BPSDB
.
Just over a year ago I did two posts documenting at length that uber climate change Denier PopTech’s (aka PopTart) list of “skeptic” science was blithering nonsense of the worst kind:
.
Those who have any experience with PopTech are well aware that he never lets inconsequential trivia like facts or reality influence his beliefs, so you won’t be surprised that he kept adding to his Septic List and finally managed to double it “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm ” (simple math for PopTech, 2 times 0 is still 0).
Now Carbon Brief has had a look at the expanded list and brings us:
- Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil
- “Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers
Another earlier approach to PopTech’s list was that of SkepticalScience in “Meet The Denominator.” In this approach Honeycutt looked at the number of papers discussing climate change (850,000+) and compared it to PopTech’s (then) 850. After some adjustment he concluded that even if PopTech’s sample was valid (which it clearly is not) it represented a mere 0.45% of the literature on climate change.
This approach has to be understood with caution in that if there was even one solid paper that truly undermined climate change science (although that is well nigh impossible), it would still be more than enough. However, what this approach does demonstrate is that PopTech’s allegation that his list represents a significant body of the science is laughable.
In fact, given that PopTech is trolling the literature for anything that fits his perception despite being:
-
-
- not actually 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- out of date (no longer relevant), and/or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*
-
it is quite surprising that he has only found 900. Given those criteria 9,000 or 90,000 should easily be possible. (thanks to JM for the reminder)
Update: 28/4 See also “Anti-AGW papers debunked” for some of the papers on PopTart’s list.
Carbon Brief
The second Carbon Brief post documents in more detail the same sort of abuses as the earlier list, ie papers being irrelevant, known to be wrong, misrepresented etc. The first post shows how 90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists.
Carbon brief quite correctly notes that merely identifying the funding source for the Deniers is not evidence that they are wrong (that would be a circumstantial ad hominem), however:
- It does put the lie to the claim that “skepticism” is widespread among scientists, (a few dozen out of many millions), and
- given that the fraudulent nature of the list has already been documented (as before and as per 2nd post), it does perhaps explain why this tiny handful of people might be motivated to producing this nonsense. (see ExxonSecrets to map the individuals and their relationships)
For those who missed it, another update from some months back is that Energy and Environment, the magazine that published many of those alleged scientific papers, hinted at a libel suit against RealClimate (reported in The Guardian), but not really.
All I can say is that E&E’s original language “At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for …” is most definitely a threat of more significant action, but clearly RealClimate was wrong in assuming that they were referring to some sort of legal action. Perhaps they were implying beatings or taunting? who knows?
Be that as it may, that seems to be a dead issue now. As far as I can tell E&E has no intention of suing RealClimate OR of cleaning up their review standards.
Update: 20/4/11 DeSmogBlog has some background on the PR firm group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that is pushing this list. (Thanks to Daniel for the heads up)
IMAGE CREDITS:
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- 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.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
Greenfyre's 
There were lots of problems found with Poptech’s little list over at Skeptical Science – warning, there are about 800 comments there, many of them Poptech’s usual spamming, word-play and bizarre beliefs.
Prepare yourself for the same circular waste of time…unless you have a stricter policy against Denial BS !
—-
Andrew (aka Poptech) is nuts.. I mentioned him sounding like a loon on GWSH website in a comment on my own blog and out of nowhere he appeared to defend himself. The nuttiness peaked when I’d had enough of his crap and wrote a couple posts on him and his list – I can’t understand how others claim his list a powerful counter to the AGW theory (he claims not to, but clearly does) when, as you say, one paper could be enough to do the job were the case strong. It’s not a matter of numbers, but evidence. The papers he includes could be suggested to even contradict each other, were it assumed they were supposed to support each other.
The top 10 authors, when it was around 850 papers were;
Sherwood B. Idso 66
Patrick J. Michaels 28
Bruce A. Kimball 24
Richard S. Lindzen 22
Willie H. Soon 21
Indur M. Goklany 17
Ross McKitrick 17
John R. Christy 16
Sallie L. Baliunas 15
David H. Douglass 14
That tells the picture well enough. He’s even got a paper by Vaclav Smil who clearly doesn’t question the reality of AGW, but instead focuses on human activity.
I think wasting a little of my time on that bloke actually knocked my IQ down a few points – not unlike slamming your head into a brick wall!
—-
I was more or less making a point with that piece – Adam and Pete Ridley have both searched personal information about me and people that I know and have contacted them to discuss me. Both too have demonstrated unnecessary hate also. By Andrew threatening to give them a voice on his site to spread their personal views on me, it’s nothing more than amplifying quite sick behaviour. Not that these characters really bother me, but there are a number of unbalanced people raging over climate change out there and Pete’s delusions of the commies and hatred towards me is probably enough to set one of them off.
The whole stupidity is really out of hand.
I’ve begun my own list to do what he cannot; supply a mutually supportive group of genuine peer-reviewed lit that cover much of the evidence and why we are concerned. In the intro I explain why I have a problem with his list being used against the theory of AGW (as Adam has done) – it’s simply noise, not a sensible rebuttal.
====
Greenfyre let me know when you can answer the following questions, [1]
Prove that the list is dominated by scientists who actually receive money from fossil fuel companies. That has not been done here. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company unrelated to science that scientist is now “funded by the fossil fuel industry”. Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating direct fossil fuel company funding.
Then prove that the very few scientists on the list who have received minor direct donations from energy companies over the last 20 years have received enough energy company funding to sustain all their research over this time period (make sure to divide by 20).
Finally prove that a single skeptical scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation from anyone not just energy companies.
====
The rest of this nonsense if completely refuted, [2]
Rebuttal to “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil”
Rebuttal to “Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers
====
The Skeptical Science post is completely refuted. The only people who still reference it are computer illiterates, [3]
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
Greenfyre, please provide the 1001 result for any of Rob’s Google Scholar searches. Let me know when you get them. [4]
====
All of this will appear in my upcoming response to this article. So if you censor it, no problem. [5]
—-
PopTech showed up on DeSmogBlog in the comments in Don’t Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition.
desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition
I wish they had a better moderating policy as the noise sometimes outweighs the signal. However, a number of people commented to boost the signal (my own comments are probably more noise than signal–I need to learn to be succinct).
If the discussion is still going on, the links to the CarbonBrief should be posted, especially the one that points out the authors of some of the papers included on the list say their work says the opposite of what it is claimed it says, and that they’ve written several times to get their name and papers off that list but receive no response.
That sort of dishonesty by PopTech and the GWPF should convince rational people that the list of 900 is not reliable.
Because it is a lie, no scientist has ever emailed me about removing anything off the list.
—-
“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.”
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-6029
EBSCO still lists E&E as peer reviewed. I wonder why?
—-
PopTart (aka agwscam ) is spewing all over HuffPo now
Wrong again, agwscam is not me. I only post as Poptech.
—-
Typical behaviour of a troll – keep annoying until your meaningless comments wear away your welcome then more on and pretty much cut-and-paste the same crap at the next site.
All censored comments have been placed in my rebuttal to demonstrate your dishonesty.
—-
Poptech is on record claiming that articles on his infamous list are “peer reviewed” because they “can be” peer reviewed:
————————————–
Poptech: “[My list] is overwhelming evidence of a peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW or AGW Alarm”
Me: “Your joke of a list counts multiple ‘viewpoint’ – aka OpEd – articles authored by non-natural scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed?”
Poptech: “Because these can be and you have not demonstrated otherwise.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
That is a false and distorted context of what I stated. I simply stated that they “can be” – meaning commentary papers are peer-reviewed in certain journals. It was a general statement meant to challenged you to show that the ones on the list were not. As you were implying that they may not be. No claim has ever been made that a paper on the list was claimed to be peer-reviewed because it “can be”.
Your repeatedly distortion of the context of my statement is beyond dishonest and the desperate tactics alarmists such as yourself have resorted to. It is sad and pathetic.
—-
The devil is in the detail and your skill in distortion of facts is one for the record books.
If you wanted to solidify any credibility in your claims, I challenge you to do the actual foot work (seeing as it is you who has made such a mess that anyone with half a brain can see it utter crap, but for the sake of correction your misinformation has attempted short-handed demonstrations of the flimsiness of your list) and find out which of your papers are genuinely peer-reviewed.
Don’t just refer to the journal as being peer-reviewed (for not all articles in such papers are actually peer-reviewed) but FIND EVIDENCE that backs up that each paper in your list has not only been peer-reviewed, but stood up to the test of time within the wider scientific community.
I know for a fact that Monckton has nothing that has been peer-reviewed. I know for a fact that the peer-review process behind E&E has been corrupted in the past. I know for a fact that Michaels, Lindzen and Soon have been heavily criticised in the literature.
Until you back up your claims, you’ll forever be a joke. You don’t back up your claims because, just like us, you know well enough you’re list is bogus.
“That is a false and distorted context of what I stated.”
Excuse me? Who in here gave you permission to complain about being misrepresented?
“It was a general statement”
Yeah, that’s all your intelligence allows you to make. Putting the burden of proof on other people.
“As you were implying”
Implying, so they didn’t say it.
“Your repeatedly distortion …. is beyond dishonest and the desperate tactics …. sad and pathetic.”
You’re talking about yourself, right?
Me: “PopTech is on record claiming that articles on his infamous list are ‘peer reviewed’ because they ‘can be’ peer reviewed”
PopTech: “That is a false and distorted context of what I stated.”
Let me help you out with this again, PopTech, as you are evidently deeply reading comprehension impaired:
1: I asked you how you knew that articles ***on your list*** were peer reviewed. [1]
2: You responded “because” those articles on your list “can be” peer reviewed. [2]
HTH.
———————————————-
[1] Me: “Your joke of a list counts multiple ‘viewpoint’ – aka OpEd – articles authored by non-natural scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed?”
[2] Poptech: “Because these can be and you have not demonstrated otherwise.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
[…] […]
The sociological concept of social and political denial in the United States, repetitively/mindlessly operationalized by know-nothings like Poptart and served up to a fossil-fuel intensive society by McIdiot, Whatsthat and give me More(ano) of that Curry, has led the American public’s fear of climate so far.
Their ‘Big Man/Big Woman’ regression show will stop playing at the cinema once the broader public starts acting out, in response to being left directionless. Ironically, this plays to being managed on a crisis basis by government legislation and policymaking — and so it will be.
What a shame. In more functional societies all around the world, it doesn’t look like this. And a Poptart would not exist (as a climate illiterate troll or a sugar-filled breakfast replacement).
The price of freedom is that idiots are treated like experts
Harold Brooks has an interesting comment on John Nielsen-Gammon’s blog:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/05/the-tornado-loyalty-oath/#comment-1231
I quote:
“I’m on poptart’s list and the Heartland Institute’s list for a paper that says nothing about anything that anyone’s put into the peer-reviewed literature relevant to climate change. It’s the paper on adjusting property damage from historical tornadoes that shows that wealth adjustments is probably better than inflation adjustment and, using it, the most damaging tornadoes (~120 worst) haven’t changed much in frequency of occurrence. That’s mostly because they require really strong tornadoes hitting lots of value, typically either really nailing a moderate city (e.g., Joplin?) or a long track through the edge of a larger city (e.g., OKC 1999). The really, really big ones involve hitting a large area of high property values in a big city (e.g., St. Louis 1896 or 1927).”
Poptech gets a spanking!
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/
[…] […]