprised to see Pete Ridley also referring to that disinformation site? Your own blog? Filled with conspiracy comments about the UN and the IPCC (and see also the first paragraph of this comment). Mark Lynas? You discredit him by stating he is not a scientist, rather than discussing his arguments. And then you complain here about getting nasty comments thrown your way, rather than a rational discussion.
Pete, you are the poster child of denial.
(I thought that I’d posted this yesterday but forgot about comments with strings of links get rejected so I’ve removed parts of the links provided in the NOTES).
Martha, you missed the point of my earlier comment because my intended italics and bold did not appear in the post. The words of yours that made me laugh were QUOTE . relevant to this science site .. UNQUOTE. This is not a science site, it’s the blog of an environmental activist (Note 1). As I understand it Mike has not worked as a scientist (biology) since the late 1990s (please correct me if I am mistaken). On the matter of “conspiracy” and “world government” I should like to correct your misinterpretation of the little you know about me. I recognize that the significant uncertainties that scientists have about global climate processes and drivers is being used by many politicians, environmentalists, media moguls and others to further their own interests which have nothing to do with trying to control global climates. “Climate science” (and there are numerous disciplines involved) has been politicized and the central organization involved is the UN’s IPCC.
Recognition of the UN’s objectives of:
– redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few,
is not restricted to members of the UKIP or me. You might try doing a little research.
Marco, your selective quote may appear to you as a demand but taken in the context of my “perhaps you’d like to apply your (so far hidden) expertise in climate processes and drivers to pointing out the errors in his paper” is clearly an invitation. Look again at “perhaps you’d like to”.
You know full well that Jaworowski himself challenges Oeschger, as I quoted at Chris’s “Richard Alley” thread (Note 2). Also, if you bothered to read the 2007 paper by Jaworowski to which I linked (Note 3) you would know that he claims to have experience of taking ice core samples – or do you challenge that claim?
Both of the links provided by Chris were to articles preceding the publication of the paper by Jaworowski to which I referred You should also know that Oeschger did not refute the paper to which I linked – he couldn’t, because he died 9 years before its publication. He did challenge a 1995 paper by Jaworowski and defended his own faith in the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations but did not “overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof”. As you must recognize the debate on Chris’s thread ended without the issue of preferential fractionation being resolved and ended up at Joshua Halpern’s Rabett Run(Note 4)
You have fallen into the same trap that Ian has of making assumptions and forming opinions about people and things of whom/which you have little knowledge. You give the impression of knowing virtually nothing about Roger Taguchi or my exchanges on Mark Lynas’s blogs. May I suggest that you do your own research on these things before expressing an opinion. You’ll find some of my comments about Mark’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. ” at Mark’s “Climate Change Explained” thread (Note 5) and on other of his threads. You’ll also find there a mention of the chemistry of the combustion of methane.
I see what you found in Dr. Glassman’s paper as a trivial oversigh rather than a serious flaw in his argument. Is that all you could find in 48 pages?
I see that you didn’t have the courage to challenged him direct on it so I’ve done it for you with QUOTE:
Hi Jeffrey, I invited supporters of The (significant human-made global climatechange) Hypothesis to read and challenge your paper on this thread. I see that none of them has faced you here but one bright spark called Marco has pointed out on Mike Kaulbars’ Greenfyre blog (https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-81442) that QUOTE: just to show you why so many people do not even want to rebut the stuff you come up with, here a quick rebuttal to one howler of a mistake that your rocket scientist makes. .. I’m definately not inclined to see how much he f-ed the rest of his stuff up. UNQUOTE.
I can’t see Marco calling in here to face you but would you like to respond to his comment either here or on Mike’s blog. If you respond here I’ll pass it on. It seems a rather trivial criticism. If that is all Marco could find in 21 pages either what you say is sound or Marco is not a competent scientist.
UNQUOTE.
Why not pay him a visit and challenge “face-to-face” on his thread (Note 6)? Her loves a good debate as long as it is about the science.
NOTES: NB: Sorry but I had to remove http:// from Notes 2 & 4 and http://www. from the others.
1) see care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=558287968#tabs
2) see chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
3) see warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
4) see rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-big-is-that-molecule-in-window.html
5) see marklynas.org/2009/5/5/climate-change-explained-the-impact-of-temperature-rises
6) see rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Ridley,
We know quite a lot about you from your comments in various places. Here are 2 examples
bravenewclimate
wotsupwiththat
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/dr-richard-lindzen’s-heartland-2010-keynote-address/
You call Marco’s find a “trivial criticism”? Glassman uses it to support the claim
“A. Oxygen Depletion & δ13C Lightening Do Not Match Human Activities.” It is not trivial. It is indicative of either:-
1. A level of incompetence highly implausible in someone with a PhD in any science;
2. Deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to deceive.
Now, answer my question about methane combustion.
BTW what’s going on with all the clunky QUOTE … UNQUOTE?
Screwed up the second link. It should be wotsupwiththat
Why can’t all those bog sites have a Preview function?
Pete,
Jaworowski made loads of claims, NONE of it backed by evidence. NONE! So how else could Oeschger respond? You cannot argue against hypothetical arguments for which there is no evidence.
But if you so believe that Oeschger’s reply was given by his own involvement in the ice core research, how about Ferdinand Engelbeen showing the various errors in Jaworowski’s claims:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Good luck handwaving Ferdinand away: he’s not involved in ice core research and is a skeptic about D/CAGW (as you call it).
Moreover, the example of Glassman’s error I cited is not trivial. It’s one of the simplest things to check (as said, high school chemistry is enough to see the mistake), and therefore the thing I picked first. And right away I found Glassman being incompetent. That automatically makes me (and should make everyone else) more than just a little suspicious about the rest. Unfortunately, the rest would require me to read some more literature and do some calculations, perhaps even making graphs. Actual work, after already showing Glassman to be incompetent on the most basic of basics? No thanks, I prefer to use my energy to help actual scientists involved in actual science trying to publish their work in actual journals with an actual impact and a knowledgable audience.
Truesceptic, I see that you still haven’t had the courage top say that straight to Dr.Glassman on his thread. Tut tut!
Truesceptic, sorry, I missed that bit about QUOTE: Now, answer my question about methane combustion. UNQUOTE. DO you bother following links that peope provide for you, or is it too complicated?
Ridley,
As is happens I have asked Glassman some questions. This was before Marco’s discovery and was about other points. My comment is yet to appear. Has yours?
Once more you avoid a simple question and resort to insults.
Given that you are too lazy to type a few characters, I’ve followed one of your links and found
This is correct, so why did you not spot Glassman’s error in IIIa?
You added
I didn’t see a direct answer in that thread. Have you figured it out yet?
Ridley said:
Ridley shows his typical ad hominem style in these words. He assumes, probably because he has not done any intensive investigation himself of the science behind climate change that others do the same. This is obvious from has lack of science, his Dunning Kruger symptoms and his arrogance and ignorance – that is not an ad hominem merely a reflection of your posts here and elsewhere where people have to suffer your nonsense.
For your information I have been reading about and studying climate science for about 20 years. Back then it was all about science, it has only been in the last 8 years or so that anti-science people like you and the many arrogant and nasty people you keep on quoting have come onto the scene.
This pathway is easily found and has been written about many times. It is quite easy for a scientist, not just a climate scientist, to see when science is being trashed by your heroes. They usually follow similar methods, cherry picking, misinterpretation of data, fudging of graphs etc.
It is very arrogant of you to demand that honest and hardworking scientists should bow to your requests to disprove some nonsense you have trawled up from the scummy bottom of the pile of scientific detritus you wallow in.
Since you are so ignorant of science do you not find it funny that the only papers you request people spend time on are the rubbishy ones? Do you completely understand the 100,000’s of real science papers that are out there? I doubt it.
You do not go to the scientific literature for your papers but trawl the denier sites and cut and past rubbish without understanding one word of what you talk about.
You are pathetic.
Counting down to Ridley saying
Ad hominem! Ad hominem!
…
Marco, thanks for trying with Engelbeen’s challenge (Note 1) which I was aware of. I do not agree gthat he did show THE errors in Jaworowski’s paper, he provided evidence and arguments against SOME of them. His conclusion that QUOTE: Too many of the objections made by Jaworowsky are either completely outdated, physically impossible (even the reverse of what he alleges) or based on wrong age data UNQUOTE appears to me to be a gross overstatement of what he has demonstrated. I refer you to “The Truth About Ice Cores“ part of Jaworowski’s paper (Note 2 – on Page 41 in which he says QUOTE: .. low pre-industrial concentrations of CO2, and of other trace greenhouse gases,are an artifact, caused by more than 20 physical-chemical processes operating in situ in the polar snow and ice, and in the ice cores. .. Therefore, the conclusions on low pre-industrial atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases cannot be regarded as valid, before experimental studies exclude the existence of these fractionation processes. UNQUOTE. The fractionation process that I am interested in and have been trying to resolve on Chris Colose’s and Joshua Halpern’s blogs is the preferential fractionation of CO2 due to its smaller size that either O2 or N2, about which Engelbeen said nothing. As I see it the problem area is identifying the “size” of the relevant molecules and I can find no relevnt research covering this.
BTW, have you read his article “CO2 MEASUREMENTS“ (Note 3) in which he concludes QUOTE: .. there is little doubt that humans are fully responsible for most of the increase of CO2 in the past (at least halve) century, that means that – as far as there is an influence of CO2 on temperature – that humans may be responsible for (a part of) the temperature increase. How much, that is an entirely different question, as that mainly depends of the (positive and negative) feedbacks that follows any increase of temperature… UNQUOTE.
TrueSceptic, no my comment hasn’t appeared on Dr. Glassman’s thread yet either. I’m delighted that you have posted a comment and eagerly await if appearing. You say QUOTE: ..Given that you are too lazy to type a few characters .. UNQUOTE but I leave it to you to work out why I linked rather than repeat. HINt – “Lynas”, “Six Degrees.. ” & “distortions”.
No, I haven’t QUOTE: .. figured it out yet .. UNQUOTE so would love just for once to be enlightened by your good-self.
Ian, as I said on Chris Colose’s blog, I am not going to keep exchanging irrelevant rants with you here. Come over to the “What Makes a DAGWer Angry” thread that I started on Senator Fielding’s blog where we can have a good old pry into each other’s mind. Meanwhile I recommend you take a break by venting your ire shooting a few pheasants with Canna, Islay or Island Dancer. I don’t suppose that you talk to them the way you do to human-made global climate change sceptics because they follow your bidding,
NOTES:
1) see http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
2) see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
3) see http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, if someone (that’ll be Jaworowski) brings CLAIMS (he does not provide any evidence) of physicochemical processes that he CLAIMS affect the measurements, and several of those CLAIMS are shown to be wrong and even at best opposite to what he CLAIMS, he simply has no credibility. He has not provided any evidence that ice cores result in an artifically low estimate of CO2 concentrations, he CLAIMS this is the case. Now, you are so often demanding arguments and evidence, and yet you just accept the CLAIMS of Jaworowski. What does that show us? It shows you are a hypocrite. You run after each and every paper that supports your ideological position.
And yes, I know Ferdinand’s position on CO2 and AGW. He’s a true sceptic. Unlike you and so many others, he has no problem to go after the woefull ‘science’ spouted by the deniosphere. He clearly exposes the errors. He’s not ideologically affected. That does not mean I consider all his arguments equally valid. But he most surely is one sceptic that I happily would include in any analysis of climate science, as he has a good radar for nonsense.
Oh, and some more stuff that Jaworowski won’t tell you: In the paper you cite Jaworowski states that Maurice Strong left school at the age of 14. What Jaworowski does NOT tell you is that Strong actually passed the high school to university exam at age 14. A child prodigy! Quite dishonest not to mention that little fact. Deceiving by omission. He also does not tell you that Maurice Strong headed several power companies. I also doubt his quote of Richard Benedick is correct (no one who touts this quote ever refers to the actual source, which is quite telling).
He also makes the mistake of putting 95% of the greenhouse effect on water (he should tell Lindzen and Spencer that, they will also disagree with him). He also fails to tell you that the human emissions dwarf the NET emissions of the biosphere and oceans. So much, in fact, that the latter is a sink for our CO2. It’s there where I stopped, I simply can’t read more nonsense. If a supposed credible scientist so willfully(!) misrepresents the facts, he’s clearly dishonest. You, Pete Ridley, consistently listen to people who are shown to be dishonest and/or incompetent. Why? I have no other explanation than that you are ideologically motivated, and thus simply do not want to see how deceiving and/or wrong your sources are. Well, WE do see that, and call you out on it. Learn to deal with it.
I’m quite aware of Lynas.
I find it odd that you don’t understand the difference in impact between different fossil fuels. You’ve been to enough blogs, after all (and banned from a few!).
Anyway, a quick search came up with this.
Of course, I know what’s coming next!
While we’re waiting perhaps you can explain to us why (t-τ) appears twice in
Glassman’s Equation 1?
Marco, please be so kind as to provide a link to any comment of mine saying that I QUOTE: .. accept the CLAIMS of Jaworowski .. UNQUOTE. You have made this unsubstantiated claim before with (Note 1) QUOTE: Eli, search for “Pete Ridley” on Chris Colose’s blog, and you’ll get an idea of why he needs the info: he actualy thinks Jaworowski is right UNQUOTE I have referred (Note 2) to “Jaworowski’s opinion”, “ .. the scientific uncertainty about this mechanism (to which Jaworowski has referred .. ”, “..another area of significant uncertainty, just as Professor Jaworowski said repeatedly .. ”, “if those assumptions are found to be invalid, as Professor Jaworowski claims.”, “.. which is the point that Professor Jaworowski makes and which I am researching ..”.
I also said QUOTE: The experiments by scientists that have been referenced above do support Jaworowski’s argument that the close-off fractionation effect takes place but none were specifically investigating the fractionation of CO2. Since this is such an important factor that needs to be resolve I am surprised that this research hasn’t been or isn’t being undertaken and believe that it should be done in order to reduce the uncertainty that exists UNQUOTE and QUOTE: .. I complain about the insulting manner in which Professor Jaworowski’s suggestion that the reconstruction of ancient atmospheres from air retrieved from ice cores is affected by physical and chemical processes that are not properly understood. I complain that I cannot find any research that disproves the theory that differential adsorption within ice sheets over many decades affects the concentration of the various atmospheric gases. UNQUOTE.
In an article “ICE Core CO2 Records – Ancient Atmospheres Or Geophysical Artifacts ?” (Note 3) I commented QUOTE: The impression that I get is that this and the detailed structure of ice at sub-micrometre level has not been adequately researched, with too many assumptions being made. Any help on this wold be appreciated. UNQUOTE
I wouldn’t describe any of these as expressing acceptance of what Jaworowski says, simply recognising the uncertainty surrounding what Professor Alley refers to as “the Gold standard”. So come on Marco, back up your statement with evidence. If you can then I’ll be happy to apologise, but if you can’t I’d hope that you would do the same.
NOTES:
1) see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/too-bad-to-be-believed.html
2) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
3) see http://hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you’re playing semantics. I can play that game, too. You clearly accept the doubt Jaworowski tries to spread. You admit to that fact! That automatically means you accept what Jaworowski says. QED, now apologise.
If the fractionation is such a huge issue (sure, it may have some procentual influence), explain why the ice cores fit with other CO2 proxies.
Ask yourself also how all Jaworowski’s claimed uncertainties all happen to lead to the same result for all Antarctic ice cores (Greenland ice cores are known to have problems due to frequent melting of major parts of the ice sheet). Gee, also here fractionation just happens to be the same in all those ice cores.
Accept it, the doubt generated by Jaworowski does not pass scientific scrutiny. None of the potential sources of error is even close to a likely source of large errors that would invalidate the measurements of CO2 in ice cores.
The oil and mining industries really should assist their engineers with more successful transitions from the workforce.
Like his now-stereotypical denier peers, there sits Peter, retired industry engineer and self-appointed climate researcher, alone at the computer with his pants around his ankles, posting 24/7, thinking he is ‘debating’ the science, and feverishly referring others to his ‘notes’.
Seriously, Peter, I do agree with you that the oil industry is focused on improving fossil fuels, not replacing them. That is their current profit and research interest. Naturally, they are not going to completely ignore climate change because if they don’t change the ways we use energy they will lose to competitors; but they are not seriously investing in anything but more oil and gas at this time, despite the climate crisis. Even though Exxon (for example) provides dollars to climate research, if you look at the numbers, it’s a tiny fraction of profits. Exxon is not leading: it will diversify and invest in alternative energy in a meaningful way only if it absolutely has to i.e., as a result of peak oil rather than climate change. It is far more invested in disinformation and delaying strategies than anything else, at this time.
Marco, saying QUOTE: You clearly accept the doubt Jaworowski tries to spread. You admit to that fact! That automatically means you accept what Jaworowski says. QED, now apologise UNQUOTE is in my opinion ludicrous. Supporters of The (human-made global climate change) Hypothesis acknowledge that there are many uncertainties, i.e. doubt, about the processes and drivers of global climates. I accept that there are those doubts but certainly do not accept their claims. You are going to have to do much better than that feeble attempt.
As for the rest of your comment, try considering that it could be because of the same or a similar process. Also, try explaining away the empirical evidence from the use of what appears to me to be a similar process used for purifying mine gas which I raised on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. ” thread . One Marcus did offer a contribution, with QUOTE: On CO2 vs. O2 sizes: an answer from a friendly rabett: “Molecular size is one of those things that has multiple answers. A common way is to determine a “kinetic diameter” by measuring permiation through a membrane. By that measure CO2 (330 pm), is smaller than O2 (346 pm) and N2 (364 pm) UNQUOTE. After learning nothing substantial on Chris’s thread I took it to the “friendly rabett” who provided some assistance. You were involved in the debate at both of those blogs yet never once contributed anything worthwhile to the exchanges about preferential fractionation. Even Ian made a helpful correction.
I’m still searching for the answers about the size of molecules and suspect that so too are the scientists.
I see that you still haven’t had the courage to comment on Dr. Glassman’s thread. He responds to your point in some detail and concludes QUOTE: .. What Marco is criticizing is IPCC’s model, not mine, and he didn’t even get his misrepresentation right. So you can see how Marco managed to complete his insulting little analysis in 5 minutes. He admits didn’t even look at the rest of it. [Do you know if he is a peer-reviewer for professional climate journals?] UNQUOTE.
Of course I don’t know the answer to that final question because you are another who prefers to hide behind a false name. Perhaps you’d like to pay him a visit and challenge him under your real name – no, I doubt that.
Martha, thanks for that reasoned response. Apart from your two opening sentences the only other thing that I disagree with was your concern about some speculated “climate crisis”.
Truesceptic, OK, thanks for the hint. I wasn’t addressing “life-cycle” considerations, however, do those figures produced by organisations like the UK’s SDS are only for g/kWh CO2, which ignores other GHG emissions – wait for it!
Regarding (t – τ) I can do no better than quote Dr. Glassman’s response QUOTE: This is ordinary notation for functions. The variable T (Temperature) on the left hand side of the equation is known at a time t by the values for the variables S134 and S46 on the right hand side evaluated at the same time, but earlier by the increment, τ. One would apply the same parameter value for t – τ in both of the S records UNQUOTE.
BTW, I couldn’t find a Truesceptic question on his thread. Were you using another false name – puzzled?
NOTES:
1) see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/too-bad-to-be-believed.html
2) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
3) see http://hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Yes, I’m “Puzzled”. Given the disgusting behaviour of some AGW “sceptics”, I see no reason to use my real name.
RSJ’s reply does not answer my question. I’ve asked for clarification but perhaps you can explain? Why is EQ1 not simply
T(t) = (t – τ)(m134s134 + m46s46) + b ?
I don’t see that RSJ answered Marco’s point either. Do you understand what it was?
Pete, you are trying the semantics again. And so does Glassman. The IPCC report does not state that there is a 1:1 ratio. Stupid people who don’t read the literature and don’t understand what is going on may think so. But not those that actually read the referenced papers. In other words, I do not criticise the IPCC model, I criticise Glassman’s bastardisation of what the IPCC and the references say.
Fortunately, Glassman shows indeed that he does not understand a damn thing. He states:
“IPCC’s own data show O2 dropping at 0.72 ppm while CO2 is rising at 0.29 ppm, a ratio of 2.5 to 1. That’s worse than Marco’s worst, and without considering the dilution by CO2 from the ocean at the cost of no O2 depletion and at an overwhelming rate of about 15 times that of man’s emissions”.
This simply does not make any sense. The 2.5:1 ratio is actually what would be approximately expected (Glassman should read the literature the IPCC cites, he might actually learn some basic facts). As shown already (you remember your own little equation for methane, Pete?), fossil fuel burning consumes more oxygen (O2) per formed CO2 than 1:1 ratio. Hence, just based on that you would already expect a faster decrease of oxygen than an increase in CO2. Based on the approximate amounts of fuels used, 1.5:1 would be a reasonable approximation of the difference in trend (reading the references might give you a clue on the 1.5:1 ratio I use here).
However, we also know that annual total fossil fuel use on earth should result in a faster atmospheric CO2 rise than actually observed. Twice as fast, approximately. This means there is an active sink for CO2, and that the observed CO2 increase is only half of the actual added anthropogenic amount. Hence, we expect there to be about a factor 3 faster decrease in oxygen than an increase in atmospheric increase in CO2. Actual observation: 2.5:1. Within all uncertainties / approximations in my calculations quite close to expectation.
Also note that if the biosphere were the active sink for the extra CO2, it would release oxygen in a 1:1 ratio. That is, the expected 3:1 ratio in trends should be halved again, if that were the case. This does not fit the data at all (back to 1.5:1 ratio), so the biosphere is not the main sink for CO2.
That leaves the ocean as the main sink. As Glassman so nicely notes, it outgasses CO2. As Glassman so typically does not note, it also takes up CO2. It actually takes up more than it releases!
Glassman’s “dilution” and “15 times more than humans” shows he does not understand the effect of adding an excess, however small, to a linked equilibrium. A simple experiment would show him the importance of the supposedly small amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year:
Make a hole in the bottom of a bucket and pour in water from a faucet at a fixed rate, such that the water level remains constant. Measure both the efflux of water and mark the water level. Now use a large beaker to add some extra water at a much slower rate. You will see two effects: the water level rises, and the efflux goes up. You can even calculate that the water level rises at a lower rate than the amount of extra water you add per time unit. That little bit of water that is added is the cause of the perturbation of the system resulting in rising water levels, just like the extra CO2 we add is the cause of the atmospheric increase in CO2.
Finally: Like TrueSceptic I have no intention to use my real name, I’ve also had my share of bad experiences already. I don’t want to end up (again) with the same problems people like Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, and Richard Alley have run in to: nutcases stalking, threatening, and keeping us from doing actual science.
Ridley you have absolutely no understanding of how CO2 is fixed in the ice in the antarctic ice cores.
You keep on muttering about filters, molecular sieves and how molecular size is important.
Please do some reading in the scientific literature.
Especially read up on “carbon dioxide clatherates” also known as CO2 hydrates. That is how the CO2 is stored in the ice. Have you heard of “methane hydrates” and how stable they are?
You keep on embarrassing yourself with your reluctance to actually read some real science rather than the junk you digest on a daily basis from the denier sites that appeal to low IQ types who are only interested in finding something which supports their selfish and arrogant biases.
Pete, I don’t understand why you keep on going about the fractionation issue. You yourself have once referred to Huber et al (on Chris’ blog), but apparently without actually reading the paper. It shows there’s very likely no fractionation of CO2 or N2, with perhaps some minor fractionation of O2. We’re talking ppmv-level errors here, not tens of ppmv-levels. This changes essentially nothing about the grand picture.
Marco,
Without giving away any of your privacy, can you give us any examples of “I don’t want to end up (again) with the same problems “?
I’ve heard of some real horror stories, some that have resulted in investigation by the police.
One example: 50 faxes sent to my work (in one night) through an anonymous fax-service. Each fax ten pages long. Police was contacted, but they could not do anything (they said).
Another example: Saying nasty stuff about a collaborator, claiming the information came from me. Cost me some time to convince the collaborator I most certainly had not said what was claimed.
Thanks. There are some nasty people out there.
FYI, Ridley has posted this at RSJ.
What a creep Ridley is.
Creep is the right word, just found this when checking the nonsense Ridley was trying on Chris Colose’s blog:
http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/
Good reason to remain anonymous.
It’s funny how Ridley tries to defend himself by claiming “the reason I like to find out about those I debate with is so that I can check out if their opinions are worth considering seriously”. Nonsense, of course, as Phil also points out. IPCC? Pete decides to dismiss it. Just about all National Academies? Pete decides to dismiss their opinion. Roger Taguchi? (Who? High school teacher Roger Taguchi) Serves as Pete’s preferred source to try and maintain a discussion on various aspects of the greenhouse effect. Zbigniew Jaworowski? Pete believes his various arguments, wtihout providing any proof they matter, carry more weight than that of Hans Oeschger.
If Pete really looked whether those people he checked had opinions worth considering, he’d had handwaved Jaworowski away within a few minutes. He’d put some major question marks with Roger Taguchi, too, at the very least many more than with Gavin Schmidt or Josh Halpern.
Marco, I think it is you who are playing with words here. If I had accepted what Jaworowski said I would not be spending so much of my time searching for evidence that the issue of preferential fractionation has been properly investigated. Regarding the paper by Huber et al. you should be aware that the discussion was not conclusive because of the uncertainty about the relative sizes of O2, N2 and Co2 molecules. That is why I keep going on about it. It’s that “uncertainty” word which underpins The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.
If you have indeed had some nasty experiences with stalkers then I can understand your reluctance to disclose your true name, however, if you express an opinion (as opposed to presenting facts) your credibility can be somewhat undermined. I am much more prepared to consider the opinion of someone like Dr. Glassman, who is prepared to declare who he is and his qualifications, allowing others to find out if his opinion is worth considering. Despite that, I cannot understand why you are not prepared to engage directly with Dr. Glassman on his blog but are happy to spend time commenting on his paper here. I have copied your response onto his thread but may I suggest that instead of me acting as a courier you challenge him direct, then all that I need to do is read the exchanges.
Ian, what you say about the mechanism for trapping of CO2 in ice cores being as clathrates is contrary to what I have understood from reading numerous papers on the subject many months ago. My understanding is that what is claimed is that the air, with virtually all of its components (including CO2) is trapped within air pockets. As is stated in “Ice cores, CO2 concentration, and climate” by B. Geerts and E. Linacre (Note 1) “ .. air trapped in bubbles in the ice .. ” and in “Gases in ice cores” by Bender, et al. (Note 2) “ .. The gas trapped in these bubbles is close in composition to contemporaneous air .. ”. Bender et al. do go on to talk about the formation of clathrates “ .. air hydrates form at depths of about 400–1,500 m; .. “ but do not suggest that this is the manner in which CO2 is trapped. Trenberth (who I recall wrote a paper describing how ice cores a processed prior to extraction of the air samples) in his 2007 “Testimony .. before Committee on Science and Technology United States House of Representatives” (Note 3) also refers to “ .. annual mean carbon dioxide .. linked to values from bubbles of air in ice cores .. ”. As I understand it hydrate formation is one of the processes that distorts the composition of the air trapped in those bubbles and has to be accounted for.
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood those numerous papers that I have read those many months ago. Please be good enough to provide links to papers that support your understanding that CO2 is stored as clathrate, not trapped in bubbles. I am reluctant to just accept your opinion on that since you have demonstrated little expertise in the subject in any of your numerous blog contributions.
While you are at it perhaps you could also link to papers supporting your apparent understanding that clathrates form in the firn, which is the main part of the ice wherein I suspect that the differential fractionation due to molecular size about which I QUOTE: .. keep on muttering .. ” might occur. I see that Bender et al. muttered on about QUOTE: Differential diffusivity is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition of gases in firn air and ice cores UNQUOTE. In his 2006 update “Ice core studies” (Note 4) he again muttered on with QUOTE: When gases are trapped in glacial ice, O2 is preferentially excluded .. O2 is excluded preferentially to N2 because O2 is the smaller molecule, and more easily escapes when bubbles close. The degree of exclusion is somehow related to surface insolation; .. The mediating mechanism is not known, but we can say that insolation influences some property of ice at the surface that, in turn, determines the extent to which O2 is excluded during closeoff. UNQUOTE. But I shouldn’t need to repeat this since I already mentioned it on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. “ thread, as you already know, since you were very much involved in that thread were you not..
If you do a search for “methane hydrate” “Pete Ridley” you’ll be able to answer that question yourself.
To All, Have you read the article “The Greenhouse Hustle” (Note 5) by Alan Siddons? This was brought to my attention be John O’Sullivan who said QUOTE: .. You know the wheels really have come off the climate bandwagon when you get blatantly unscientific nonsense statements like the howler below from ‘Real Climate’s’ Gavin Schmidt. (Hat tip: Malcolm Roberts). ..
Siddons applies useful graphic representations to prove that, “Only to the extent that it absorbs energy can a CO2 molecule be a source of heat – and since its frequency response is limited, so too is its ability to heat. CO2 fails to intercept anything close to the full span of the earth’s radiant spectrum.”
Thanks to the enlightened insight of more credible climate researcher such as Siddons the blogosphere is becoming an increasingly uncomfortable stomping ground for snake oil peddlers such as ‘Real Climate’s’ Gavin Schmidt. UNQUOTE.
There’s plenty more interesting material to read at I Love my CO2 (Note 6) so enjoy.
NOTES:
1) see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
2) see http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full.pdf
3) see http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/full/08feb/trenberth_testimony.pdf
4) see http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/research_ice_cores.html
5) see http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf
6) see http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you are confusing uncertainty with knowing nothing. I know that one of my steps is about 1 meter, and can thus measure a 50 meter line with limited accuracy. There’s uncertainty. But does it really matter whether it is 50 meters, is 55 or 45 meters enough to already get a very good idea? That’s what’s going on with many areas of climate science: there are uncertainties, but very little refer to the general trend. Worse even, the uncertainty means we also have a HIGH end to consider, something people like you are very willing to neglect. It’s the same with those jumping on Jones’ “no significant warming since 1995”. While he should have put it differently, the analysis is such that there is a 50% chance the warming is actually faster than the already positive slope.
The whole fractionation thing, which you use here as an excuse to claim you really are a genuine skeptic, simply does not hold. Huber et al provide measurements AND a mechanism. However you define the size of nitrogen and CO2, it won’t give you the fractionation that Jaworowski suggests (but provides no evidence for).
And I don’t react on Glassman’s site for four simple reasons. The first reason is that his site is troubling my computer (don’t know why, but it does). The second reason is that its comment section is a complete and utter mess. The third reason is that I simply do not want to spend so much time on people who are so Dunning-Kruger afflicted as Glassman clearly is. The fourth reason is that I do not trust these type of people, and hence do not want to offer the possibility of IP identification (WUWT has done some nasty stuff to some commenters there). He’s been going on about the CO2 increase for years, making one howler of a mistake after the other, even following the “but Mauna Loa is a volcano!”-idiocy. He simply is not a credible source on the matter, and considering his attitude he won’t be happy with me pointing out his many logical errors.
Oh, and please do keep referring to crackpots-sites. Perhaps Allan Siddons should tell Lindzen and Pielke Sr and John Christy and Roy Spencer that they’re stupid to believe the greenhouse effect could warm the earth. That they don’t understand physics. With all their mistakes, they’d still humble this DK victim into oblivion (although Lindzen could be so dishonest to make it into an attack on Gavin Schmidt also).
I’m surprised that any recent computer would be troubled by Glassman’s site. Do you have a decent amount of RAM and a modern OS and browser?
It is odd, though, that the site is still “Under Construction” after over 3 years. The format of the comments section is horrible, as you say. He is using Movable Type 3.31, which is about 4 years old.
I have some programmes embedded in IE I need for my work, which may be the source of my computer going nuts. Especially the embedded figures on his webside are giving trouble, but I don’t have that problem elsewhere.
In which case I suggest Firefox, as someone else has already done.
Just to be able to discuss with Glassman on his blog? Thanks for the suggestion, but I won’t add other browsers to my computer just to be able to discuss with him.
No, I would not recommend that, but you could amuse yourself with all the other gems there.
What, only one browser and it’s IE?!
The stupid, it hurts. Sometimes it’s fun, but Glassman writes so poorly, I need to spend time on digesting his writing to find the fun. Not worth the effort.
And yes, only one browser and it’s IE. I use an application that only works properly on IE (I tried Netscape and Firefox in the past, with little luck). Might be some type of setting, but I can’t be bothered to spend much time on trying out different settings.
You are an arrogant bastard. I will not do any more searching of the literature to help you.
Good bye and good riddance.
I told a lie. I did do more searching and found this paper which gives methods for measuring CO2 in ice core samples:
“High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present”, Lüthi et al. Nature, vol 453, pps 379-382, May 2008.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
Do you see the word “clathrate” in that article, Ridley? Just gives me more reason to call you an arrogant and ignorant bastard. I suspect that I wont be getting an apology from you for your rudeness.
Peter, what you convey in all your comments is exceptional motivation and interest in misrepresenting selected research papers just as often as you can.
Try considering your nonsense political beliefs. You go on about some speculated “one world government” and this defies logic, the evidence, and reality.
Try understanding a little more about the societal, agricultural, health, and generally political implications of climate change, in addition to the facts of the science.
Of course you are right to have concerns about the U.N. COP15 was an opportunity for the world’s people and governments to work together on an effective international plan, but it didn’t happen. I didn’t expect it to happen, since the U.N. does not offer the relevant framework. Instead, there are and will continue to be community-based adaptations, unilateral emissions reductions and mitigation strategies, new directions for business, ongoing development of international commitments to relief for climate victims, and evolving goals for international efforts.
Best
arco, in all of the comments that you have made about changing global climates I have never encountered anything that suggested you had any scientific expertise in the subject.. Using a false name does not prevent you from doing so if you have any. In saying QUOTE: .. I know that one of my steps is about 1 meter, and can thus measure a 50 meter line with limited accuracy. There’s uncertainty. But does it really matter whether it is 50 meters, is 55 or 45 meters enough to already get a very good idea? That’s what’s going on with many areas of climate science .. UNQUOTE implies a much greater understanding of climate processes and drivers than scientists seem to have.
Professor Barry Brooks of Adelaide University implied even greater understanding (95%) when criticizing Professor Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth ..” (Note 1) and saying QUOTE: .. Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem .. UNQUOTE. You, like Brook, are trying to persuade others that there is a high level of understanding when in fact, as Brook acknowledges in that same paragraph that QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers UNQUOTE .
I tried repeatedly to get Brook to explain what he had said in that paragraph, which to me was probably the most significant comment in the whole article. He never did expand on it. Please see the article for the context, as Brook became irritated about me quoting from it (see his comment on 23 June 2009 at 5.02
As one comment on that thread points out QUOTE: It is also important to understand that even if a climate model handled 95% of the processes in the climate system perfectly, this does not mean the model will be 95% accurate in its predictions. All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error. UNQUOTE. the models upon which the UN’s IPCC is so dependent for its projections of global climate catastrophe are based upon poorly understood science hence cannot be relied upon by politicians making significant policy decisions about a risk which cannot be properly quantified.
On the issue of preferential fractionation you claim that academics QUOTE: .. Huber et al provide measurements .. UNQUOTE but happily overlook the fact that practitioners in the energy industry routinely refine mine gas etc. using systems based upon CO2 (and CH4) having smaller sizes than other gases like O2 and N2. This appears to me as a somewhat biased view of the evidence.
Ian, thanks for spending a little time digging out that paper which mentions clathrates. Do you see the words “650,000–800,000 years” there? Do you see the word “firn” there? Here is another paper for you “Fractionation of gases in polar ice during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air ..” (Note 2) by Severinghaus and Battle that mentions “firn” 204 times, “bubbles” 59 times, “air clathrates” once and “hydrates” nonce. Perhaps you’d like to try again but please stop throwing insults. It does nothing to move the debate along and merely suggest that you really do not have a proper scientific understanding of the issue.
Martha, I’ll try to make time to respond to your comment but the boss is calling me to do some more work on the house.
NOTES:
1) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
2) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete, I’ve yet to see any evidence you understand much of climate science, or science in general, considering the way you keep on pointing to “uncertainty” without quantifying that uncertainty or argumenting why those uncertainties are supposedly so crucial to the theory, and why you only look at one-sided uncertainties.
Also explain why the most contemporary data points of CO2 in ice cores reflect the atmospheric measurements of the same dates, if fractionation is such a big issue. Also explain why other CO2 proxies fit with the measurements in ice cores if fractionation is such a big issue. Face it, Pete, you can’t use fractionation as an issue to proclaim the ice core CO2 record is unreliable, as you don’t have any evidence, and the (arguably indirect) evidence strongly suggests there is no appreciable fractionation.
I also note that you decided to neglect my explanation as to why CO2 increase is most assuredly not due to ocean outgassing, something that you no so long ago were touting on Chris’ blog. You also tried to cast doubt on the Mauna Loa CO2 record, and despite thanking people for the links never admitted you were wrong. All evidence of what I said before: you simply do not accept rebuttals if they do not fit with your pre-determined outcome.
Wrong again Ridley. After reading your lies and rubbish I contacted two researchers who are intimately involved in ice core research. I won’t release their names since you will only stalk them and harass them.
Scientists #1:
Scientist #2
I go by my knowledge of science and by contacting people who know about these things. You cut and past nonsense from scientists who are either dishonest or do not know what they are talking about. e.g Glassman G&T, Sissons etc.
I’m still waiting on an apology but I won’t be holding my breathe over it since people like you never admit you are wrong even when shown repeatedly that you are.
You are pathetic.
Sorry, I misses out the “M” in Marco
Peter, there is no need to take the time to respond to me because I’m just not interested in any further interaction with you.
The internet can provide information to anyone who might be interested in considering your claims about conspiracy theories, along with your past work in the oil and mining industry, your brief academic career, more recent employment, concerns about your public behaviour, and details of your location. Very sad.
If you continue to stalk people, police can be contacted.
Frankly you are your own undoing.
Martha, anyone who feels that he or she is being stalked on the Internet should consider the advice that the BBC published in an article on the subject in Feb 2005 (Note 1) QUOTE:
What to do
1. Take action
Whilst all agencies agree that victims should never react to or communicate with the stalker, ignoring the harassment will not necessarily cause the stalker to stop.
The sooner action is taken, be it police caution or warning, solicitors letter or arrest, the more chance it has of stopping. Research has shown that those stalkers who are allowed to carry on are less likely to stop easily.
2. Contact the police
Contact the local police as soon as possible. ..
3. Do not respond
On no account should you agree to meet with your stalker or communicate with them in any way .. may weaken any prosecution case against your stalker simply because you have co-operated with them.
4. Inform
Make friends, neighbours and colleagues aware of what is happening. ..
5. Improve personal safety
Carry a mobile phone with you as well as a personal attack alarm – it will help you feel more comfortable when you go out. ..
6. Record
Record any incident you feel is suspicious .. UNQUOTE.
For residents in Canada there is a useful guide available from the Department of Justice “CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: A HANDBOOK FOR POLICE AND CROWN PROSECUTORS” (Note 2) QUOTE: Advice to Give to Victims for Safe Internet Use:
* Be careful about posting personal or private information.
* Check the harassment policies of your Internet Service Provider (ISP).
* Do not use your full name for your user ID, and change your password often.
* Report harassing e-mail or chat room abuse to your ISP. If you know the ISP of the person, tell that ISP too. They can cut off the person’s account if it is being used to harass others. Ask about tools to block unwanted communication.
* Do a Web search on cyberstalking. You will find many sites with tips and information. Some can help track down harassers, document their origin and send reports to you or the police UNQUOTE.
That first piece of advice is very important because individuals who voluntarily put personal information on the Internet (unless covered by copyright?) knowingly make it available in the public domain for recovery and use by anyone. It is well understood by anyone so doing that such information can be researched very easily using tools like Google, Ask, etc. Anyone reporting an allegaton of stalking in such circumstances should be aware that they could well be committing a misdemeanor (apparently “public mischief” in Canada – Note 3).
NOTES:
1) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series7/stalking_advice.shtml
2) see http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/part1.html
3) see http://www.findlegaladvice.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/Making-a-false-accusation-to-the-police-351903.htm
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Marco (and Ian), I forgot to mention in my earlier comment that there is a 2009 paper “Instruments and Methods A high-precision method for measurement of paleoatmospheric CO2 in small polar ice samples” by AHN, BROOK and HOWELL (Note 1) which says QUOTE: .. how climate and the carbon cycle are linked is only partly understood. .. UNQUOTE.
NOTES:
1) see http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/pdf/A/ahn09jg.pdf
Pray tell us, Pete, what exactly is the magnitude of the uncertainty that Ahn et al wish to convey, and how would that uncertainty impact the AGW theory?
I’m sure you’ll all be eager to read yesterday’s Canada Free Press article “NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus” by John O’Sullivan (Note 1) that Mike Kaulbars almost certainly has seen. It start QUOTE: Shocking new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal.
Caught in the heat are NASA’s Dr. Judith Curry and a junk science equation by the space agency’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt creating disarray over a contentious Earth energy graph
The internal row was ignited by the release of a sensational new research paper discrediting calculations crucial to the greenhouse gas theory UNQUOTE then ends with QUOTE: NASA Sued in Court by CEI for Hiding Data
In truth, the passing of time is showing that NASA has stooped to break the law to stop anyone seeing what their “full surface energy balance equation” is-if it exists. We know this because the space agency has defied all such Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for several years. The ongoing scandal has been dubbed NASA-Gate.
CEI is now taking NASA to court for refusing to permit independent auditors the chance to assess the reliability of both government-funded science as well as the validity of current U.S. Administration’s expensive green energy policies.
At a minimum, NASA-gate raises serious questions about competency and the integrity of certain government space agency employees.
Dr. Curry’s final words: “I’m contacting NASA about this.” UNQUOTE.
So we have another “gate” to add to that ever-increasing list of IPCC-gates – mine now has 27.
Marco, for someone who pretends to have superior knowledge about cimate processes and driver you are surprisingly reluctant to try to refute what Dr. Glassman says on his own thread. Hiding from debate with someone who is prepared to publish his argument suggests a significant degree of uncertainty about your own position. Actions speak louder than words. I am preparing a comment based upon recent correspondence between Dr. John Nicol and Roger Taguchi, both of whom arrived at similar conclusions about the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentrations using different original approaches to it. Anyone not familiar with Dr. Nicol’s paper can find more details in “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” which was first published last March on The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition website (Note 2) but has been updated slightly since (Note 3).
NOTES:
1) see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800
2) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
3) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/p/sundry-papers.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You again mention Glassman. Marco has explained why he will not go there. Did you not understand?
You need to explain something to us. It involves no claims about the science itself.
If Glassman’s articles are correct, then they are a complete demolition of everything supporting AGW. Why, then, have they not been adopted by every “sceptic” to the exclusion of every other claim? Why hold, e.g., the Heartland conferences when Glassman is all that’s needed? Why do the “sceptic” blogs waste their time on anything else?
When did Curry join NASA? AFAIK she’s still at Georgia Tech.
And hasn’t she been trying to build bridges between the mainstream and the “sceptics”?
Pete, as TS already mentioned I explained why I don’t go over to Glassman’s place. Of course, Glassman doesn’t even try to get his stuff published in the scientific literature, and thus clearly is uncertain about his argumentation as per your own line of argumentation. Somehow I’m sure I will see you not accepting your own line of argumentation when applied to Glassman’s ‘paper’.
Moreover, your link to Canadafreepress merely shows for the umptieth time how incredibly gullible you are whenever someone claims something that fits your ideologically desired outcome. This is stuff that does not even require a rebuttal, it’s so far fringe that it trumps the creationists’ claims in idiocy. You also put credibility on John Nicol and Roger Taguchi, none of whom have ever published anything in the field of climate science, nor have any certifiable expertise in the area. And somehow you make me an untrustworthy source because of what you perceive is the same authority as that of Taguchi and Nicol! Gee, example of hypocrisy number 2. You’re so transparent…sigh.
Finally, care to answer my question: “Pray tell us, Pete, what exactly is the magnitude of the uncertainty that Ahn et al wish to convey, and how would that uncertainty impact the AGW theory?”
I’ve just followed the “Canada Free Press’ link. The story is so rabidly dishonest and stupid it’s beyond parody. It involves Alan Siddons, surely one of the most incompetent clowns in the whole deniosphere.
I hope that Curry reconsiders her attitudes to “sceptics”.
I noticed the canadafreepress story is getting some cheers from the deniosphere. They are really acting like a lynchmob. Even more reasons to remain ‘anonymous’.
You’re right, it’s stupid. And courtesy of a troll who tries to be more credible by wasting everyone’s time on pointless rants.
Where are Miike and S2?. Ridley and poptart are posting lies in every sentence. This blog has got to be corrected before it becomes meaningless.
I don’t know. I’ve tried contacting Mike to tell him that the blog is currently not moderated but I’ve had no reply.
I’ll try some other avenues.
Ian, I’m so pleased that you didn’t mean it when you said QUOTE: Good bye and good riddance UNQUOTE because I enjoy the rare occasions when you make a worthwhile contribution to the climate change debate in between your usual invective.Thanks for those interesting quoptations from Scientist 1 and 2 which confirm my own understanding.
It appears from their respnses to your questions that you made no mention of “firn” because neither do they. As I said before QUOTE: .. While you are at it perhaps you could also link to papers supporting your apparent understanding that clathrates form in the firn, which is the main part of the ice wherein I suspect that the differential fractionation due to molecular size .. might occur UNQUOTE. Perhaps you’d be kind enough to enquire of youre friendly scientists about the firn and preferential fractionation as the bubbles get smaller and smaller.If you didn’t understand what I was referring to in that comment please let me know and I’ll try to explain it to you, after all, we should all be helping each other better understand those horrendously complex sciences contributing to improving our poor understanding of climate processes and drivers.
What apology are you waiting for Ian? – you lost me there.
I interpret your QUOTE: This blog has got to be corrected before it becomes meaningless UNQUOTE as being “gag those who dare to reject the faith” which also appears to be what Truesceptic would like.
Martha, you have the drop on me with your QUOTE: ,, past work in the .. mining industry, your brief academic career, .. UNQUOTE. As far as I can remember I never worked in the mining industry or had an academic career. I must find out who this Pete Ridley is by doing a few Googles – oh, I see, perhaps you jumped to a wrong conclusion after reading the 28th November comment by Jason BSc. At http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/the_real_reason_ill_fight_in_the_senate_on_climate_change.
Marco, while trying to find why Martha thinks that I worked in the mining industry I happened across another person who reported problems when accessing Dr. Glassman’s thread. It’s such a coincidence that it was none other than Alan Siddons on April 19 @12:37 on that thread I’ve been trying to persuade you to submit your challenges on. Are you using Internet Explorer? I’m using Firefox and haven’t had much trouble accessing, although it has been a little slow to download everything and on a couple of occasions did freeze.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, I’m trying once again:
what exactly is the magnitude of the uncertainty that Ahn et al wish to convey, and how would that uncertainty impact the AGW theory?
I’m sure that you’ll all be keen to watch these enlightening A/Vs that have just been passed to me by Australia’s Climate Sceptics Party.
Dick Lindzen:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/International_Climate_Change_Conference_2010/Richard_Lindzen%3A_Stop_Abusing_Climate_Science/3589/
Christopher Monckton:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/International_Climate_Change_Conference_2010/Lord_Monckton%3A_Hockey_Sticks%2C_Shabby_Science_%26_The_Great_Climate_Scare/3607/
Roy Spencer:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/International_Climate_Change_Conference_2010/The_Great_Global_Warming_Blunder%3A_Roy_Spencer_on_the_True_Role_of_Clouds_in_the_Climate_Debate/3595/
Jay Lear:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/International_Climate_Change_Conference_2010/Global_Warming_is_Not_a_Crisis/3594/
Pat Michaels: http://pjtv.com/v/3584
Enjoy, Pete Ridley
Dick Lindzen: caught cooking the books, extreme cherry picking exposed. Cheers from the deniosphere and no climate ‘auditor’ calling him out. The peer-reviewed literature has, of course…
Christopher Monckton: shown wrong, dishonest, lying on just about everything dealing with climate science and himself. Cheers from the deniosphere and no climate ‘auditor’ calling him out. Doesn’t publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature, but just about any paper in there contradicts his claims.
Roy Spencer: can’t get much right (Roy, the seasonal cycle is STILL present in your dear UAH MSU analysis), puts the strangest of analyses on his website which shows he just doesn’t get it. Cheers from the deniosphere and no climate ‘auditor’ calling him out. The peer-reviewed literature has, of course…
Jay Lehr: who? Ah yes, the director of the thinktank with no discernable expertise in the area of climate science (ah well, doesn’t stop Monckton). Cheers from the deniosphere and no climate ‘auditor’ calling him out. Reality sets him straight, of course, but since most deniers don’t live in reality…
Pat Michaels: caught lying about Hansen, confused radians with degrees (sorry, that actually was his co-author Ross McKittrick), hasn’t done much science that withstood scrunity. Cheers from the deniosphere and no climate ‘auditor’ calling him out. The peer-reviewed literature has, of course…
While one perceived mistake of Mike Mann results in a multi-year witch-hunt, none of the above have come even close to the same scrutiny, despite having been shown, in some cases, to deliberately lying and distorting, and in other cases making beginner mistakes. What is it with that blatant hypocrisy of the deniosphere?
It makes me uneasy that Peter does not know who he is and does not remember that he used to be an industrial engineer cEng. On the other hand, at least he recognizes that a political rant on ICECAP is not an academic career. Bravo.
Even if he is really not Peter Ridley, or he is some other Peter Ridley, perhaps even a Pierre Ridley, the point is that the Peter who posts here is evidently just a stalker, in the psychological sense.
Of course it is perfectly legal to gather information, post on the internet, and all that. Obviously the issue is how actions, over time, show a pattern of abuse.
Stalking is an obsessional pattern of behaviour that Peter (Pierre?) does seem to be showing, here, and on many other forums and message boards by the sounds of it.
He is excessively nice when first interacting, but then refuses to take ‘no’ from anybody. He loves being the centre of attention. When he is not pestering and tiring everyone, he is seeking out the private addresses and phone numbers of individuals and posting this information to open forums, in little fits of vengeance. He tries to pretend that others are being threatening, apparently to deflect attention from his own behaviour.
All not good and he needs to stop.
Hi all, here’s another Canda Free Press article “NASA Gagging Policy: Climate Scientist Quit over Controversy” by John O’Sullivan that I’m sure you will love to read (see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23845).
Here are a few of the interesting bits QUOTE: In a bad week for NASA, evidence shows the beleaguered space agency gagged its climate scientists. But the policy is starting to back fire as ex-employee speaks out.
Confirmation of the gagging policy comes from ex-NASA high-flier, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who upset his former employers with the 2007 publication of his paper, ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres,’ in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service. Miskolczi claims his illustriously-funded government employers tried to silence him to preserve public credibility in its policy on global warming. The noble doctor refused to be gagged and out of scientific principle chose to quit and speak out. ..
James Hansen was chastised by his employer for daring to suggest any such gag was in force. Hansen has been a prominent and public climate doomsayer ever since. ..
Pointedly, unlike Miskolczi, Hansen didn’t resign from his well-paid post. Yet, unlike Miskolczi, his petulant outburst garnered much pro-green media interest. ..
Now free from the shackles of NASA censorship, Dr. Miskolczi is finally coming to the fore as a serious critic of the theory behind man-made global warming. He is gaining note for proving that the Earth has an in-built ‘safety mechanism’ that prevents runaway global warming from greenhouse gases. ..
More recently, science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas theory as a plausible explanation of the mechanism of Earth’s climate.
This is not what NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) want the public to hear as President Obama’s Democrat administration struggles to force through swinging cap and trade taxes in the backdrop of an already over-stretched U.S. economy UNQUOTE.
John really has his teeth into this one. He’s like a pit bull terrier.
Martha, not much in that rant that moved forward the debate about catastrophic global climate change, eh. One thing that you have clearly demonstrated is your inability to do your own thorough research on a subject and come to a reasoned conclusion. I’d be happy to debate stalking further with you sometime but I, like many many scientists, am too busy at the moment trying to improve my understanding of those almost chaotic climate processes and drivers.
Marco, I may get back to you on Ahn and uncertainty if you have been unable to find out for yourself but I’m too busy at the moment with ice cores, Taguchi, Nicol, etc. Keep trying for yourself, or othwers here may be able to help you out. Try Ian.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, John’s indeed been busy following crackpots.
And YOU were the one who invoked the supposed uncertainty of Ahn et al. Therefore, YOU should explain why it is relevant.
But as expected, you are too busy with following crackpots. You don’t even notice the blatant contradiction of citing Miskolczi and referring to Heinz Thieme. Hint: they can’t both be right. If one is, the other is a crank, and vice versa. And then there’s the option both are wrong…(which notably is by far the most likely option).
Keep waddling in self-delusion, Pete! You’re lucky to be so old you won’t have to explain your disinformation campaign in, say, 20 years.
Martha, sorry but I forgot to mention that I have never been an “industrial engineer” although I was always very industrious. Perhaps you meant that I was a cCartered Electrical Engineer working in industry. Try using Google to find out what an Industrial Engineer does.
Best regars, Pete Ridley
Ridley,
Answer my question.
“I [peter ridley] was a cCartered Electrical Engineer working in industry”
Correct. Almost.
Guys, I’m not sure there is any such thing as a ‘ccartered’ electrical engineer.
Anyway, now he is just someone obsessively stalking the internet.
Be careful about any further interaction with him. His sense of self-importance is extreme and he clearly struggles with personal limit-setting and judgement.
The private information he posted on this forum, about someone else, needs to be removed.
Was that Ridley, Poptart, or both? I know that PT did.
I’ve tried to contact Greenfyre without success.
Martha (and Truesceptic), I’d appreciate it if you could find the time to explain how information voluntarily put into the public domain by an individual and accessible via a search on the Internet can be considered to be “private”. I don’t consider anything that I have voluntarily put into the public domain to be private. For example anyone can Google “Peter Ridley” and “CEng” or “AMEC” or “EMC” or “CIPO” and find information about me which they are welcome to use as please as long as they avoid slander or libel. None of it is “private” because I allowed it to be placed in the public domain.
BTW, I do appologise for my catastrophic mistake in mis-spelling “Chartered”. Perhaps you can also help pick up on any grammatical errors. The problem was that my Word application has just stopped highlighting these as I type. Now I’m having to run them afterwards – such a nuisance. Maybe one of you experts can give me some advice on how to restore it. At the same time I seem to have lost my English (American) dictionary. My instinct tells me that it happened after accessing Dr. Glassman’s thread – maybe he’s pretending to be a “denier” but really only sending out viruses to infect our computers and stop us posting the truth.
(Cancel that. I’ve just found that selecting the “correct” English language – United Kingdom – has restored my spell/grammar checker to normal operation. Yup, I should have typed “Chartered” because cCartered is underlined in red – isn’t modern technology wonderful).
Marco (and Treusceptic) I don’t QUOTE: .. should explain .. UNQUOTE (or QUOTE .. need to explain .. UNQUOTE) anything to anyone here or on any other blog. I choose what I “need” or “should” do, not you.
Truesceptic, your QUOTE: Answer my question .. UNQUOTE could be understood to be a “demand” so be careful or you’ll have Marco and Ian complaining. You commented on the Canada Free Press article “NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus” by John O’Sullivan about Judith Curry’s employment. John advises QUOTE: As agreed between us, Dr. Curry had a copy of my draft article prior to publication that she approved. Below is a helpful post-publication clarification just received from her (June 3, 2010). I hope that clears up any confusion. “Hi John re your article. Note, I am not a NASA employee; i am a member of the NASA Advisory Board for Earth Science. ” All the best, John UNQUOTE. Even Dr. Curry herself had missed it – well done you.
Marco, you hide behind a false name then find an excuse to shy away from engaging Dr. Glassman in debate –you’re not a coward are you? You say that QUOTE: John’s indeed been busy following crackpots. .. UNQUOTE and for once I’m inclined to agree with you. John has shown a keen interest in people like Schmidt (Note 1), Hansen (Note 2/3), Kerry/Lieberman (Note 3), Jones (Note 4) and those at the EPA (Note 5). As John says QUOTE: .. My investigations are targeted within law rather than science-that’s my background. Thus far we have seen only 16 legal challenges against the EPA’s ‘arbitrary and capricious’ determination that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’- utter madness! The EPA’s case just won’t hold water upon legal review; and not a hope in hell once the Democrats lose their political hold. This Fall the voters’ ax will come down to the chagrin of the greens and out will go the self-serving scientists, their political paymasters and climate lobby lackeys. But above all else we’ll see the end of that economically suicidal Lieberman Bill. I’ll be there to comment on the strength of cases for criminal prosecutions which will follow. Much to look forward too! .. UNQUOTE.
Just to keep you happy but at the expense of other matters that I am addressing I’ve spent a small amount of my time trying to understand the significance of your response to my quotation from the Ahn et al. paper. This was QUOTE: Introduction .. how climate and the carbon cycle are linked is only partly understood UNQUOTE. You appear to be interested in the few ppm uncertainty about CO2 measurements for ice that is 90–20k years old and the fact that Ahn et al. are QUOTE: .. not clear whether this uncertainty is due to the physical properties of the ice or due to alteration during coring .. UNQUOTE. I’m not concerned about the few ppm uncertainty in the measurement of CO2 concentration in air from ancient ice, which was the subject of the Ahn et al. research. I do not see that they were addressing AGW but maybe I missed something that you spotted, in which case I’d appreciate you pointing it out to me. My concern is how closely those measurements represent the original atmospheric CO2 concentrations in ancient times. Is it the Gold Standard that Professor Alley claims?. Do you understand the difference? My main concern is about what happens to the individual gases in that ancient atmosphere once “trapped” first within the snow then in the firn prior to “complete” close-off to all gases (ignoring fractures/faults within the “solid” ice). The 2004 paper “Model calculations of the age of firn air across the Antarctic continent” by Kaspers et al. (Note 6) suggests that for the Antarctic this takes up to around 100 years.
Although I have come across some interesting papers about the physical details of the structure of the ice, including “Ice and Pore Structure Investigations on the Micro-scale” by Freitag et al. but none talk about sizes down to the sub-micron level so would appreciate any links to relevant papers.
Ian, you may be interested in reading that paper at Note 6 as it talks about the preference for analysing air from the firn rather than from that trapped in bubbles (but makes no mention of clathrates or hydrates).
NOTES:
1) see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5810
2) see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23845
3) see http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
4) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/crus-climategate-finally-makes-the-news-in-norwich/
5) see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5688
6) see http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/1365/2004/acp-4-1365-2004.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Did I miss one of your “notes”? I’d like to see evidence that Judith Curry approved O’Sullivan’s Canada Free Post article. If that is not what you said, could you please make your comments more legible?
I see Pete Ridley is trying to obfuscate again.
Pete, you invoked Ahn et al as some kind of evidence there is “uncertainty”, without quantifying that uncertainty. It’s directly related to all your other attempts at obfuscation, where you shout “uncertainty”, and thus believe it puts doubt on the whole hypothesis. You’ll have to come with more reasoned arguments. And yes, that IS a demand.
It’s also quite telling you never reacted on the little inconvenient fact that John O’Sullivan so gladly refers to Thieme and Miskolczi, failing to notice that the two are diametrically opposed (Thieme: no greenhouse effect exists; Miskolczi: greenhouse effect does exist). That you believe Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones are crackpots shows again what I noted earlier: you follow only those opinions that fit your own ideologically-decided position, rather than following the facts.
Also note that Science of Doom has debunked the Greenhouse effect on the moon-‘paper’:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/
Funny comment on that thread (for those who are of a sane mind, that’ll exclude you, Pete):
“Do you really think Sidons et. al. are this dumb”
(the answer would be yes, but Steve’s too nice)
Finally, Glassman can come over here to discuss his nonsense about the carbon cycle and the atmospheric increase in CO2. He’s not a coward, is he, to hide on his own website where he can control the discussion?
Ridley, why do you keep digging deeper and deeper into the foul smelling sludge you find at the bottom of the denier barrel? You keep showing that you are more and dishonest, more and more arrogant and even stupider that you were just a few weeks ago.
Are you taking anything for this severe affliction? If so please double the dose and you may get closer to honesty and reality.
And so much digging! So much time is spent to so little purpose.
Ian,
The problem is that personality disorder is very difficult to treat. Insight is unlikely. 😦
Truesceptic, no you didn’t miss a Note because I quoted from an E-mail from John which he gave me permission to do. What you read is what I said – obviously absolutely legibly0 BTW, don’t worry, my digging does have a purpose, just as did the leaking of the UEA CRU files.
Marco, once again you distort what I said. I quite clearly QUOTE: ..invoked Ahn et al as some kind of evidence ..UNQUOTE to show that Ahn et al. said QUOTE: .. how climate and the carbon cycle are linked is only partly understood. .. UNQUOTE (with a full stop at the end! Please try to avoid distorting what others say just to suit your own agenda.
Now, I really must get on with following up on Taguchi and Nicols’ latest E-mail as well as sending some further information to John O’Sullivan about NAS, NASA, the moon and Lionell Griffith which I found on Joanne Nova’s blog so I won’t be responding to your “demand”, at least not yet.
Lionell looks like an interesting fellow who claims to QUOTE: .. have developed instrumentation, process control, scientific, and engineering software for over 40 years .. UNQUOTE – e.g. see Notes 1 & 2). I must get Googling to find out more about him.
Ian, I see that you have reverted to type – what a shame, but I’ll keep hoping for more gems from you, at least about ice cores. Have you asked your friendly scientists about firn yet?
BTW, I still haven’t been able to find any peer reviewed papers by you, even in your own discipline of Biochemistry. I wonder if this is because your research is from within private industry rather than academia. Academics depend upon getting papers published in order to further their careers while those of us who work (or have worked) in industry publish papers mainly because of a belief that what is said is worth publishing. Otherwise we concentrate on doing something productive. The peer-reviewed papers of mine published in the journals of that highly respected learned society the IEE (NOTE 3) and the Brit IRE which merged with it in the 1970s were of that nature. I guess that yours are too. You must have published something or have a few patents (I couldn’t find any of those either). Please provide some links or titles so that I can take a look.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/08/data-splices.html
2) see http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/confused-you-might-be-a-psychologist/
3) see http://www.theiet.org/
NB: Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) was formed by the merging of the IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers) and the IIE (Institution of Incorporated Engineers) in 2006.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
More obfuscation from Pete Ridley. You invoked Ahn et al. I asked you why. You don’t explain why you referred to them. I wonder why?
Enjoy yourself at crackpot-plaza. Once again you’re running after someone who says the stuff you’d like to hear.
Peter probably has a personality disorder. He is a very difficult person to engage with and demands unending and constant attention from others. It is the nature of this sort of problem. Unfortunately, he gets into trouble on the internet, as a result.
Of course he could have a personality disorder and be right in many of his statements about the science.
However it is also well-documented that he only posts spam, lies and frauds.
As you have all shown, he either cannot pragmatically and critically evaluate the quality of sources of information or he doesn’t want to.
This site documents the overwhelming evidence of AGW accepted by the majority of the world’s climate scientists. By appealing to notoriously irrelevant, industry-funded and anti-science sources, and distorting the peer-reviewed science (Peter doesn’t ‘cite’ anything, that implies accuracy), he is a typical denier. He seems to think he is among the smart deniers — maybe event the smartest. Again, that is the nature of the disorder.
Of course, Peter and his merry group of equally dysfunctional men on the internet with the same personality issues could be correct in their rejection of AGW in addition to having no climate science qualifications, obvious vested interests, and unusual views about climate science that have no evidentiary basis in the relevant science, but what is the likelihood?
He is not debating for the sake of public discussion. He is very, very, obviously in it for the theatre that generates his self-importance, although he doesn’t recognize this. Insight is unlikely.
He maintains his role by having well-developed b.s. skills.
It is a waste of everyone’s time, once it is obvious what he is doing.
On top of everything else, his racism and sexism are blatant.
You have all been exceptionally patient and responsive regarding his questions and concerns, and it increases the knowledge base to see discussion of research details.
However, maybe he has used up enough of our valuable time.
There’s no rational discussion with these guys.
And just to offer some perspective on the relevance of gender and the role of patriarchy in the denialosphere, if a bunch of women made the same obviously false and irrational statements, with the same personal conceit, they would be laughed under the table.
cheers
M
Marco, I don’t see how I can be clearer than I have been about Ahn. I quoted a relevant statement and provided a link so that others could confirm it for themselves and read whatever else they chose to read. Let’s look at some definitions (Note 1) QUOTE:
Invoke ..
1. to call on (God, a god, a saint, the Muses, etc.) for blessing, help, inspiration, support, etc.
2. to resort to or put into use (a law, ruling, penalty, etc.) as pertinent: to invoke an article of the U.N. Charter
3. to call forth; cause
4. to summon (evil spirits) by incantation; conjure
5. to ask solemnly for; beg for; implore: to invoke aid
quote ..
1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from:
UNQUOTE.
Here’s another quote for you QUOTE: You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.
-Feynman, Richard P(hillips)
Explaining his feelings on quantum mechanics. In the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol.21. UNQUOTE.
I’m not invoking Richard Feynman, merly quoting him – do you understand the difference?
(As a matter of interest Roger Taguchi frequently quotes from Feynman, perhaps because he studied for a PhD under him – but don’t quote me on that).
NOTES:
1) see http://www.yourdictionary.com/invoke and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quote
2) see http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm_20.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete goes on and on and on with his obfuscation.
Why is Ahn et al’s statement “relevant” ? It most assuredly was not relevant to our discussion on CO2 in ice cores. It was not relevant to our discussion on Glassman’s failure to understand basic literature (and, in fact, basic logic) on the origin of CO2 increase in the atmosphere either.
You also may want to read Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming”. Many of the supposed ‘rebuttals’ of today have been used as the initial supposed ‘rebuttals’ when AGW was not yet generally accepted.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
It’s also quite telling that the vast majority of those active in trying to debunk AGW are old and/or retired scientists.
Oh, and could you please keep your story consistent? Elsewhere you claim Taguchi followed a PhD under John Polanyi.
“I quoted a relevant statement and provided a link “
Peter did no such thing. He never does.
But let’s just take this one example. Peter tries to imply that this Jinho Ahn et al research supports Peter’s denial of climate change. It most certainly does not.
In fact, that research supports AGW and focuses on detection of small C02 concentrations (higher resolution) via new instruments and methods. Saying we don’t know everything is not synonymous with saying we know nothing. This and related research from Ahn suggests that climate change will cause changes in ocean currents that will result in further increases in carbon dioxide which will add more greenhouse gas to a climate already abruptly warming due to human activity.
Peter can pretend he did not mean anything, but then, that would mean his comments are pointless. He loves to argue, so maybe he will argue that. I would not disagree.
Peter loves to slap ‘references’ onto his comments, to try to support his distortions and babblings. However the references do not say what he says they say; and he makes up false interpretations by quoting out of context. It is blatantly unethical.
He will also not follow any copyright policies for the J. of Glaciology, or anything else. Generally, data may not be reproduced in any other format than presented and you may not compile or create derivative works or misrepresent the data.
Peter’s behavior is unintelligent, unethical and anti-science. It should not be necessary to point this out since it is so obvious.
But Peter makes himself very clear: he cannot understand anything that he is told, he does not want to reference research competently or ethically, and he will argue just about anything. Endlessly.
He changes nothing about the facts.
Marco (and Martha), let me try to help you to understand the relevance of that clause from the Ahn et al. paper (which itself – the paper that is – was incidental to Ian’s misunderstanding about air from ice cores). That QUOTE: .. how climate and the carbon cycle are linked is only partly understood. .. UNQUOTE is totally relevant to previous exchanges with Ian and other zealots supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Note that word climate in both the quote and in The Hypothesis. Perhaps you’d also note the “significant” part of The Hypothesis.
Zealots like Al Gore, Peter Sinclair, Mark Lynas, Jonathan Porritt, Mike Kaulbars, etc. keep pushing out propaganda about humans driving the globe to climate catastrophe through using fossil fuels without there being convincing evidence of this. It is mere speculation arising from gazing into those “crystal ball” climate models.
Unwittingly you may have hit the nail on the head with your QUOTE: .. It’s also quite telling that the vast majority of those active in trying to debunk AGW are old and/or retired scientists UNQUOTE. Because they are retired they have experience of climate changes and weather extremes over many decades. Also, they have no vested interest like careers or research funding to influence their positions. Many supporters of The Hypothesis have only a few decades behind them, particularly the environmental activists.
As Vaclav Klaus wrote in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” QUOTE: Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives UNQUOTE. You may like to read his comments at the presentation of the Arabic version of his book (Note 1).
I see that Klaus (along with Professor David Bellamy and two others) endorsed the book “The past & Future of Climate – why the world is cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference” by geologist David Archibald (Note 2). I must get a copy, meanwhile I look at some of his papers/articles, including “Solar Cycle 24 … “ (Note 3) . Whilst “stalking” Archibald for any information that he had put into the public domain I came across a 2007 article “The Past and Future of Climate by David Archibald” on Warwick Hughes’s blog (Note 4) with some interesting links and comments. Have a read.
I see that Archibald appears on Inhofe’s “U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s list of more than 400 prominent scientists who question man’s impact on climate change” (Note 5) along with my heros Lindzen, Pielke Snr. Plimer, Singer, Soon, Spencer, Jaworowski, Gray, Glassman, Beck, Barrett. I must tell him to add Nicols or Taguchi.
“Stalking” Inhofe took me to a 17th May article “Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics .. Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research” (Note 6). That’s another interesting read. Can anyone tell me what is the status of the Kerry-Lieberman Bill? I understand that it may have stalled.
BTW, thanks for correcting me about who Roger studied under. As I quite clearly said “ .. but don’t quote me on that”, which was meant to indicae that I wasn’t sure of it.
Ian, have you had a response from your friendly scientists about the firn and about the likelihood of finding anyclathrates/hytdrates in it?
NOTES: Once again I’ve had to remove http://www. from my links in Notes 1-5 and http:// from 6.
1) see hrad.cz/en/president-of-the-cr/current-president-of-the-cr-vaclav-klaus/selected-speeches-and-interviews/123.shtml
2) see quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/scientists-got-it-wrong
3) see davidarchibald.info/papers/SolarCycle24.pdf
4) see warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=102
5) see businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
6) see epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Oh dear, Pete now shows who his heroes are. People like
1. The thoroughly discredited David Bellamy (who lied about the reason the BBC took him off the air, who let himself cite the false claims of Singer (oi, one of your other heroes!) about glaciers, and doesn’t want to use peer-reviewed literature anymore);
2. The also discredited Ian Plimer (who repeated the idiocy about Mauna Loa which Glassman also uses (oi, one of your other heroes!), but also keeps on claiming, against all evidence, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans;
3. Willie Soon, who let his name be used on a non-peer-reviewed article that fraudulously copied the PNAS layout, published a paper in the right-wing ideological Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, and distorted a large body of research in his 2003 Climate Research paper;
4. Jaworowski, who’s made a whole range of incorrect claims, distorts science, and lies by omission (as I’ve shown here also);
5. Ernst-Georg Beck, who’s been shown to not understand the work by Keeling, who made a whole range of false claims about the same Keeling, and simply wrote a book that is so filled with poor understanding it is not surprising he got his nonsense published in Energy & Environment. Quite the prominent scientist indeed!
Pete Ridley just LOVES these people, his heroes!
And, and Pete, the good thing about being retired is that you can say anything you want, including outright falsehoods. Nobody can fire you anymore. We see the examples on your list. People who distort science to the extreme, have no problems with making up things, and lie whenever it fits their agenda. It’s no surprise Pete Ridley runs after these people.
Regarding your quote of Ahn et al: you still don’t explain WHY this remark is in any way relevant.
Regarding your use of the quote from Havel: your mixing up the science (which predicts major problems) and solutions that some people have proposed.
Regarding your reference to David Archibald:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/
Gee, another distorter. No surprise Pete Ridley likes him so much.
It really is no use to teach you anything. You simply won’t accept anything, as evidenced by the cranks you consider your heroes. I would thus recommend Ian uses his time (and that of his friends) for people who are able to see the difference between ideologically driven opinions (most of Pete’s heroes), and actual science.
Marco you have made various incorrect statements,
1. David J. Bellamy, B.Sc., Ph.D., C.Biol., FIBiol., Former Special Professor of Botany, Special Professor of Geography, Nottingham University, President of the National Association of Environmental Education, UK
has published recently in a peer-reviewed journal,
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Proceedings of the ICE – Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
– David Bellamy, Jack Barrett
2. Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
has made it quite clear that there are no measurements for undersea volcanoes just guesses.
3. Willie H. Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
It is a lie that the paper in question “fraudulently” copied the PNAS layout (which is not a crime) as it explicitly said “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” and “The Marshall Institute” not PNAS. This claim was thoroughly refuted by Dr. Robinson,
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p869.htm
“Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. ‘I used the Proceedings as a model.’ he says, ‘but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal.”
“The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and “January 1998” printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made – probably because I actually expected more.”
Further refutation,
http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1834.htm
“The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.
The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz – past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the “enviro warmers” has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy.”
Finally the paper was eventually peer-reviewed and published,
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson
The updated paper, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” was published in American Physicians and Surgeons for ease of distribution.
Dr. Soon has published in various peer-reviewed Journals including: Climate Research, Ecological Complexity, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters, Interfaces, New Astronomy, Progress in Physical Geography, Physical Geography, International Journal of Forecasting and The Astrophysical Journal on climate change.
Dr. Soon did not distort a large body of research in his 2003 paper and the “criticisms” were rebutted,
Comment on “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth”
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 44, pp. 473-476, November 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates
Click to access Nov4-SoonetalMannetalEos.pdf
Actually some of the proxy records that Mann attempted to “criticize” Dr. Soon for he used himself in his own discredited papers.
4. Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Former Research Scientist, Norwegian Polar Research Institute, Professor, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
claims have been peer-reviewed and published,
Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
5. Ernst-Georg Beck, B.A. M.A. Biology, Germany
the criticism of Beck’s paper was published by E&E as well as Beck’s response,
Comment on “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” by ernst-georg beck (DOC)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 635-646, September 2007)
– Harro A.J. Meijer, Ralph F. Keeling
http://www.wasserplanet.becsoft.de/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc
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
Click to access author_reply9-2.pdf
Marco, it would seem you like to distort the truth.
1. Bellamy has indeed published in a peer-reviewed journal (a journal with no reported history of publishing anything related to climate), which made his remark that he would no longer use peer-reviewed science extra funny.
Of course, you (and Bellamy) fail to rebut the fact he lied about the BBC and was fooled by Singer’s ‘mistake’ about glaciers.
2. Ah, and that then allows a scientist to make the claim, based on ignorance(!), that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans? A few more problems with Plimer’s statements: it does not fit the observations (13C, oxygen decline), neglects the CO2 uptake mechanisms of mid-oceanic ridges (where most of the undersea volcanoes are located, and where measurements HAVE been made), and neglects the slow mixing of the deep ocean with the upper ocean. Of course, you (and Plimer) fail to rebut the nonsense Plimer said about Mauna Loa.
3. Soon indeed used some proxies used by others. He also used plenty others clearly indicated where very poor temperature proxies, and more “dry vs wet” proxies. That he got it published is all thanks to Chris de Freitas, another known distorter of science. And whatever Robinson claims, no one is in doubt the layout of the OISM paper was aimed at mimicking the PNAS layout (regardless of the small difference). The fact so many NAS members called the NAS offices is quite telling.
That Soon used the JAPS for “ease of distribution” is a really odd remark. Easy distribution by publishing in a well-known crackpot journal?? It’s an admission of failure to publish in that journal!
4. While Jaworowski’s claims have been peer-reviewed, they have also shown to be wrong and misguided. He got his comments published (note: they were not based on original research, just like Soon’s 1999 Climate Research paper was not), was shown wrong, but still makes the same claims without any evidence.
5. The rebuttal by Beck does not rebut any of the main criticisms by Meijer and Keeling (Jr), which focus
a) on the unproven and malicious claim by Beck that Keeling (Sr) deliberately neglected inconveniently high CO2 measurements.
In reality, Keeling explained this in detail and pointed to the poorly mixed ground layers, and Beck goes back to using poorly mixed ground layers as measurements!
b) on the resulting conclusion to be drawn from Beck’s analysis: a major up and down of CO2 on very short time-scales without providing even a remotely plausible explanation for those huge changes in CO2 flux.
Beck’s response? “I do not need to explain this”. Highly unscientific!
Meijer and Keeling kept it short, as there are many more aspects to be criticised. For example, Beck refers to a diurnal cycle and links it to photosynthesis (Fig. 7). However, it can’t be due to photosynthesis, as CO2 levels are already going down to base levels 2 hours before dawn(!).
Poptech, you are clearly in no position to judge the validity of the clearly unscientific claims by Jaworowski, Soon, and Beck.
1. Actually they have published a few papers relating to climate change,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=climate&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=%22Proceedings+of+the+ICE+-+Civil+Engineering%22&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=39&hl=en
His remark was in reference to certain popular journals he had published in before.
2. I suggest you contact Dr. Plimer, instead of making assumptions about his position.
3. Yes Dr. Soon used rainfall records just like Mann did. Double standard?
Dr. Soon’s findings were later confirmed in a reappraisal.
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates
Click to access Energy+EnvironmentSoonetal2003.pdf
FYI Chris De Freitas was sending the papers in question to more than the journals regular number of reviewers and did not just publish a paper without review or in disregard to the reviewers comments.
Yes Dr. Robinson said he used the PNAS layout as a starting template but in no way attempted anywhere to claim it was from the PNAS. You have no evidence of any number of calls and any who did should not be reading scientific journals if they cannot even do basic things like read the heading of the paper which does not mention any PNAS publication. What you are claiming is incompetence by the scientists making the bogus claim.
They used JAPS for ease of distribution for the first ICCC conference without copyright issues. It was the equivalent of a conference paper and the ICCC does not have a formal conference journal. There is nothing crackpot about it, it is an independent medical journal.
4. Yet you do not see any formal replies addressing his full papers.
5. People can read both and make up their own minds.
Marco you are in no position to speak about issues you are not informed about.
Oh dear Marco, you are so so gullible. You rise to the bait every time. It has been fun playing with you guys and galls but I must go elsewhere to spread the truth.
Ian, I see that you’ve run away with your tail between your legs (like the springers when you tell them off) over your misconception about the reconstruction of past atmospheric composition from air “trapped” in ice cores..
Andrew (Poptech), welcome back. I fully agree with your QUOTE: Marco, it would seem you like to distort the truth. UNQUOTE.
As a final (for the moment?) gesture of good will towards you all and in the spirit of enlightenment let me quote from one of my special heroes, Roger Taguchi, who is currently exhanging E-mails with several interested parties (including another hero, John Nicol) in response to my request for help on the issue of molecular size. When talking about various models of the structure of the atom Roger reminds us that QUOTE: … we can see the difference between models and reality. There is only one reality out there. But human beings (like Bohr and Sommerfeld) can make up different models, which are only approximations to this reality. The more accurate models (like Sommerfeld’s) are closer to this reality, but at the cost of more brainbusting effort and complexity. Theoreticians must therefore always be aware of any strengths and weaknesses in different models, and must certainly be wary of ignorantly stating that “the science is settled”, as if we had just achieved a logical proof in Euclidean geometry. UNQUOTE. As I mentioned yesterday, the models used to project global climates in 2100 are merely crystal balls.
Roger concludes this lesson with QUOTE: My next email Physics seminar will be on Molecular Spectroscopy. It might help the reader to understand the spectra used in the science of global warming, and how very few competent molecular spectroscopists seem to have worked on the IPCC report. UNQUOTE.
Now I must get back to reading Roger and John’s E-mail Physics Seminars because I’m learning nothing about the science from debating here, just as I learned nothing from my previous visit to this blog over a year ago (Note 1). Dr. Nicol’s 16th September 2008 article “Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured” (Note 2) was the subject of debate there. Mike Kaulbars jumped in with his usual non-scientific propaganda then shot off when challenged but I found his blog 6 months later. It’s odd that he hasn’t commented here at all either. That is just the approach adopted by that other alarmist environmentalist Mark Lynas. I challenged him numerous times over the distortions and deliberate omissions in his propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. but he preferred to refuse debate and simply push more propaganda out all over the media.
BTW, I notice that some Mike#22 wasn’t challenged by anyone here over his “stalking” of Andrew. Could it be that we have a biased group of contributors here?
I notice that Truesceptic, Martha and Ian were contributors to that thread also but not you Marco. I suppose that you came here more recently because it does not discuss the science, just pushes the propaganda, like yourself.
After all, I only came to this thread on 7th May 27 to talk with Ian again. Ian, I’ll catch up with you on some other blog. I’m sure that I’ll be able to find you easily enough with Google.
NOTES:
1) see https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/
2) se http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/dangerous-human-caused-warming-can-neither-be-demonstrated-nor-measured/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
As usual, Pete is wrong. You should stop supposing, Pete. So far you’ve been wrong about just about everything. People with a functional brain would take note of that observation. but not the ideologically blinded, such as Pete Ridley.
Let me also point out that a quote from Roger Taguchi is not a gesture of good will, but a gesture of showing you are gullible. No need to do that, Pete, we already know…
Ridley said:
Seems you know nothing about dogs as well as nothing about science. When I correct my dogs, they do not “run away” they sit in front of me, look a little sheepish with a look that says “golly, we made a mistake, we’ll do better next time.” That is called learning, some thing you refuse, or are incapable of doing.
You are pathetic.
Same from Peter gets same.
Peter makes himself very clear: he cannot understand anything that he is told, he does not want to reference research competently or ethically, and he will argue just about anything. Endlessly.
It continues to change nothing about the facts.
But his stalking-type behaviour is troubling.
And he remains clueless that his fraudulent postings and distortions of research, and constant violation of copyright, could actually result in civil or criminal suits because his behaviours are so excessive.
This conduct makes him unemployable, if he wanted to return to work.
What a sad end to a man’s work life.
Well, it would be sad if he was not so extremely conceited. It is hard to care about Peter. Yet Marco and Ian and others have tried respond, and to call him on his problem behaviours, but he will not listen to them. I had hoped he would at least listen to other men, because sometimes men can help one another.
He used to be an engineer? I wonder what ideas he has to help, say, BP right now.
Or he could just spend time with his family.
Life is short.
Having been made aware of PopTech’s alleged list of 750 papers supporting AGW, a quick analysis over a few hours today has reduced the list down to less than 200 via:
– removal of duplicate entries
– removal of the Pielkes’ entries (as suggested)
– removal of E&E papers (c 100+)
– removal of other non scientific peer reviewed papers
– removal of comments, replies, responses etc all non peer reviewed papers
– removal of papers responding to (unscientific) popular and contemporary events
– removal of all papers over 20 years old.
The list is confused, repetitive, full of duplicates and difficult to quantify. It certainly has no data management techniques applied to it. he disagrees with the authors of papers as to their conclusions.
In addition, there is no configuration control on the list – so what we read today is not the same as tomorrow and not the same as yesterday. A wholly unscientific approach.
On Guardian CiF, Poptech has already admitted one trade journal being listed (though the paper was peer reviewed he claims – no evidence supplied) and a shift of one paper to the rebutals section – hence spotting the lack of configuration control.
I’m going through the remaining papers that were published in proper ISI journals and will produce the analysis for them in the next month.
All the best.
There are no duplicate entries on the list. I have repeatedly asked to provide one duplicate paper and you refuse to do so yet keep repeating this misinformation.
Dr. Pielke Jr. never suggested any papers be removed. He merely inquired that his papers do not refute AGW and if that is what the list is about then they do not belong. It was explained to him in his blog that the list also includes papers that support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming and this is why his were listed of which he accepted.
All E&E papers are peer-reviewed as noted irrefutably at the bottom of the list via EBSCO and Scopus.
There are no non-scientific peer-reviewed papers to remove.
As explicitly stated, Commentes, replies and responses were never counted – “Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.” If they were the paper count would be +50 papers.
The list is not just of natural science papers but also social science papers relating to policy thus the “economic effects of “man-made” global warming.
The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius’s 1886 paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. There are over 200 papers published since 2007 on the list.
You keep incorrectly stating that the list is full of duplicate papers yet fail to provide any evidence for this misinformation.
It is explicitly stated that “This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.” It is a constantly evolving resource that will be added to.
As stated above corrections will be made to the list.
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
Looking forward to your analysis, Kingin Yellow. Of course, poptech has been shifting goalposts already many a times, so expect another move.
Marco
Looking forward to your analysis, Kingin Yellow. Of course, poptech has been shifting goalposts already many a times, so expect another move.
The latest move is to claim their list has had more stringent peer review than Schneider’s PNAS paper !
Given the total lack of configuration control from someone claiming to be an ‘IT Consultant’ this is highly dubious.
All the best
PopTech now claims that its list is ‘peer reviewed’.
Yes, that’s right: Peer reviewed.
“The peer-review it has under gone online is much more stringent than the computer illiterates who reviewed this PNAS paper and failed to determine is they search for patents in Google Scholar.”
No process for this has been described, no evidence provided.
Meanwhile CM remains a mystery to it.
All the best.
The list has undergone almost non-stop peer-review since it was released. A few formatting errors were corrected and one listing removed. The list will continue to be updated and corrected as necessary.
There are no duplicate entries on the list. I have repeatedly asked to provide one duplicate paper and you refuse to do so yet keep repeating this misinformation.
Dr. Pielke Jr. never suggested any papers be removed. He merely inquired that his papers do not refute AGW and if that is what the list is about then they do not belong. It was explained to him in his blog that the list also includes papers that support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming and this is why his were listed of which he accepted.
All E&E papers are peer-reviewed as noted irrefutably at the bottom of the list via EBSCO and Scopus.
There are no non-scientific peer-reviewed papers to remove.
As explicitly stated, Commentes, replies and responses were never counted – “Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.” If they were the paper count would be +50 papers.
The list is not just of natural science papers but also social science papers relating to policy thus the “economic effects of “man-made” global warming.
The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius’s 1886 paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. There are over 200 papers published since 2007 on the list.
You keep incorrectly stating that the list is full of duplicate papers yet fail to provide any evidence for this misinformation.
It is explicitly stated that “This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.” It is a constantly evolving resource that will be added to.
As stated above corrections will be made to the list.
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
Peer review suggests you have people with comparable expertise in a certain research review the paper. There’s loads of evidence that E&E fails miserably in that area. Textbook errors (cf Loehle and his reconstruction), and their self-admitted most heavily reviewed paper (by Ernst-Georg Beck), repeating long-debunked nonsense, are just two examples of E&E’s failure.
Oh, and did you count Eschenbach’s Nature ‘article’? If so, yet another on the list of your failure to do proper quality control.
E&E follows standard academic peer-review practice and sends papers out for review to relevant scientists, thus climate papers are reviewed by climate scientists ect…
Eschenbach’s Nature article was peer-reviewed.
E&E follows standard practice for academic journal peer-review and submits papers to appropriate reviewers.
There is no evidence of this. E&E is uses standard academic journal peer-review practices. Loehle has since issued a corrections, corrections are standard procedure in scientific literature and not uncommon. Beck’s paper while controversial was extensively reviewed and since E&E has published a comment by keeling with a reply from Beck. Controversial papers are published in other journals as well.
Eschenbach’s article was peer-reviewed.
No surprise my response is censored by the moderators.
—-
There are no duplicate entries on the list. I have repeatedly asked to provide one duplicate paper and you refuse to do so yet keep repeating this misinformation.
Dr. Pielke Jr. never suggested any papers be removed. He merely inquired that his papers do not refute AGW and if that is what the list is about then they do not belong. It was explained to him in his blog that the list also includes papers that support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming and this is why his were listed of which he accepted.
All E&E papers are peer-reviewed as noted irrefutably at the bottom of the list via EBSCO and Scopus.
There are no non-scientific peer-reviewed papers to remove.
As explicitly stated, Commentes, replies and responses were never counted – “Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.” If they were the paper count would be +50 papers.
The list is not just of natural science papers but also social science papers relating to policy thus the “economic effects of “man-made” global warming.
The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius’s 1886 paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. There are over 200 papers published since 2007 on the list.
You keep incorrectly stating that the list is full of duplicate papers yet fail to provide any evidence for this misinformation.
It is explicitly stated that “This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.” It is a constantly evolving resource that will be added to.
As stated above corrections will be made to the list.
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
Ok, let’s have a look at one earlier in your list:
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (PDF)
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, Number 8, pp. 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe et al.
This also does not undermine AGW. All it states is that CO2 alone could not have caused the warming observed. Ok, so why do i say this ?
Later papers point the finger at methane clathrates contributing to the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming, much as other papers point the finger at the possibility of methane clathrates being a positive feedback mechanism of AGW. Less than 5 minutes effort found the papers online.
So, unless the AGW theory rests solely on CO2, the paper referenced in your list does not udnermine AGW. Quelle surprise, positive feedbacks, and methane as a greenhouse gas is a well established part of the AGW theory.
Next:
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
So, another regional study shows greater climatic variation and concludes: “This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.”
As has been consistantly pointed out, AGW will not result in universal and monotonic warming.
I’m not going to clog up any comments area with any more analysis – I’ll publish this elsewhere.
If you can explain why these two additional papers undermine AGW theory or evidence, then let us know why.
All the best.
After skipping 33 papers you get to,
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (PDF)
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, Number 8, pp. 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe et al.
This paper clearly supports skepticism of the “effects of” man-made global warming, in this case CO2 climate sensitivity since up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing. The paper explicitly mentions that other forcings would have to account for the discrepency,
“If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then …forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming.”
Skeptics support solar as the other forcing.
You then skip another 28 papers to,
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
In the words of the authors, “on average, climate stations in the Upper Indus Basin show a reduction in mean summer temperature of 1.2°C over the period 1961-2000.” In addition, they add that Archer and Fowler (2004) determined that “climate stations in the Karakoram show consistent positive trends in winter precipitation, averaging a 7% increase per decade for the period since 1961.”
I do not recall a reduction in summer mean temperature and an increase in winter precipitation as supporting AGW theory.
The moderators are still censoring my replies
After skipping 33 papers you get to,
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (PDF)
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, Number 8, pp. 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe et al.
This paper clearly supports skepticism of the “effects of” man-made global warming, in this case CO2 climate sensitivity since up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing. The paper explicitly mentions that other forcings would have to account for the discrepency,
“If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then …forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming.”
Skeptics support solar as the other forcing.
You then skip another 28 papers to,
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
In the words of the authors, “on average, climate stations in the Upper Indus Basin show a reduction in mean summer temperature of 1.2°C over the period 1961-2000.” In addition, they add that Archer and Fowler (2004) determined that “climate stations in the Karakoram show consistent positive trends in winter precipitation, averaging a 7% increase per decade for the period since 1961.”
I do not recall a reduction in summer mean temperature and an increase in winter precipitation as supporting AGW theory.
Are you deliberately being obtuse Poptech?
Upper Indus Basin != the whole world. Seriously: the last sentence of the abstract is even ‘This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.’
Your list was crap, still is crap.
Strawman as AGW can be regional. Yes I am well aware of the opinion of the paper’s author at the end that does not mean that their research in the paper cannot be used to support other conclusions.
The list is devastating to true believers which is why so many people are wasting so much energy on it.
So what exactly, then, is your contention for Fowler and Archer?
Your list purpotedly lists papers that ‘support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW’.
This paper does nothing of the sort. You’re misrepresenting the literature again – really, do you honestly expect that people won’t read the papers themselves?
Mendacious nonsense from you once more.
Of course it does, it supports skepticism of the environmental effects of AGW since this response is not what is expected.
If I did not expect people to read the papers I would not link directly to them and fully cite them.
That argument beggars belief. I’m left wondering how much scientific understanding you have: you’re utterly misinterpreting the paper. Regional variations in precipitation and temperatures do not undermine AGW.
Show me one climatologist who has claimed that the effects of global change are the same everywhere on the globe?
None has, none will.
Just think: you can now include all those papers that describe polar amplification, that describe hemispheric differences in warming! Quick, go add them to your list!
I am left wondering how much literacy you have as “undermining AGW” is not a criteria for inclusion on the list.
I am well aware of the arguments that no matter what happens to the climate, regional or global that it was caused by AGW.
This is again irrelevant.
“PT: Of course it does, it supports skepticism of the environmental effects of AGW since this response is not what is expected.”
Again, this is an example of the failure of your list. Without configuration control, using a baseline, you have not defined what AGW theory you are using to choose the papers for your list. Therefore, your list a subjective list.
Given that none of the papers come with any reasoning of why they are included it further degrades any minimal scientific value that might have been attributed to it.
For example, which IPCC scenario most closely resembles what you assume to be AGW ?
As you admit that there will be regional differences in the effect of AGW, why does the paper in question end up in your list and not others ?
What scientific reasoning lies behind your inclusion of the paper on your list ?
All the best, comments are done using Firefox.
The baseline is that the papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW.
I admit that some skeptics argue that AGW will be regional rather than global. This is not the position of the IPCC, this is the position of people like Dr. Pielke Sr.
It was included because it supports skepticism of the environmental effects of AGW since this response is not what is expected by GCMs.
No one cares your comments are done in Firefox BTW.
“Skeptics support solar as the other forcing.”
🙂
Poptech – ‘Dr. Pielke Jr. never suggested any papers be removed.’.
His parting comment on his blog, after stating that your ‘list doesn’t represent what they think it does’ is: ‘Andrew, I’d be interested in your definition of #1 [supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming] which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way.’
That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of your list, is it?
You go on to handwave, saying that ‘”man-made” global warming is a layman’s term (slang if you will) for recent climate change being solely caused by humans’.
Why hello thar, Mr Strawman.
He never stated my list is not what I think it is, he explicitly said that if the list supports “hypothesis 1” (Natural causes dominate the climate) his papers would not belong on the list. I have explained his papers are on the list because they support skepticism of the economic or environmental effects of AGW not for rejecting it.
Pielke’s criticism has nothing to do endorsing the list or not but with only using scientific terminology. The problem is my list is also meant to be read by laymen who do not know what AGW means.
I have since further explained the term,
“Roger, “man-made” global warming is a layman’s term (slang if you will) for recent climate change being solely caused by humans. I made no attempt to imply it was a scientific term. I am surprised you have never heard the term used before and disagree that it is not meaningful.”
While I agree it is not a scientific term, it is meaningful and well used. Google comes up with over 22 million hits for the term.
That is no hand waving, that is stating the obvious.
PT: “Roger, “man-made” global warming is a layman’s term (slang if you will) for recent climate change being solely caused by humans”
No it’s not!
Natural focings are always included, with a significant forcing being manmade greenhouse gases taking the change in climate beyond what natural forcings alone would do without industrial input into the system, plus the relevant feedbacks.
That’s what AGW is, and that applies in layman’s terms, too.
The list fails on that basis alone.
Oh please,
“man-made” global warming is a layman’s term (slang if you will) for recent climate change being caused by humans”
AGW is not a layman’s term – “man-made” global warming is thus that is why is was used and continue to.
The list does not fail in anyway.
‘The list does not fail in anyway.’
Is that why it’s ridiculed over all the blogs you insist on spamming it on?
‘Beck’s paper while controversial was extensively reviewed’
This illustrates, in a nutshell, the complete inadequacy of paper selection at E&E. Beck’s paper wasn’t controversial: it was unmitigated crap. His thesis was that atmospheric CO2 fluctuated wildly before the advent of accurate spectroscopic measurements, which would have involved teratons of magical carbon flux over mere decades. But suddenly, as measuring techniques improved, we settled to the standard Keeling curve. Remarkable.
The question is: would Beck also claim that the moon’s distance from the earth varied enormously in the historical era, before finally settling into its current spot precisely as laser rangefinding evolved?
Spectacularly stupid. It and other papers in E&E undermine any confidence in the journal whatsoever.
I’m reminded of a delightful comment by chek over at Deltoid:
‘I’m in danger of starting to feel sorry for Brent’n’Sunsplat, who just like Poptart and his “700 papers”, seem to be somehow self-condemned to the sisyphean task of pushing a mountain of pigshit up the hill with a teaspoon every day, only to have it collapse all over them every night and then have to start all over again at the beginning the next day.’
I have not spammed it anywhere, it is frequently referenced by other people.
Yes alarmists state various misinformation about it in a desperate attempt to hope no one looks at it.
The energy that some of your waste on it only proves how much of a threat your feel it is. If it was a waste of time you would not waste vast amounts of energy on it.
Beck’s paper was peer-reviewed, Keeling commented on it and Beck replied. People are more then capable of reading it all and coming to there own conclusions.
Beck’s background is in biology which has nothing to do with astrophysics so your analogy is illogical.
Nothing about any paper undermines anything about any other paper in E&E or the journal itself.
The comment you quoted implies that I have failed at defending the list, which I have never done. At best some moderators have deleted my responses or closed the thread. But it is nothing like the juvenile comment suggests.
As anyone can clearly see I have corrected all the misinformation Greenfyre stated about the list some time ago.
Beck’s background is in biology, yet he commented about (analytical) chemistry. And then taking astrophysics examples in is “illogical”? I find *that* to be illogical.
Note that this biologist, Beck, linked a diurnal CO2 pattern to respiration and photosynthesis (his figure 8). Tiny problem: the photosynthesis process would have to start 2 hours before sunrise to fit his curve…tells you how ‘good’ a biologist Ernst-Georg Beck really is.
Even several ‘skeptics’ are dismissing Beck’s analysis as crap (for example Hans Erren and Ferdinand Engelbeen), while Willis Eschenbach finally seems to get something right in this field, too.
Biology majors take quite a bit of chemistry courses. Regardless Beck is more than capable of defending himself. If you have a comment on the paper why not submit it?
‘Beck’s paper was peer-reviewed’
Such desperate defence of Energy and Environment. Retired biology teacher (he’s called a scientist too often) Beck’s argument was fundamentally and fatally flawed.
Beck proposed natural CO2 changes in the order of 130 ppm over a decade. Where did this CO2 come from? Where did it go? Why isn’t it found in ice core records? Why did these spikes suddenly and curiously disappear with the advent of modern spectroscopic techniques?
Hmm, a mystery fit for a child of 10!
I’m still astonished that this paper got published. And it’s not alone in its lunacy. So much for ‘peer review’ at Energy and Environment.
Astonished? Why? It *is* E&E, and therefore *not* a surprise it got published there. It fits the narrative of the social sciences journal E&E.
It has the same reputation as the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons: submit something that fits the political ideology of the journal, and your chances to get it published skyrocket.
See for some examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1543-4826)
– EBSCO lists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
Your statement does not contradict anything I stated.
You are aware of the “Sokal affair”? A “peer reviewed” journal published a made-up article, simply because it fit its ideological narrative.
It’s peer review by potty peers. It’s like asking confirmed communists to review a text that is critical of capitalism, or vice versa.
You have nothing to support your allegations.
Other than a range of examples of publications in the JAPS that are clearly ideologically coloured, and the association itself pointing to its ideology in its mission statement.
Oh well, those pesky facts.
Again more subjective nonsense.
It is not desperate but factual, the paper was peer-reviewed. His scientific qualifications are adequate,
Ernst-Georg Beck, B.A. Biology, M.A. Biology (biochemistry, plant physiology, microbiology and macromolecular chemistry), Teacher of Biology and Chemistry, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany
Where have your comments on his paper been published?
Is scientific honesty unimportant to you Poptech?
It seems you’re unfamiliar with scientific publishing. Writing any paper demands a lot of time, and some papers are so terrible they don’t need rebuttals. Beck’s is one of these, and obviously so. That you’re even attempting to defend it is hilarious. You do appreciate its fatal flaw, right? The flaw that a child of 10 could understand?
What you’re demanding is the equivalent of a paper to refute the argument that the world is flat. No thanks. I have more faith in the rest of the scientific community – and rightly so. Beck’s paper is cited only by the ignorant, the stupid, and the denialists.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive terms.
Like I thought you have not published any comments about this paper. When you do let me know.
Beck is not arguing the world is flat so your comment is illogical. The rest is unsubstantiated ad hominem.
While Nelthon already pointed you to a common scientific practice, let me clairfy it a bit more:
There are many papers in the scientific literature that are in many ways bad. Sometimes very obviously so, sometimes less obviously so. Generally the “obviously wrong” papers are ignored. They may get some self-citations, and the occasional citation in which someone points to it being incorrect (without being a direct comment on the paper). The “less obviously wrong” papers get a comment thrown at them more often, but still not that often. More common is a reference in a paper pointing to its flaws, without being a direct comment.
Beck’s study is a repetition of arguments that were already debunked over half a century ago. A sad state of affairs for a paper that supposedly was the most scrutinised paper of everything ever published in E&E.
This is all unsubstantiated opinion.
Indeed, all you say is unsubstantiated opinion. You clearly lack any basis to be commenting on science and scientific publishing.
Nope, what I say is factual.
To the contrary: I hope that many, many people look at your list and evaluate it sceptically. They can also judge your responses to criticisms of it.
“Nelthon
Just think: you can now include all those papers that describe polar amplification, that describe hemispheric differences in warming! Quick, go add them to your list!”
I can think of one good example of regional cooling, that has had scientific papers confirming it is caused by AGW, and that it was to be expected by scientific theory. Needless to say, I won’t elaborate further because it’d end up on the subjective wish list (see also L7’s list).
All the best, comments get posted using Firefox.
Your list is an abject lesson in cognitive bias.
Not at all.
“PT: I admit that some skeptics argue that AGW will be regional rather than global. This is not the position of the IPCC, ”
As usual, demonstrably wrong. For example and to quote from the IPCC:
“There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice.
Examples of some projected impacts for different regions are given in Table SPM.2.”
These show differentiated changes by region due to AGW quoted by the IPCC.
Now explain, why that does not support the IPCC supporting regional changes due to AGW.
Further quotes available upon demand.
All the best, comments are made using Firefox.
Please show me where the IPCC supports regional decreases in temperature.
“PT – Please show me where the IPCC supports regional decreases in temperature.”
When directly challenged, you shift issues. Uou fail to answer the issue that the IPCC correctly identifies regional differences in the respons to AGW which removes most of the papers from your unscientific shabby list. Your poorly controlled list has no objective baseline.
As a result you can’t and won’t explain your list scientifically.
And yes, the IPCC does explain how AGW could and has caused cooling. BTW, are all glaciers meant to expand according to the IPCC ?
All the best, comments are made using Firefox.
When directly challenged you ignore issues I simply clarify my position.
Now please provide one duplicate entry on the list liar.
Then Please show me where the IPCC supports regional decreases in temperature.
The list has been explained multiple times, you just ignore it and repeat lies.
Lets just say that again:
“And yes, the IPCC does explain how AGW could and has caused cooling. ”
Anyone who has managed to wade past the evidence of differences in regional response to AGW will be able to find the evidence, in the IPCC reports available on the internet.
Further, more recent scientific pper reviewed papers provide additional evidence for regional cooling and the scientific rationale for why this is consistent with AGW.
So, again we are left with a list of papers/articles that suffer from:
– poor formating
– lacking configuration control;
– including duplicates;
– subjective inclusion;
– subjective interpretation;
– non peer reviewed;
– using unscientific definitions;
– and an unscientific baseline.
All the best, comments are made using Firefox.
– The list is formatted and it is not poor,
Formatting: All papers are cited as: “Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors”. All “Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted Papers” are preceded by a ” – ” and italicized. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological.
– Configuration control is irrelevant.
– There are no duplicate papers on the list, please stop repeating this lie.
– Any interpretation is subjective.
– The list has been extensively peer-reviewed online and continues to be.
– No unscientific definitions have been used for actual scienctific terms. “Man-Made”Global Warming is used for the layman.
PT: “- The list has been extensively peer-reviewed online and continues to be.”
By who? The local plumber and his mates? Will they be publishing further research in Nature?
PT,
Just repeating your own opinions on something you created yourself won’t impress anyone except those entirely lacking any sceptical faculty.
You might at least tell us who’s “peer reviewed” your list and what they said.
That goes for everyone commenting here.
PT,
Can you actually read English and parse simple sentences? I asked you to support your claim of your list being “peer-reviewed”. My question applies to your list and your claims about it; it does not apply to anyone else here.
My comment was to your first sentence.
The list is and will continue to undergo an online peer-review process and many minor issues have been identified and corrected. I have received constructive criticism from other list creators and scientists.
Yes people more qualified than you.
Why is this despicable rent-a-troll allowed to post his insults, lies and nastiness on this blog?
PT was put under moderation when he posted someone’s personal contact details here.
If someone is banned, they will simply claim “censorship”.
This thread set out to critically examine PT’s list. Wouldn’t it be unfair to prevent him defending it? We can all make up our own minds on the quality of his comments, and that applies to visitors too.
If anyone is a bit puzzled by Marco’s ‘Firefox’ remarks, by the way, have a look at PopTech: Firefox.
Sorry, that’s King In Yellow, not Marco.
TS said:
That is exactly why I think he is a rent-a-troll, he gets paid by his sugardaddies for every post he makes. I’ll leave it to the reader as to who his sugardaddies are.
Yes. It is (transparently) what it is.
I must have missed the part where spam is a meaningful form of ‘free speech’. 😉
I get paid by no one (wish I did as it would make dealing with all this misinformation worth while) despite your lies.
“Qualified” as in “suffering from the same ideological bias as I do”, poptech?
You still list Zeebe et al. It makes it clear that there either is higher climate sensitivity or additional positive feedbacks. You call that “skeptical” of AGW. I call it “skeptical” of the mainstream as in suggesting more catastrophic temperature rises.
What Zeebe er al demonstrates is the up to 85% of the warming during that time cannot be explained by CO2, thus if you make up feedbacks to explain it you have to add those feedbacks to todays temps and the current temps are trending lower than the models with the existing feedbacks already built into them. I understand it is impossible for an alarmist to think something other than CO2 can cause climate change but this is just another example of where the theory falls apart.
Good grief, you are stupid. Zeebe et al studied processes over THOUSANDS of years. Plenty of time for feedback processes that we don’t know yet to kick in. Moreover, the earth looked considerably different then, meaning that the feedback that currently likely is 3 degrees per doubling may well have been different at that time.
But I can see now how you work: anything that can be spun, however crazily, into something that could be considered “skeptical”, *is* spun that way.
Lame. So you’ll be consulting the plumber if you think you have cancer? Tell us how the diagnosis would go. Let’s face it, if you searched hard enough there’ll be a plumber out there, somewhere… and you’d be a moron for taking any notice.
If I need a plumber (I don’t) I will call you otherwise for these sort of scientific based questions I will ask the experts.
Poptart’s screams of ‘ad hominem’ are ridiculous to anyone who actually understands the term.
Of course the whole ‘ad hom’ thing is a pretty recent invention and many of us in philosophy would say it isn’t an argument, at all; but since deniers seem to like to scream it out as often and as loudly as possible, they must believe they are saying something clever and important, probably just because it is latin-sounding.
They aren’t.
In logical terms, the strongest version of an ‘ad hom’ amounts to saying that even if someone is insincere (a liar) or untrustworthy (ignorant about the science) that is no reason to assume the person will have, for example, a wrong opinion about, say, climate change.
Many people understand that it is not an error in reasoning to refuse to put too much value on the opinions of someone who is shown to be a liar and ignorant.
On the contrary, it is a sound probably inference.
Hint for deniers: if you are trying to look good, don’t use using latin-sounding names for arguments you don’t undersand, to exaggerate your knowledge of logic.
cheers
Obviously you do not understand the term based so please don’t comment on something you do not understand.
I agree as I would not put too much value in your opinion, thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, dear. Let me help poptart further, since he is still struggling.
In logical terms, an ad hominem argument (‘attack’) refers to rejecting someone’s opinion on the basis that the person is insincere or untrustworthy. The rejection can also be based on the claim that the person is inconsistent. If poptart has some other understanding of this term, he is mistaken.
The strongest logical defense against an ad hominem argument is that even if someone is insincere (a liar) or untrustworthy (ignorant) they could have a right opinion.
This is the weakness of an ad hominem argument.
Of course just telling someone they are lying or stupid is not an ‘ad hom’. It is not a synonym for ‘personal attack’. Something is only an ‘ad hom’, or ad hominem argument, when the personal attack forms the basis for rejecting the person’s opinion.
It is a technical point in logic, but frankly, not a particularly sophisticated one. I don’t know why he can’t follow it.
But here’s the thing: even though an ad hom is a weak form of argument, it is not entirely without merit.
You see, when someone is shown to be a liar and ignorant, it is actually reasonable (in logical terms, a ‘sound probable inference’) to refuse to put too much value on their opinions.
Rejecting poptart’s opinions on the basis of his demonstrated lies and ignorance is not an error in reasoning. On the contrary, it is a reasonable thing to do.
Naturally the repetitiveness of his spam is also very tiring and of zero interest to anyone seriously interested in the issues.
cheers
Lets see what the dictionary says,
“A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument.”
And that is how the term is commonly understood by all those who are not Marduh the dishonest liar.
“A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument”
Correct – although you would do even better to get your definition from an online philosophy source rather than a legal source. Lawyers learn logical form from analytical philosophy.
You may not be understanding that ‘argument’ is used as a technical term, and does not refer to you saying something, then someone else says something, etc. It refers to a set of propositions and a conclusion that follows from the premises. It is, in the definition you yourself provide, used in this logical sense.
I explained to you the structure or logical form of this type of argument. It is typically considered a fallacious argument (which is an argument that has an error in reasoning) however I explained why it can be applied as a sound probable inference.
As long as you are choosing to be here, and you do not realize that you are struggling with the faculty of reason, I will help you. 🙂
cheers
Marduh obviously has an obsession with me as she spends so much time coming after me. Let it go.
As above, as long as you are choosing to be here, and you do not realize that you are struggling with the faculty of reason, I will help you.
We all will. 🙂
PT
“What Zeebe er al demonstrates is the up to 85% of the warming during that time cannot be explained by CO2, thus if you make up feedbacks to explain it you have to add those feedbacks to todays temps and the current temps are trending lower than the models with the existing feedbacks already built into them. I understand it is impossible for an alarmist to think something other than CO2 can cause climate change but this is just another example of where the theory falls apart.”
No wonder you didn’t get the methane clathrate comment.
CO2 is not the only contributor to AGW. Methane is a far more potent GHG. Gasses, land use and many other elements all contribute to the AGW theory. This is expressly identified by the IPCC and scientists globally, for example to quote the IPCC:
“Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) …”
With such wilfully ignorant, simplistic mis-understanding no wonder you got to 750 misunderstood papers.
All the best.
Looks like in this age of austerity, over time has been ruled out.
All the best.
Ok, so with nearly half of the papwers analysed and sorted into groupings, does anyone have some spare space to spare for publication in the next month ?
TIA.
KIY, I strongly suggest you get signed up at Skeptical Science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/register.php
[…] […]
As Poptech agrees, to make the list a paper can qualify as follows:
1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).
2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/ and again http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/
5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).
7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
[…] […]
[…] of being on the list, but such a moron that he can’t understand a simple list. Got it. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…e-denier-lies/ Better Recheck That List UPDATE 11/11/11 By email, Professor Russell Dickerson, University of […]
[…] what the science says, right? Sort of like Jeffrey Skilling preaching about business ethics. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…e-denier-lies/ http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011…-is-misleading PT doesn't care what the scientists say […]