Just rubbernecking another car crash at WUWT (I won't link to it).
I thought I'd seen it all with the horrific "cone analyses" of arctic ice volume, but now Steven Goddard has posted that *no matter what happens to ice extent* over the next few years, NSIDC will report a continued downward trend.
This is because it would take a massive uptick in extent to reverse the 30-year trend with a single datapoint and therefore, the data, the trend and the maths are unfair or something. I'm guessing this is a preemptive face-saving exercise after the massive downturn in extent in the last month, since trumpeting a "recovery" so hard.
Watts' oh-so insightful comment:
> I note that this post makes Tamino mad. Look for a Romm Bomb next. When you spend most of your time reacting youâve lost the battle.
> ... Steven Goddard has posted that no matter what happens to ice extent over the next few years, NSIDC will report a continued downward trend.
> This is because it would take a massive uptick in extent to reverse the 30-year trend with a single datapoint and therefore, the data, the trend and the maths are unfair or something.
I almost feel sorry for these clowns sometimes. It's like they're tantalisingly close to reaching the most logical conclusion (that there is, in fact, a long-term downward trend in sea ice) but there is some kind of Doctor Who-style perception filter preventing them from achieving this. So instead, they come out with any old nonsense to try to rationalise it.
FYI, Poptech (he/she/it/they of the lists of anti-AGW scientific âpeer reviewedâ papers) is taking a bit of a pasting from KingInYellow over at The Guardian, in comments on the Spall PNAS consensus paper. Poptechâs trying his usual âassertive means rightâ method, but it's not even denting KIY.
Worth a look, as Poptech appears all over the place promoting his list, and KIYâs arguments may be of use.
Tim, "world's most polite and reasonable-sounding denialist" Lucia Liljegren has gone and wet her dog whistle but good. Check out her comments as well.
I think it's worth a post. The underlying incident itself is a hoot, and a Pajamas Media rep even shows up at Lucia's to try to do damage control.
Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?
Secondly re:7, Frank
Nice link, - Iâve lost count of the number of times a denier nutter has uttered something like â there is no evidence to support GW or AGWâ. I may be able to use your example â but one can never change the minds of these strange people.
..........
Now, I have a question. A denier has posted a link on a minor forum which claims that Judith Lean was the only IPCC reviewer asked to verify a solar paper â which was hers !!!!. Hereâs the link :-
I'm sorry but I've been lurking here for a couple of years. I'm pretty liberal, but Ezzthetic @5's comment about Anthony Watts glittering passage is disgusting. I can tolerate to an extent the egregious stupidity of the "science" at WTF, but "glittering passage"...come on there's kids in the room.
"Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?" Yes, and Yes. The latter at length on numerous occasions. I hadn't realised, unaccountably, that E&E seems to be one of the greatest of all peer-reviewed science journals.
Yes, yes, yes still, no. Apparently he's responsible for E&E getting upgraded to peer reviewed by SCOPUS. When it was pointed out that we can still discount anything prior to tha change the listing as a trade journal had been a SCOPUS mistake anyway. Hmmm...
Regarding our friend Anthony's visit to your fair shores, we note the coincidence (or is it?) of his visit and the demise of Kevin Rudd. We're surprised that you're all apparently so slow on the uptake...
Clippo, look at the AR4 review page and see what happened: Notwithstanding that the comment was obviously by a fan of Svensmark's pseudo-science, it was from a government rep. (Norway) so it got treated seriously. The review coordinators state that the material got additional review from four solar physicists, although it's not clear what changes got made, if any. FYI Lean is *very* respected in her field.
Does anybody know who the unidentified Norway government rep. was?
You utter git. I made the mistake of taking a quick look at the latest post at that site, and following some of the links. I've seen cranks of various kinds get basic physics wrong, but arithmetic?
Reading some of the above comments, I can't help recalling a comment I came across at WUWT recently which included the following in relation to the argument that "it hasn't warmed since 1998"
Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).
Now I readily confess that my knowledge of statistics is pretty rudimentary but to my layman's eye that appears to be an especially dumb argument. Of course such things are hardly rare, and I wouldn't mention it if it were not for the fact that I came across the same commenter in another forum a few days later and discovered who he actually is. So if someone could confirm that my judgement is correct (or otherwise) I'll reveal who it was.
I'll happily reassure you that there are more than "4 periods... and a bit" of 30-year intervals with which to analyse climate trends.
Of course, there are issues of autocorrelation and such, but these are well-recognised matters and are dealt with in trend analyses, as many reads of, say, Open Mind will show. Even simple techniques such as multi-year smoothings will help to some extent to deal with autocorrelation, and they certainly help to remove short-term noise from the underlying climatic signal. Heck, one can use intervals less than 30 years for such an approach, although the noise becomes more significant with decreasing spans of time.
Sticking to a 30-year interval though, one can certainly refer to more than "four and a bit" periods of climatic trend. The goof-ball to which you refer may beg to differ, but if he does he should wander here, or over to Tamino's, and explicitly state his case.
He will then be gifted with an education that will make his head spin.
Thanks for the reply - it confirms what I thought. And the person in question? Richard S Courtney - member of the editoral advisory board of Energy & Environment.
Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).
Well, let's see. Let's call each datapoint DP# (where # represents a sequentially increasing number) and list the years encompassing that datapoint:
The datapoints are overlapping, therefore there are about 100, not 4. This is what's called a running average. The trick - oops, can't use that word, can we - the idea (in part) is to make the time interval large enough to contain several cycles of any periodic events.
Andrew, it is an especially dumb argument, which is why no one takes Richard Courtney or Energy & Environment seriously, other than the denizens of WTFU, that is.
See Kevin Vicklun's reply for the proper way to use a 30 year running mean.
I see Dr Richard North (coauthor with Chris Booker and begetter of much of the 'research' that went into 'Amazongate') has laid down the gauntlet to George Monbiot, threatening a legal action for damage to his professional reputation.
I like a good fight, me. I guess he was unimpressed by such Moonbatisms as
"Richard North is our old friend Christopher Booker's long-term collaborator, and between them they are responsible for more misinformation than any other living journalists. You could write a book about the stories they have concocted, almost all of which fall apart on the briefest examination."
IANAL, but does this mean that North now has to locate a living journalist who has spread more misinformation than he and Booker? Maybe we can help? How about Stvn Gddrd ?
Yes, I know I shouldn't be surprised, but even so... For some reason I had never come across Courtney before and to see him brazenly and arrogantly championing E&E's intellectual rigour (as opposed to "popular science magazines" such as Science and Nature) when I'd seen him elsewhere use a line of argument which someone like me who had never taken a stats course in my life could see was utter nonsense, well chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe it.
>> Any comments? - after you stop laughing I assume.
>You utter git. I made the mistake of taking a quick look at the latest post at that site, and following some of the links. I've seen cranks of various kinds get basic physics wrong, but arithmetic?
Good grief! Well, if Nasif Nahle approves then it's definitely a load of bullcrap. I mean, what's with all the mini G&Ts running around? Thermodynamics isn't for children to play with.
I posted a comment there, it's in moderation. Just in case, here it is:
>This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the greenhouse effect is. The gases do not 'heat' the ground, since the ground is warmer than the radiating gases. However, the gases do indeed emit radiation, some of which is directed towards the ground, where it is absorbed. The ground doesn't know the source of each photon, so how could it choose not to absorb radiation emitted by gases (and clouds) in the atmosphere?
>This radiation, which has been observed even in the polar night (>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3525.1>) and reaches over 400W/m2 in the tropics (), contributes to the total radiation budget. Globally the surface still emits as much as it absorbs, balancing the surface energy budget.
So it is strange indeed that I defended Courtney here last year (or was it 2008?) when his (correct in my view) description of monthly temperature anomalies was attacked by regulars who should have known better.
I don't know where else to go with this, but it floored me when I read it just now. Over on WUWT, Anthony Watts is joking about how skeptics will have to wear yellow badges,
"I also quipped: 'Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?'. Thatâs a reference to the Yellow badges imposed on the Jewish population of WWII, to separate them from the rest of the populace. It is a sad footnote of history but not unlike the PNAS paperâs attempt to separate skeptics from the rest of the scientific community." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/badges-the-we-dont-need-no-stinki…
I popped over to the PhysicsWorld site to see an article there
Good article on the recent PNAS survey but I had no idea the joint was infested with denialists (the commentators that is, no worries with the poor journos copping this flak) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43002
(I googled a couple of the noisiest, OKM & Eaton, and it's not a one off - I thought that any mention of that PNAS article by science news sites may have been a target of the winged monkeys. But those 2 are no stranger to posting their subset of standard denier assertions on that site)
in a rather funny sequence of events, the day after Steven Goddard wrote a post, predicting the latests coast ice break up in Barrow, the ice vanished from the beach.
Watts once again outdoes himself in poor taste. 'Yellow badges'? If this were published in Germany, the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (the main Jewish association here in Germany) would fly off the handle. Nazi comparisons are being thrown around like they cost nothing these days...
Yes it is a really silly statement.
For a start, the 30 year thing is a 'window', you can move it along to any point. It is a statistical analysis that gives an indication of the minimum window that will show the trend through all the noise in the data.
Really it does in maths what people do with their eyes and brains when they look at a noisy graph (or at least intelligent people do).
Yeh! Looks like the Beeb still has not caught the difference between climate change and weather.
Following a couple of news items by David Shukmen wheeling out Benny Peiser as the skeptic, sorry denier expert I was curious how this Panorama would play out. Not quite so bad but still simplistic and to wheel out Lomborg is as bad as, if not worse than, using Peiser. And to allow a clip of Melanie Phillips was as daft. Phillips is well known for her lack of understanding of things scientific following her MMR rants. She must order vitriol by the tanker load, probably has it on stream at home.
Christy displays classic cognitive dissonance when he agrees that the greenhouse effect is real and that additional man induced CO2 is increasing warming and then display uncertainty about the fact that humans are responsible for most of the current increase in warming. I cannot make Christy out.
A recent paper on ocean acidification (Tans 2009) is "debunked" by the Idsos at CO2Science (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N26/EDIT.php). See how many major errors you can spot in their 4 paragraphs - I counted three.
One would think, wouldn't one, that if Richard Coutney were an enthusiast of intellectual rigour, and the noble search for the truth, that he would arrange for the many open letters and petitions that nominate him as Dr Richard S Courtney or Richard S Courtney PhD to be corrected.
Seeing as how he has never actually, you know, been awarded a Doctorate.
[Phil said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2620…)"... he would arrange for the many open letters and petitions that nominate him as Dr Richard S Courtney or Richard S Courtney PhD to be corrected. Seeing as how he has never actually, you know, been awarded a Doctorate".
That's odd Martin, I can see my comment, and a follow-up comment I made today (not that I have got any engagement from the other sadly clueless commenters). Perhaps check again?
Speaking of Watts, he's speaking with none other than David "worst climate science paper ever" Archibald tonight (Wednesday 30th June) in Belconnen Canberra. 6:30pm, Labor Club Belco.
I've got stuff on tonight and can't get over to it, but if anyone wants to ask a question or two of him...
According to self-appointed climate science auditor Steve McIntyre, Mann took it on himself to truncate Briffa's data set and replaced the deleted data with instrumental temperature data, thus creating less of a drop at the end of the resulting smoothed chart. But a closer examination shows the evidence for instrumental "padding" is far from certain. And the difference engendered between different possible "padding" values is minimal in any case.
Even worse, the key element of McIntyre's narrative, namely the accusation that Mann himself truncated Briffa's data set. In fact, it turns out that the actual data set used by Mann (as sent by Tim Osborn on Keith Briffa's behalf) contains values only up to 1960 - exactly as in the figure produced in TAR. So once again, we have another egregiously false accusation from Steve McIntyre, one that has been echoed by McIntyre acolytes and CruTape Letters authors Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller.
FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.
Richard S Courtney has a B.A. in Material Science and a DipPhil in Material Science, the later was received for distance learning.
Yeah, a bunch of pro-states' rights conservative justices just voted to further limit a state's right to limit handgun ownership
You say that like it's a bad thing. 1) Gun ownership is not a conservative value, lots of libs like owning them. 2) It wasn't a state's right decision at all, it was a decision making clear the rather obvious import of the Bill of Rights--it applies to the states uniformly, and the idea of rights needing 14A incorporation is frankly pretty dumb dammit. 3) State's don't have rights--they have powers, and they don't have the power to deny you the means of self defense.
As I remind my liberal friends...do you REALLY want just the neocons and rightwingers to be armed? Bad idea.
poptech claims
>FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.<
So you swore or use threatening words - or are you claiming there's a conspiracy where 'good' people can have their responses shut down if the content isn't 'correct' at the Guardian?
Speaking of Watts, he's speaking with none other than David "worst climate science paper ever" Archibald tonight (Wednesday 30th June) in Belconnen Canberra. 6:30pm, Labor Club Belco
All in all it sounds like a must-see event, as it looks like the Tim Curtin sideshow will be there too :)
FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.
"Our subject isn't cool, but he thinks it anyway/
He may not have a clue, and he may not have style/ But everything he lacks, well he makes up in denial!"
Calling your a$$beating at the grauniad a victory? Baghdad Bob would be proud of you.
Poptech: "FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread."
Poptech, you really, really, don't know what you're talking about.
When you call someone a liar on CIF your post will be deleted. Everyone's had a post deleted at some point.
As for locking the thread, that's possibly such a clear demonstration of how your mind works: All CIF threads get locked at some point. All of them! The one in which KIY was handing you your ass in a sling actually ran for longer than usual. Take off your victim-martyr hat, no one's gonna cry for you, you just got it wrong... quel supris.
Vaguely related to the Australian Climate Sceptics' current perambulating comedy routine, has anyone noticed how closely the party's kangaroo logo matches that of the Australian Olympic Committee's licenced image?
The 'Sceptics' put both of the 'roo's feet on the ground, and whacked a Southern Cross behind it, but otherwise it is substantially the same. I'd be interested to know if the differences count as the sort that I understand are required for trademarked logos to qualify as being distinct - I'm sure that cohenite has run his divorce lawyer's eyes over it, but I still think that it's unashamed plaigarism.
Trouble is, if the AOC decided to pursue it, they'd only end up recruiting for the party. I wonder if that might have been cohenite's intention all along...
"Seems Mann has, 11-12 years on, finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.
""I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate," he said.""
That is Dave, lying in the post where he demands that we apologize for calling him a liar.
If he stopped sodimizing the corpse of irony, we could give it a christian burial.
So you swore or use threatening words - or are you claiming there's a conspiracy where 'good' people can have their responses shut down if the content isn't 'correct' at the Guardian?
Neither but the comments can obviously be censored at the guardian for not having the collective bias. This was demonstrated by the deletion of my comments. Then the close of the thread makes it look like I never responded.
Calling your a$$beating at the grauniad a victory? Baghdad Bob would be proud of you.
You are obviously delusional. KIY kept changing the subject after I refuted everyone of his erroneous claims. Finally he had to get the mods to remove some of my replies so he could look like he won a point and then of course lock the thread so he could pretend I never responded.
You called KIY a liar. I saw the posts. That's abuse, so your comments were cut. Plain and simple. Do you see everything that doesn't go your way as a conspiracy? That seems to be a common trait amongst the loudest denialist noisemakers.
The thread wasn't shut down because of you. This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but the Guardian isn't all about you and your dwindling list. They always shut a thread down after a few days and, as I said earlier, that thread was kept open for longer than usual. Get over yourself.
When you call someone a liar on CIF your post will be deleted. Everyone's had a post deleted at some point.
KIY stated lies, which all alarmists resort to at some point after I refute all of their nonsense.
J Bowers, were you ever able to find those duplicate posts KIY claimed were on the list? Oh that's right he "handed me my ass". Too funny.
Factually stating my comments at the Guardian were censored and the thread conveniently locked just after KIY posted last is pure coincidence I am sure.
Seems Mann has, 11-12 years on, finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.
""I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate," he said."
Now put your thinking head on and consider why and how the hockey stick became such a prominent feature of the debate.
Think deniers and straw men.
You, Andrews, have just created another straw man for what Mann actually said does not equate in any way to 'finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.' Put your thinking head on and consider that also.
ROFL. Denial comes in many forms. As for KIY talking about duplicate posts, are you sure you don't mean repetitive points? Do you not recall my comment...
24 Jun 2010, 7:10PM
If someone nudges you, does that stop the broken record from repeating itself over and over again?
1. He lied that duplicate papers were on the list.
2. He lied that non-peer-reviewed papers were counted (Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers)
3. He lied that E&E is not peer-reviewed
4. He lied that Pielke requested that his papers be removed off the list (I have yet to receive an email from him or any other author on the list for that matter).
5. He lied that the list has no formatting.
ect...
So I guess to some stating lies is "winning an argument".
You are such a funny guy! You couldn't dismantle a Lego house. All you did was repeat the same old drivel you always repeat, which KIY destroyed line by line. Do you really think that KIY was "able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread"? You don't suspect that they were deleted for the same reason your mindless repetition gets deleted in other forums and blogs? Are you really that delusional?
Thanks for confirming that Courtney does not have a PhD, though.
Richard S Courtney has a B.A. in Material Science and a DipPhil in Material Science, the later was received for distance learning.
I'm happy to accept your assertion of Courtney's bona fide scientific credentials, and indeed that he is on the editorial advisory board of a genuine peer-reviewed scientific journal. Which makes it even more remarkable that he may come out with a comment like
Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).
Poptech. Re: Duplicate papers - are you claiming these as two seperate papers?
Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
- Vincent Courtillot et al.
- Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328â339, 2007" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
- Vincent Courtillot et al.
He lied that Pielke requested that his papers be removed off the list (I have yet to receive an email from him or any other author on the list for that matter).
Let's remind ourselves of what Pielke said on his blog.
My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.
Now maybe he hasn't specifically requested you to remove them but it is pretty clear from the above and from the subsequent comments that he disputes that they should be included.
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
- Correction to "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
- Response to "Comment on âInfluence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
You don't bleed more when you're shot by a conservative, so I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. Firearms ownership isn't an indicator of political identity, but for some reason far too many of erstwhile fellow liberal travelers seem to want to make it so. It smacks of bigotry.
And no, not expecting a shootout just yet. Also not expecting to have an abortion, but I'm glad other people are free to do so if they're in need. Not planning on the house catching fire, but I keep a fire alarm and extinguisher handy. Not planning on stabbing anyone, but I have a knife at the ready.
Now, can we get back to discussing climate change?
First is the actual paper, the second is the published response from the authors to a published comment on their original paper. They are two separate documents. Only the first is counted the second is provided as defense of the original, this is explicitly stated in the first sentence,
"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers."
Counting all these would make the count +50.
There are no duplicate papers on the list, KIY lied multiple times about this. Anyone intellectually honest can see he lied. He is a demonstrated liar who's worthless commentary is just that.
TrueSceptic, you are wrong KIY got dismantled line by line which is why you see him consistently dropping off points as I took them apart. He even repeated various lies after proven that they were not true and failed to provide evidence to support them.
The only justification for their deletion was to not embarrass KIY any more than he had already been.
I never claimed Courtney had a Ph.D. and neither did he. Some lists incorrectly stated this which is not his fault.
Poptech is good fun. I've read the last few posts on this thread with a growing smile. I assume these are similar points to those made at the Guardian site? In that case, will Poptech soon accuse you all of lying and throw a proper hissy fit? That would be entertaining.
What Dr. Pielke Jr. said was explicitly clear - if the list was only of papers that do not support anthropogenic reasons as the main cause of climate change then his papers do not belong, this is not true and was explained to him in his blog. The list explicitly states that: "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW." Thus his papers fall into the later categories. No where does he demand any papers be removed from the list.
I only accuse those of lying who actually do. Now could you please provide support for KIY's lie about duplicate papers on the list? Prove me wrong, provide a single duplicate paper on the list. KIY repeated this lie multiple times at the Guardian and failed to provide any evidence of this, despite repeated requests.
No, Poptech, I was only joking. Don't throw your dummy out the pram.
By the way, Poptech, you just called KIY a liar multiple times. See, that kind of behaviour at the Guardian gets your comment deleted. You making the connection yet? It's really simple: Don't call people liars and your post stays up for all to see. Unless, of course, the whole point is to get deleted so you can run off to teacher and claim victimhood.
I have posts up with that word in them and they are not deleted so your theory is falsified. I had three comments censored for unknown reasons all conveniently in reply to KIY, all refuting misinformation he stated.
Ah, so you admit to reporting my posts to get my replies censored, how very fascist of you. I see you cannot have anyone actually reading my replies as they clearly refute all the misinformation KIY and yourself peddle.
Comments don't have to be reported to be deleted, given there are moderators. Some crap does get through, though. What really makes me roll my eyes is the way you immediately assumed I was being serious. If wanting to feel a persecuted martyr is your thang, feel free. All good for your little propaganda war I guess.
I have started the monumental task to go through poptech's list in more detail. Already before I reached 20 I found a duplicate (hint to poptech: conference proceedings are often followed by a 'real' publication with a different title, but the paper is essentially the same), and several opinion papers of which the "peer review" status is highly questionable. It appears that one journal's "peer review" process consists of the Editors doing proofreading and making changes they consider appropriate (in discussion with the authors).
Don't expect a final result of my audit anywhere soon, but it will come, probably hosted by greenfyre.
But by saying "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW" you make the criteria for inclusion so broad that it becomes meaningless. You can have dissgreements about the economic or environmental effects of AGW while accepting that AGW is real. Even if we accept that your 750 papers are all genuine, serious and peer-reviewed then by your own definition some are going to be mutually contradictory so how can you use them as a basis for any coherent and consistent argument.
The list contains a reference to Gerlich & Tscheuschner, which contradicts quite a few of the other papers on a rather fundamental point. It shows the stupidity of the list (or rather, the person who made the list) in a nutshell.
Those are not duplicates but separate papers with similar names. Since you intentionally do not mention the papers you are challenging there is no way to confirm what you are saying.
The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.
The fact that many are mutually contradictory doesn't bother you then Poptech? So long as it allows people to tout the sceptic argument 'de jour' you're happy, and who cares if tomorrow we refute what we said today?
"You called KIY a liar. I saw the posts. That's abuse, so your comments were cut. Plain and simple."
Interesting that I'm regularly called a 'liar' here, even though Bernard J would have difficulty finding a post to prove that despite elspi's repetition of the mantra above.Yet none of these posts, which you style 'abuse' seem to get cut. Funny that.
I have to defend PT on this. He's collected anything and everything that he considers to be "skeptical". Given that "skeptics" believe a dozen contradictory things at once, and change even those at random, almost on a daily basis, who are we to argue with what he chooses for his list?
Is there no forum on the planet he doesn't spam with his "750 peer reviewed papers" or his other great list - the newspaper articles on "global cooling" to prove that every scientist in the world thought we were headed for an ice age?
Poptech somewhat amusingly seems to believe that providing fairly underwhelming "lists" is actually better than knowing anything about basic physics.
Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way. Since the list is not about any single argument this is perfectly acceptable. The list is a reference for all of them as noted.
Poptech, having a physics degree does not endow someone with a knowledge of climate science. In fact, it doesn't make someone have any commonsense whatsoever. A guy with a physics degree once asserted to me that carbon dating could be in error by millions of years, which is interesting seeing as it isn't used to date anything more than some tens of thousands of years old.
"Dr Death", here in Australia, had all the prerequisite qualifications in medicine and surgery. Any idea why they might have called him "Dr Death" and he just got convicted of several counts of manslaughter the other day, and is now awaiting sentencing?
What matters is not their degree, but the substance of what they have researched and their proven competence in their field of study. The blogoshere is littered with blatantly ridiculous and stupid statements from "scientifically qualified" sceptics or people with various degrees.
Lets take a sample on one of Poptart's list, Gerlich & Tscheuschner. This article fails Poptart's claims of peer review. The G&T paper was as [a review papaer](http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html), not a research paper.
Whats the difference between a 'review' and and 'reseach' paper?
> Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way.
Wow!
So if a paper is published which - if correct - means that *another* paper must be wrong, but it doesn't *mention* that other paper, then it's NOT actually a refutation? And then one can claim it to be "mutually exclusive" instead of "mutually contradictory" and ... somehow think that the first paper really *doesn't* contradict the second?
That's some grade-A flying pretzel syllogic right there. You've got a great career in politics or advertising ahead of you.
The article points out observations that differ with the Global Conveyor model, but does not dismiss the fact that there is meridional overturning over a long timescale.
This underscores the maxim "All models are wrong, but some models are useful".
This also underscores the importance that meso-scale level ocean modelling will play in future GCMs. The Imperial College Ocean Model (ICOM) project, using a unstructured horizontal (and vertical in future plans) coordinate system, looks well-placed to contribute to these future models.
Tragically, this natural progression of science will be beaten up (Again) by the denialati, saying that the GCMs are wrong hence the IPCC is wrong hence there is no need to worry folks.
Here is one of the less shrill bloggers take on it - Ocean Conveyor Belt Dismissed - noting the descent in tone of the title. It has already been picked up by Climaterealist.com and will soon descend to the benthic level of tabloid journalists. I predict this to be reported as the "nail in the coffin" by the likes of Andrew Bolt etc within a month or so.
Poptech, the paper that got published in the conference proceedings was followed up by the *real* publication in a regular journal. This happens to quite a few papers. I myself have two papers in conference proceedings that ultimately went into a proper journal. As is proper, I do not count those conference proceedings papers as "peer reviewed", because they are not.
And don't worry, you will get to see my comments in a few months (I'm not going to spend much time in the near future on it). However, I can give you another few hints so you know what to expect: opinion papers are often not peer reviewed, especially the short ones. They are not that hard to spot in your list. American Scientist is not peer reviewed either. And this is all without even looking at whether the paper warrants to be included as "skeptical". We've already had a discussion on Zeebe et al, which proposes a *higher* climate sensitivity or *additional positive feedbacks* to explain the observed temperature change. And you call it "skeptical"...
Having a physics degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic physics.
Having a medical degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic medicine.
So would you allow a dermatologist to do your heart valve replacement surgery? In fact, would you even want their opinion on a heart valve replacement?
Having a physics degree does not prevent someone from misrepresenting scientific research, from failing to understand more specialised areas of science, from being not very good at science, or from offering unreliable opinions on particular scientific topics.
So personally, I'll stick with the opinions of specialist climate scientists who are considered highly reputable within their field of expertise. You go with whoever makes you feel better about your own opinions. It's clearly what you want to do.
Is there any further point in me arguing reason and logic here or am I flogging a dead horse?
Mike, re 122 "Is there any further point in me arguing reason and logic here or am I flogging a dead horse? "
In respect of Poptech's views, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse.
I debated with him several years ago on a minor UK political forum and exposed to people there his widespread trolling - for that is all it is.
That is also why I expressed my surprise in post #14 :- Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?
He must be some super-masochist to keep on surviving all these beatings he gets everywhere :)
Poptech @119 June 30, 2010 11:04 PM. A multiple choice question for you. There may be more than one correct answer.
When you say G&T's "paper" was "peer-reviewed and there is nothing you can do about it", do you mean:
a) scientists with established credentials in, significant current experience in and a string of publications on one or more subjects directly relevant to climate science went through it with a fine-tooth comb and, after several rounds of revised drafts, accepted the final product; or
b) His Sirness Lordy Lord Discount Monckton looked at it on the 8.55 to Paddington and pronounced it fit for consumption; or
c) someone took G&T's paper to the seaside, propped it up on a deckchair and looked at it from a nearby jetty; or
What Poptart seems to be doing is his own version of the Oregon petition, in which the figure of 31,000 "scientists" is meant to impress. What the OP actually is is an unaudited list of self-claimed graduates, and even that represents a pitifully small proportion of the graduates in the USA over its eleven year period.
But for the average poptart-eating Joe 31,000 - like Poptart's "700 peer reviewed" papers (or whatever he claims) - is meant to impress. Quantity not quality of content. Nobody is ever meant to actually read any of them; the 700 is the substance.
He will never accept that his criteria are rubbish and disagreed with by some of the included authors, nor will he amend the title to "Poptart's Great Catalogue of Alleged AGW Denial and Miniscule Claim To Fame", which nobody would have any problem with. In another six months he'll surface with it again, hoping everybody has forgotten.
A classic waste of time and I'm sure I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said over the course of his 6 month campaign by others and which have had all the effect of water on the average duck.
> What the OP actually is is an unaudited list of self-claimed graduates, and even that represents a pitifully small proportion of the graduates in the USA over its eleven year period.
My favourite puncturing of the OP (and I apologise, I can't remember precisely where this came from) was something along the lines of: even taken at face value, statistically speaking the OP represents a smaller percentage of scientists than those that are clinically insane.
Of course, once you weed out all the dead people and Spice Girls from the list, it gets even less impressive.
Talking of G&T and other "skeptic" papers, I'm assuming that Poptech removes them once they have been thoroughly debunked.
So G&T should not be on there. Nor should papers by Michaels and McKitrick, Douglass, McLean, or those speaking to the alleged GCR hypothesis (that hypothesis has been soundly refuted so many time sit is not true) etc etc.
One might be able to argue whether or not E&E is peer-reviewed. However, E&E is not a reputable journal and has strong political leanings, EOS.
Many of the papers on the list do not even remotely question or refute the theory of AGW.
Given it's almost non-existent citation history and editor Sonja's recorded [comment](https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Sep5-CHEartic…), E&E is to peer reviewed scientific journals what Health & Efficiency is to The Lancet. And probably used for very similar purposes.
What poptart is unable to appreciate is that appearance in a respected journal isn't like getting a shiny badge in a packet of cereal that you can walk round showing off to your gang, but an indication that they contain information of actual use and interest that can be tested and cited elsewhere. At best, it's information that's an addition to the human project.
But poptart's overly apparent interest is in big numbers, however meaningless. He's very much like Goddard, and just as clueless. IOW, typical would-be, upper-strata denier intelligentsia wannabee, who no doubt only longs for one day getting a hat tip from Big Stevieboy.
Yes, we have. Dr Mann's success in proposing research and obtaining funding to conduct it clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession. Dr Mann's work, from the beginning of his career has been recognised as outstanding [...] clearly, Dr Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of the accepted practices in his field.
I see. You do realise that these conclusions are a Climate Auditor's worst nightmare?
Heh. Smugness is so unattractive. Not to mention unBritish. But let's take a short respite to savour Dr Mann's COMPLETE EXONERATION, and the discomfiture hopefully felt amongst those who caused this - that all their books, blog posts and 'humourous' videos have come to naught. Sweet.
Phil Clarke - I hear that the shortest measureable period of time is not 100 attoseconds as previously stated. It is now defined as the interval between a top climate scientist being cleared of all charges and a âscepticâ blogger posting a sentence containing the word âWHITEWASH!!!â.
Dave H, as you were. I just had a derr... moment, think I've been reading too much WTFUWT recently.
Note to self - I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must...
"Having a physics degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic physics."
was in response to yours,
"Poptech somewhat amusingly seems to believe that providing fairly underwhelming "lists" is actually better than knowing anything about basic physics."
To answer your question you are not following basic logic or reasoning as you created a strawman argument by changing your criteria to "specialist climate scientists". I was not responding to that but rather your comment on "basic physics".
MapleLeaf, no scientist has ever asked for their paper to be removed from the list ever. Dr. Brooks wrongly assumed his paper was listed because it rejected AGW which is not true, it is listed because it supports skepticism of the environmental effects of AGW, in this case about tornadoes.
Papers will be removed if they are retracted by the journals otherwise no. And E&E is a reputable journal despite your repetition of that talking point. You are correct as many of the papers simply support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of AGW.
"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.
I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.
The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.
I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.
In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish." Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
Better get your facts straight, though I am not sure you have the ability to research such things.
The 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.
> When I say G&T was peer-reviewed, I mean peer-reviewed to science journal standards.
And you (apparently deliberately) ignore **post-publication** peer-review which is even more important than pre-publication peer-review - and which in G&T's case has shown that it's a load of horse dung.
Of course, if you **want** to be known as a peddler of horse-dung as long as it includes the message you prefer, then that's a different matter...
Excerpts: "As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change...
"The process is a simple one... The CO2 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it...
"It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects. For example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower temperatures, and might offset the CO2 effect. Similarly, it is possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the CO2 rise. (E.g., stop burning fossil fuels.)"
Heffner was the Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Excerpt: "I am replying to your note querying whether we should become involved in the issue of CO2 and atmospheric temperature rise. The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between. One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise from CO2."
re 148:- Clippo, you exposed no such thing and I have yet to take a beating anywhere.
Unfortunately I DID poptech - and your inability to accept those beatings there and here, and practically everywhere else where there are 'thinking' people, just confirms your extreme 'denial' and trolling problems.
@146, Poptech, you can dance around the issue all you like, but this really isn't hard to understand:
I was not originally referring to "their" knowledge of basic physics. I was referring to yours. You know, your apparent tendency to simply produce a list of people and imply something to the effect that global warming is disproved by a small minority as a substitute for arguing any specific case yourself. I've got a theory on why you do that.
You then start harping on about having physics degrees endowing people with basic knowledge of physics (by implication referring to those in your "list") as if to suggest that it endows them with great authority on climate science by default.
Was that your implication? I'm not creating a strawman - I'm just suggesting it seemed that was the point of your statement, or was it just a meaningless throwaway line of no relevance at all? You tell me, poptech.
You've got to laugh when you read Poptech going round in circles in his own little world.
Even Pielke knew what he was up against :
Pielke :Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-)
The response is classic Poptech :
"Actually using my logic it is impossible to find your papers in support of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus."
Pielke :I'd be interested in your definition of ["man-made" global warming], which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way.
Response :
"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." That link again
(Comments 22 onwards)
(My emphasis above - that is Poptech's 'get out of jail card' : he creates the strawman and argues against something which no-one else is arguing about)
Don't you love it when a blogger 'expert' tells a proper expert (whether you agree with or like him or not) what's what about his own (Pielke's own) papers and his own personal views :
"Since I am in no way implying a certain hypothesis to you or your dad's position (nor any of the other author's of the papers) I am not removing them from the list."
You will also notice that the last response from Poptech (Andrew as he was then) was two and half years after the penultimate one, giving him the chance to have the last word and make it look as if was actually engaged in a conversation which he can then claim he won. Truly bizarre.
Also funny to see how confused and upset some of the other posters are :
"Roger, seriously, I think you're off-base here: I looked at the list with nothing in mind particularly either way, and my only surprise was that you were surprised."
"Roger, you and your dad are sceptics. This is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to be proud of."
"Roger, your papers undeniably represent skepticism towards AGW."
Pielke's comment about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus was in relation to the statement I originally had with an incomplete sentence: "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of" which should have been, "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made" global warming". It now says,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW."
So it solves both the criticism of using a scientific term and making sure the sentence is complete.
I have yet to receive an email from any scientist, including Dr. Pielke requesting to have his papers removed off the list. The reason is, I am not using their papers in support of rejection of AGW but in support of skepticism of the economic or environmental effects of AGW (skepticism of alarm).
I never told Dr. Pielke what his own personal views were, so please stop lying.
LMAO, the date stamp is Month+ Day not Month + Year.
The real reason that the Pielkes want their papers removed from Popfarts list is that they don't want their papers bundled in with the fetid sludge of denier papers Popfart has dredged from the bottom of the barrel of "sceptic" papers.
>*The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW.*
Meaningless. The IPCC should be on the list under poptart's ill-definition; the IPCC support skepticism of zero cost economic impact. Gavin Schmidt should also, he promotes skepticism of runaway Venetian GW.
Almost every claim about AGW is skeptical of another. Thus every paper about AGW would meet the poptard criteria.
Clippo, you got your ass handed to you. It is sad you have to pathetically pretend otherwise here so you can save face in front of your fellow alarmists.
Mike, I have never provided a list of people to imply global warming is disproven. Not sure why you feel the need to use strawman arguments constantly, though I have theory about that.
My implication was that those with degrees in Physics understand basic physics and more than capable to understand climate physics, apparently better than certain self titled "climate scientists".
Andrew, just to humour you, and perhaps to also spell out the obvious point your intellectual superiors here are trying to make to you, here is a snippet from the IPCC's AR4 which fits your pointless definition for how stuff can make it onto your idiotic list:
AR4, WG2, Ch17.3.2.1
"...the literature lacks consensus on the usefulness of indicators of generic adaptive capacity and the robustness of the results ..."
There - *now* will you admit that your silly list is pointless?
>*I have no problems adding more qualifiers to the definition*
Really? Do your best then, cos your ill-definition is currently meaningless. Currently you could include the tooth fairly if it suited you.
Tell me what is the sense in having a list with a rubbery meaningless selection definition? Either you want to contribute something solid or you want to make ethereal nonsense points like with your current unbounded definition.
Poptech muses: *Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal*
Nonsense. The ISI WOS is a very reliable way of determining the soundness of the science published in that journal. Articles in journals with higher impact factors are cited more frequently and thus becomore more attractive for scientists in which to submit their work. Because of this, these jounrnals often have a much more rigid policy on how strong the peer-reviewed articles have to be to get accepted. Some have a policy of rejecting 80% or more without peer-review; others require the 2-4 referees to be uniformly positive about the study under review. Journals at the lower end of the citation index do submit papers for peer-review, but are often much more relaxed on how strong that review needs to be to get the articles accepted. I should know; I have reviewed articles for 53 journals that appear on the WOS (from the top to the bottom in terms of impact factor) and I was a former Associate Editor at Nature. Poptech is therefore speaking utter rubbish.
I understand you are slow with reading so I will repeat it for you,
Pielke's comment about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus was in relation to the statement I originally had with an incomplete sentence: "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of" which should have been, "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made" global warming". It now says,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."
Pielke Jr. never requested his papers to be removed from the list. I have never received an email from him and his father has never commented on the list.
Vince, I could not find any intellectual superiors here so I am not sure what you are referring to.
I added a qualifier,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."
The list is anything but pointless as you all are spending so much time on it. Fascinating how the web hits on only that page are increasing exponentially. Whatever you guys are doing is not working because all I get are thanks via emails as people use the papers in debates. I understand this probably bothers you but I just wanted to say thanks.
Jeff how "reliable" the ISI is subjective. Citations and "Impact Factor" are a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity. Your assumptions about the peer-review policy of other journals is just that and meaningless. What I stated was accurate.
The he adds. "Vince, I could not find any intellectual superiors here".
Oh no. Another legend in his own mind.
Poptech, I'd like to know what unique qualifications you possess to be able to claim that *"Citations and "Impact Factor" are a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity"?* My assumptions are based on the general quality of articles that appear in the pages of journals with a range of impact factors. My best work appear in the pages of Nature, Ecology Letters, Ecology, TREE, Jounral of Animal Ecology etc., because I knew that submitting my best work to these journals would, if accepted, get them more recognition amongst my peers. I also know full well the limitations of my research and when to submit my lesser work to smaller journals. There is no doubt that, with few exceptions, the best research ends up in the best journals. What I say is accurate.
Lastly, as others have pointed out elsewhere, there are actually very few actual climate chnnge 'sceptics'. By nature all scientists worth theri degrees are sceptical. Note th guarded language used by the IPCC and scientists who support the theory of AGW, and juxtapose this with those in the other camp who try and give the impression that AGW is either some doomsday myth or else that there is a natural cause. Either way, they are not sceptical at all, but are, in fact, in denial, most probably because of their own political and idealogical biases. I just hope that you are not another one of these indoctrinated denialists who has come to contribute his two cent's worth here. If you are, you'd better come armed with more intellectual acumen than you have thus far, or else most of us here will see as just another contender for the Dunning-Kruger crown.
Jeff, no there are those who I would consider intellectually superior to me, they are just not here.
Now Jeff, I would like to know why you do not understand what the definition of subjective is and why you keep using subjective criteria?
Your "assumptions" are subjective.
"General quality" is subjective.
Your "best work" is subjective.
What is the "best research" and best journals" is subjective.
I understand you have a hard time separating your emotions from logic, I on the other hand do not have this problem.
Jeff, your personal attacks due to lack of intellectual ability are noted.
Sometimes, against one's better judgement, an immediate response begs for its freedom. A better man than I might refrain from granting such, but I have always treasured liberty...
Vince, I could not find any intellectual superiors here.
Puptalk, your inability to find what you sought was certainly constrained by the fact that your head was, and remains, firmly ensconced in your colon.
The only thing that you'll find there is the fæcal matter that you've been shovelling about as you delve deeper into your attempt to become a living Klein bottle.
re:168 Clippo, you got your ass handed to you. It is sad you have to pathetically pretend otherwise here so you can save face in front of your fellow alarmists.
Coincidentally (or is it?) Poptech has re-appeared on the minor forum I post mostly on - and posting his cr&p again.
Popfart really is a nasty piece of scum. He is the troll who posted my personal information on a blog. He posted phone numbers, my home address, photos of my house and a map showing its location. He has definitely crossed the line and he should be barred from all sites where reasonable people discuss science related matters.
He is a very scary person indeed, I don't know what is causing his psychosis but people should be warned of his proclivity to be nasty and viscous.
Poptech wrote :LMAO, the date stamp is Month+ Day not Month + Year.
Fine, I got the time period wrong but not the facts, i.e. that you sneaked back in to the thread and left a message, trying to pretend that you were carrying on a conversation and to have the last word. Still sad.
JMurphy, you cannot sneak into Pielke's blog, he gets emailed when you comment. He knows I made that statement and he also knows I am well aware of his personal opinion on AGW, only rank amateurs would not know his position. All meaningless as I have now provided a scientific definition and a disclaimer so alarmists cannot distort it.
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
Ian, the issue here is that you consider yourself the good guy, so therefore, as the good guy, you won't break the law or even the mores of social decency to have your way.
However nutjobs like poptart consider you THE ENEMY. And therefore, since you're the enemy, ANYTHING that he can do to shut you up and get rid of you is fine.
Someone asked for his contact information, I looked it up in Google. Pretty serious stuff looking someone's contact information up in Google for someone who always posts as their real name and has his contact information all over the place. I posted it as "contact information". Funny how hysterical everyone is getting over using Google.
FYI I don't consider Ian the enemy, just not very bright.
I think if you restrict everyone from ever using Google you should be able to keep this one under wraps.
Can you not see the difference between doing what you did and just suggesting that someone use Google themselves? Actually, don't bother with an answer: we know you can't. Your psychological state precludes any insight or any concept of reasonable behaviour.
You obviously can't read !!! I said I wasn't going to spend any time on you in that democracy forum thread. I'm tempted not to here but I'm enjoying seeing you thrashed so much.
You also claimed I 'ran away' from you at 'Greenfyre'. I don't think so - I remember your pointless trolling was exposed AGAIN there - I couldn't add any more than than your other beaters did.
Does ANYBODY in science agree with you ? LOL
ANYWAY - to probably the whole world of science, your puny & fraudulent efforts to undermine the overwhwelming consensus in AGW are less irritation than a flea on an elephant's backside. Retire quietly Poptech - for your own mental health.
If someone asks a question I can answer I try to be helpful.
Clippo,
You run away from every argument as soon as you start losing and desperately look around for someone to bail you out.
Yes, many, many, many scientists agree with me, they all emailed me thanking me for the list or offered papers to add. Not a single one objected (imagine that). But don't worry no one is paying attention to it, the hit counter is just skyrocketing by itself. Carry on, your "consensus" has nothing to worry about.
Yes, many, many, many scientists agree with me, they all emailed me thanking me for the list or offered papers to add. Not a single one objected (imagine that).
Popfart is the biggest liar on this blog. Every second word he spews out is part of another lie.
Do you know what the word "honesty" means? I didn't think so.
Someone asked for his contact information, I looked it up in Google.
That is another of your lies. No one asked for my personal information and even if they did, anyone with any sense of morals and ethics would not have broadcast the information on a blog posting. You are morally and ethically challenged.
As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is, and what he considers its use to be. In reply to a point I raised that some of his papers contradict others, he said:
>Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way. Since the list is not about any single argument this is perfectly acceptable. The list is a reference for all of them as noted.
>So if a paper is published which - if correct - means that another paper must be wrong, but it doesn't mention that other paper, then it's NOT actually a refutation? And then one can claim it to be "mutually exclusive" instead of "mutually contradictory" and ... somehow think that the first paper really doesn't contradict the second?
So, Poptart considers the list to be a reference for all kinds of sceptical arguments. This is apparently a service he's happy to provide, despite the fact that he knows at least some of them must be wrong (describing them as 'mutually exclusive' - but Lotharrson blows that soft term out of the water). Always willing to spread misinformation eh? How obliging of you, Mr. Tart.
I stand corrected, Poptart. If you could point me to any of Buzz Aldrin's peer reviewed research in the field of climatology I'd be happy to retract my mockery of you.
Tell you, what, I'll even widen the net to include Energy And Evironment, South African engineering journals, and even Better Homes And Gardens to give you a fighting chance.
AH:
PopTart also said:
>You should not insult computer scientists.
That sounds like a *threat* to me.
Do you often traverse the internet threatening people, PopTart? That must add to your credibility considerably.
Anyone know if the good folks at www.poptech.org have taken exception to Popfart and www.populartechnology.net? The latter scarcely has anything to do with popular technology anyway - just a series of rants from someone who doesn't understand what global warming is.
> ..."man-made" global warming is a layman's term...for recent climate change being **solely** caused by humans
By that criteria, you'd be hard-pressed to find a **single** climate science paper that would NOT be on his list, since no reasonable climate scientist argues that all observed warming is anthropogenic.
That alone should tell you that his "list" is mired in bullshit, since he failed to understand and act upon what the criteria implied.
Or you could observe the prevarication embedded in the definition, which conflates skepticism of both "all warming is anthropogenic" and "any and all (hypothesised) environmental and economic consequences of said warming" (and not even constrained to consequences that are said to be "negative"!)
If you want to be pedantic, then you've be even *more* hard-pressed to find a paper that was NOT skeptical of one of those things.
And yet poptech's list apparently comprises a mere 700+ papers (never mind that many of them disagree with each other). Pretty poor effort all round. Either that, or his stated criteria is NOT what he's using to construct the list (tut tut!)
Then he changed the criteria:
> The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW
It's almost as bad as the previous version for most of the same reasons - **and** it presumes that Poptech and the reader agree on the meaning of "AGW" which I suspect may not be as frequent as the readers imagine.
Poptech - what's your precise definition of "AGW", and while you're at it what's your definition of "the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW"? This would help people understand what propositions you claim the list supports skepticism of (and whether you even understand the scientific claims in the first place).
>*As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is*
Its also funny to watch some try a protect their credibility by disassociating themselves from poptart's list. I wonder if Lindzen (like RP Jr) would be unhappy to be compiled with floor scapings such as G&T 2009 or McLean et al., or the ['worst ever"](http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html) Archibald 2006?
Though I doubt it was Poptart's aim to tarnish by association.
Ahhh, its clear to see Poptart's devious little strategy. His list includes piles of articles in Energy and Environment, a journal that does not appear on the ISI Web of Science. Hence his feeble attempt to belittle the Wos. E & E is a social sciences journal, and IMHO to have credibility in the Earth sciences it would have to be recognized by the Wos and appear in their index. It doesn't.
His list is also a scraping the barrel affair, citing articles by just about every shill, nincompoop and outlier in the debate on climate change. Some of the papers he listed are described as 'submitted' several years ago, meaning that they were either bounced or else were never published. Many of those that appear in the better journals (Nature, etc.) are old and are not about contemporary climate change at all.
Since poptart's web site appears to be run by a bunch of computer geeks, it is a wonder that anyone pays them any attention at all. Again, as far as I am concerned this is another example of a bunch of right wing libertarians downplaying the volumes of evidence for AGW to promote a political agenda. In other words, poptart and his buddies are denialists.
1. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is an important part of it. I base this conclusion on the lack of credible peer reviewed work to the contrary and the mountain of work that confirms human-induced warming. While individual studies might be wrong, itâs extremely unlikely the entire field has been so thoroughly duped.
Not that the creator of a comic strip (that I think is clever, funny, and perceptive) is any sort of authority on science but you'd think that even a Wattard would check...
I love how poptech calls astronaut Phil Chapman a "NASA Astronaut legend" in his website list of four (yes, four!) astronauts sceptical of AGW.
I'm really into NASA stuff and I confess I'd never heard the name before. A brief investigation soon showed why: as one of the scientist-astronauts he never flew in space.
I'm sure he's a nice fellow and highly knowledgeable in his CV areas of electro-optics, inertial systems, and gravitational theory (as was Buzz Aldrin on the topics of orbital mechanics and early computers), but they don't really sound much like climate science. Although this sort of blurring of the lines of expertise is really nothing new from poptech, is it?
Peter Sinclair, Greenman3610, with his fantastic Climate Crock videos has released another. It concentrates on what the military has to say. This is a great idea as the nutters generally looooove military or profess to do so in their brand of lunatic patriotism.
As an ex-weapons engineer of the RAN I've always found that brand of nutterism as very odd as we tended wherever we could (within budget) to be an early adopter of science, as does every other military.
The stupid, it burns. Thank goodness for Richard of Sydney, who points out what the report actually says, not the Australian's spin on what the report says.
"We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis"
"It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.
"It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance."
My, my... they almost seem to be saying that people who rely on FoI requests or who claim that nothing is certain without detailed scrutiny of the computer models must be incompetent. Surely not!
@227, yes Amanda I did. Sent a letter to them too.
The truth of the Dutch report was tucked away in the 3rd last paragraph where I imagine someone at The Australian hoped that no-one would notice it: "....the IPCCs main findings were justified and climate change did indeed pose substantial risks".
The problem is, as we all know too well, that climate sceptics rarely ever read much past the headline, and are certainly almost never inclined to actually look up any scientific research. The report was just lazily reprinted from The Times (UK) as usual, but a sub-editor somewhere within News Ltd seems to insist on writing grossly misleading headlines for global warming stories.
And then the stupid comments start flowing - always from the same people mind you.
Just how much dribble can the mainstream media continue to publish? In response to a cold snap in Sydney, Bonnie Malcin writing for the Telegraph UK states:
'Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.â http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/austra…
And while I am ranting about deficient journalism, OVEHG succinctly sums it up in âPoor journalism plagues The Australian front page againâ http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5565
Steven Goddard is not mentioning Barrow any longer. his forecasting skills did not work that well on sea ice break-up.
Steven has written a post, claiming that there was no change to land fast ice at barrow on the 26th of June. it turned out, that the land fast ice was gone from Barrow the day BEFORE the post was written.
he also made strong claims about the break-up on NARL near Barrow. Steven talked about the latests break-up on record and was still saying I expect that the ice will last longer than July 8. in comments on the 5th of July, even though the ice broke on the 4th.
Dave H, while it is very tempting to attribute such comments to the depths of cretinisation attracted to and indeed exemplified by ol' Anthony's blog and suchlike, never forget that there are Institutes, Foundations, and associated think tanks and moneyed interests like you wouldn't believe stoking things along.
And they don't employ the kind of grade school drop-outs that swarm like flies, which sometimes the aforementioned interests forget, when they're trying to blend in and drop a new meme or two.
If you look at the Jacobshaven Glacier (I think that's what it is, about halfway down the coast a glacier with a long tongue) you can see that behind it (on the south side) seems to be a lot of water that can't escape. And on the north side there's an area of a smaller galcier that merges with the Jacobshaven that seems to have broken up and collapsed.
Is this normal? And check out the melt ponds!
1 Are you familiar with the convention in the academic world that if one wishes to rebut the work of
another he should notify that other in good time, so as to avoid errors in the rebuttal and to afford the other a
fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute the rebuttal?
Did you contact Al Gore before issuing a criticism of 'Inconvenient Truth' or are you a hypocrite? Did you contact Professor Michael Mann before accusing him of genocide?
4 Do you accept that your talk was calculated to do very great harm to my reputation?
"Abe, baby, if you present yourself as âa scientistâ â as you do throughout your talk â then it is as a scientist that you will be judged and found lamentably wanting. You may like to get your apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance." Heh.
9 Do you appreciate that, in common sense as well as in law, given your claim to expertise âin the areaâ of
climate change (2-3), any statement by you in that area that you assert or assume to be true but whose truth
you have negligently failed to verify is as much a lie as any statement that you make in the knowledge that it
is not true?
Can I phone a friend?
17 Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a âprofessorâ (3, 62)
more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?
Though you have described yourself as a member of the House of Lords, is it not the case that you are not and never have been? That you stood for election and received zero votes?
BTW Monckton is a good recycler
No 1 is the same as
2 Since you knew how to contact the Science and Public Policy Institute, which I advise on policy matters,
and since you would have had no difficulty in contacting me to notify me that you were intending widely to
disseminate your material, what steps (if any) did you take to attempt to notify me of what you proposed to
do to ensure that I was given a fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute your attempt at a rebuttal of
my Minnesota talk
is the same as
6 Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very
lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?
is the same as
21 Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why
you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to
assist you with identifying the sources of my material.
is the same as
23 Please explain why, before you contacted numerous third parties in connection with my talk, you did not
at any time contact me to verify whether your characterization of my conclusions was fair and accurate
My favourites so far:
27 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said, âThe worldâs not warmingâ ....are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I said, âThe world is not warmingâ, or at least to qualify it by acknowledging that, though I said the world had been cooling since 2001, I had displayed the above graph plainly establishing that the long-term trend is a warming trend?
You said I said the world is not warming, but you're wrong because I said the world is cooling.
30 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that âSea
levels are not rising at all" ...Is it not true that, in my talk, I reported evidence that the ARGO bathythermographs had shown a slight cooling of the oceans throughout the six years since they were first deployed; and that, at the time of my talk, there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years?
You said I said that sea levels are not rising. But you're wrong because I said sea levels are not rising.
Tim - perhaps we could crowdsource a suitably amusing response. I might do some more, but not if it involves, you know, actually watching Monckton in action.
the questions are completely absurd. this must be one of the most stupid replies i ever read.
Monckton confirms his position as a clown of the denialist movement.
466: Will you, therefore, now be good enough to take down your talk from whatever public places it has
reached; to pay $10,000 to the United States Association of the Order of Malta for its charitable work in
Haiti; to ensure that your University, which failed upon my request to have your talk taken off its servers at
once, pays $100,000 to the same charity for the same purpose; and publicly to disseminate a written apology
and retraction substantially in the following terms:
From personal experience as a subscriber to a message board group, Monckton likes to liberally throw around the threat of legal action - even when (a little like Tim Curtin) he laughably and egregiously misunderstands the entire basis of his claim to have a case. I doubt this time around that his claims will prove any more substantial.
Gillard will resurrect the ETS from the dead ?
We shall see ! :-)
Just rubbernecking another car crash at WUWT (I won't link to it).
I thought I'd seen it all with the horrific "cone analyses" of arctic ice volume, but now Steven Goddard has posted that *no matter what happens to ice extent* over the next few years, NSIDC will report a continued downward trend.
This is because it would take a massive uptick in extent to reverse the 30-year trend with a single datapoint and therefore, the data, the trend and the maths are unfair or something. I'm guessing this is a preemptive face-saving exercise after the massive downturn in extent in the last month, since trumpeting a "recovery" so hard.
Watts' oh-so insightful comment:
> I note that this post makes Tamino mad. Look for a Romm Bomb next. When you spend most of your time reacting youâve lost the battle.
[Tamino's response](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/its-the-trend-stupid/).
>*When you spend most of your time reacting youâve lost the battle.*
My irony meter broke.
> ... Steven Goddard has posted that no matter what happens to ice extent over the next few years, NSIDC will report a continued downward trend.
> This is because it would take a massive uptick in extent to reverse the 30-year trend with a single datapoint and therefore, the data, the trend and the maths are unfair or something.
I almost feel sorry for these clowns sometimes. It's like they're tantalisingly close to reaching the most logical conclusion (that there is, in fact, a long-term downward trend in sea ice) but there is some kind of Doctor Who-style perception filter preventing them from achieving this. So instead, they come out with any old nonsense to try to rationalise it.
There seems to have been no coverage of Anthony Watts' glittering passage in the last week or so.
WUW WUWT's Tamimo fetish. Do they think he's vulnerable after the chivalrous behaviour of the erring knight?
I'm also puzzled by the Minoan Warm Period. Is there any evidence beyond Minoan women not wearing shirts?
Another climate crank tries to argue against the man-made global warming theory by using the "I have a Ph. D.!" schtick.
FYI, Poptech (he/she/it/they of the lists of anti-AGW scientific âpeer reviewedâ papers) is taking a bit of a pasting from KingInYellow over at The Guardian, in comments on the Spall PNAS consensus paper. Poptechâs trying his usual âassertive means rightâ method, but it's not even denting KIY.
Worth a look, as Poptech appears all over the place promoting his list, and KIYâs arguments may be of use.
David Greenwood's comment at Climatesight is a must read for its conciseness and lucidity.
Tim, "world's most polite and reasonable-sounding denialist" Lucia Liljegren has gone and wet her dog whistle but good. Check out her comments as well.
I think it's worth a post. The underlying incident itself is a hoot, and a Pajamas Media rep even shows up at Lucia's to try to do damage control.
I love the smell of a repeatedly napalmed Tom Fuller in the morning.
Is there really a rock bottom for Fuller? Guess not.
I see Booker has yet another shot at Amazongate with help from North over at the The Daily Telegraph. Another bait and switch?
Ed Darrell has a pretty good round-up of the Spanish bomb story and who fell for it.
Spanish warming skeptic claims a bomb in the mail; so-called skeptics caught unskeptical
Some good posts here fellas,
Firstly re: # 8, J. Boyers
Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?
Secondly re:7, Frank
Nice link, - Iâve lost count of the number of times a denier nutter has uttered something like â there is no evidence to support GW or AGWâ. I may be able to use your example â but one can never change the minds of these strange people.
..........
Now, I have a question. A denier has posted a link on a minor forum which claims that Judith Lean was the only IPCC reviewer asked to verify a solar paper â which was hers !!!!. Hereâs the link :-
http://climaterealists.com/?id=5910
Any comments? - after you stop laughing I assume.
I'm sorry but I've been lurking here for a couple of years. I'm pretty liberal, but Ezzthetic @5's comment about Anthony Watts glittering passage is disgusting. I can tolerate to an extent the egregious stupidity of the "science" at WTF, but "glittering passage"...come on there's kids in the room.
on further reflection of Anthony Watts glittering passage...I have now gone blind :-(
"Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?" Yes, and Yes. The latter at length on numerous occasions. I hadn't realised, unaccountably, that E&E seems to be one of the greatest of all peer-reviewed science journals.
Re. 17 David Horton
Yes, yes, yes still, no. Apparently he's responsible for E&E getting upgraded to peer reviewed by SCOPUS. When it was pointed out that we can still discount anything prior to tha change the listing as a trade journal had been a SCOPUS mistake anyway. Hmmm...
In case anyone is in any doubt about the nature of [Anthony Watts' "glittering passage"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2615…), Ezzthetic was reffering to the [bubkes display](http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html), that has gone over like a [lead weather balloon](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5498)...
Regarding our friend Anthony's visit to your fair shores, we note the coincidence (or is it?) of his visit and the demise of Kevin Rudd. We're surprised that you're all apparently so slow on the uptake...
Clippo, look at the AR4 review page and see what happened: Notwithstanding that the comment was obviously by a fan of Svensmark's pseudo-science, it was from a government rep. (Norway) so it got treated seriously. The review coordinators state that the material got additional review from four solar physicists, although it's not clear what changes got made, if any. FYI Lean is *very* respected in her field.
Does anybody know who the unidentified Norway government rep. was?
You utter git. I made the mistake of taking a quick look at the latest post at that site, and following some of the links. I've seen cranks of various kinds get basic physics wrong, but arithmetic?
Well, I'd observed his passage, and just felt it needed to be covered a lot more than it has been so far.
@J Bowers: "Poptech ... is taking a bit of a pasting from KingInYellow over at The Guardian ...."
Same thing in abbreviated form at The Intersection. I've gone a few rounds with PopTech in the past as well. He's everywhere.
However, he has at some point changed the page title from:
"750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of 'Man-Made' Global Warming"
to
"750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of 'Man-Made' Global Warming Alarm"
Apparently he believes that this fixes all the problems.
http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55&ti=4
A recommended lecture on Arctic Sea Ice. Starts at 12:00.
Reading some of the above comments, I can't help recalling a comment I came across at WUWT recently which included the following in relation to the argument that "it hasn't warmed since 1998"
Now I readily confess that my knowledge of statistics is pretty rudimentary but to my layman's eye that appears to be an especially dumb argument. Of course such things are hardly rare, and I wouldn't mention it if it were not for the fact that I came across the same commenter in another forum a few days later and discovered who he actually is. So if someone could confirm that my judgement is correct (or otherwise) I'll reveal who it was.
Redefining terms is bit of a denialist hallmark, Andrew.
Perhaps it has a similar working(?) mechanism to occult symbology for them.
[Andrew Adams](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2616…).
I'll happily reassure you that there are more than "4 periods... and a bit" of 30-year intervals with which to analyse climate trends.
Of course, there are issues of autocorrelation and such, but these are well-recognised matters and are dealt with in trend analyses, as many reads of, say, Open Mind will show. Even simple techniques such as multi-year smoothings will help to some extent to deal with autocorrelation, and they certainly help to remove short-term noise from the underlying climatic signal. Heck, one can use intervals less than 30 years for such an approach, although the noise becomes more significant with decreasing spans of time.
Sticking to a 30-year interval though, one can certainly refer to more than "four and a bit" periods of climatic trend. The goof-ball to which you refer may beg to differ, but if he does he should wander here, or over to Tamino's, and explicitly state his case.
He will then be gifted with an education that will make his head spin.
Bernard J,
Thanks for the reply - it confirms what I thought. And the person in question? Richard S Courtney - member of the editoral advisory board of Energy & Environment.
re #21, thanks steve, I'll try to follow that up on a rainy day, and
re# 22, MartinM,
I'm assuming you called me 'an utter git' in a pleasant way (smile),
Pleasant? You polluted my brain :(
Well, let's see. Let's call each datapoint DP# (where # represents a sequentially increasing number) and list the years encompassing that datapoint:
DP1 = 1880-1910
DP2 = 1881-1911
DP3 = 1882-1912
.
.
.
DP101 = 1980-2010
The datapoints are overlapping, therefore there are about 100, not 4. This is what's called a running average. The trick - oops, can't use that word, can we - the idea (in part) is to make the time interval large enough to contain several cycles of any periodic events.
Andrew, it is an especially dumb argument, which is why no one takes Richard Courtney or Energy & Environment seriously, other than the denizens of WTFU, that is.
See Kevin Vicklun's reply for the proper way to use a 30 year running mean.
Anyone following the USSC opinion impacting the application of the Second Amendment to the States?
Tim?
Yeah, a bunch of pro-states' rights conservative justices just voted to further limit a state's right to limit handgun ownership ...
I see Dr Richard North (coauthor with Chris Booker and begetter of much of the 'research' that went into 'Amazongate') has laid down the gauntlet to George Monbiot, threatening a legal action for damage to his professional reputation.
I like a good fight, me. I guess he was unimpressed by such Moonbatisms as
"Richard North is our old friend Christopher Booker's long-term collaborator, and between them they are responsible for more misinformation than any other living journalists. You could write a book about the stories they have concocted, almost all of which fall apart on the briefest examination."
IANAL, but does this mean that North now has to locate a living journalist who has spread more misinformation than he and Booker? Maybe we can help? How about Stvn Gddrd ?
And/or Tm Fllrsht
8 JB,
KIY also paid a visit to [Greenfyre's](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-d…). PT keeps repeating the same old, same old, of course.
Jim Eager (and others)
Yes, I know I shouldn't be surprised, but even so... For some reason I had never come across Courtney before and to see him brazenly and arrogantly championing E&E's intellectual rigour (as opposed to "popular science magazines" such as Science and Nature) when I'd seen him elsewhere use a line of argument which someone like me who had never taken a stats course in my life could see was utter nonsense, well chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe it.
MartinM @22
>> Any comments? - after you stop laughing I assume.
>You utter git. I made the mistake of taking a quick look at the latest post at that site, and following some of the links. I've seen cranks of various kinds get basic physics wrong, but arithmetic?
Good grief! Well, if Nasif Nahle approves then it's definitely a load of bullcrap. I mean, what's with all the mini G&Ts running around? Thermodynamics isn't for children to play with.
I posted a comment there, it's in moderation. Just in case, here it is:
>This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the greenhouse effect is. The gases do not 'heat' the ground, since the ground is warmer than the radiating gases. However, the gases do indeed emit radiation, some of which is directed towards the ground, where it is absorbed. The ground doesn't know the source of each photon, so how could it choose not to absorb radiation emitted by gases (and clouds) in the atmosphere?
>This radiation, which has been observed even in the polar night (>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3525.1>) and reaches over 400W/m2 in the tropics (), contributes to the total radiation budget. Globally the surface still emits as much as it absorbs, balancing the surface energy budget.
39 Andrew,
So it is strange indeed that I defended Courtney here last year (or was it 2008?) when his (correct in my view) description of monthly temperature anomalies was attacked by regulars who should have known better.
I don't know where else to go with this, but it floored me when I read it just now. Over on WUWT, Anthony Watts is joking about how skeptics will have to wear yellow badges,
"I also quipped: 'Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?'. Thatâs a reference to the Yellow badges imposed on the Jewish population of WWII, to separate them from the rest of the populace. It is a sad footnote of history but not unlike the PNAS paperâs attempt to separate skeptics from the rest of the scientific community."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/badges-the-we-dont-need-no-stinki…
Not a peep of protest from his followers.
I'm not sure what Anthony Watts is worried about.
Surely his lack of qualifications precludes him from being invited to any academic conferences anyway?
I popped over to the PhysicsWorld site to see an article there
Good article on the recent PNAS survey but I had no idea the joint was infested with denialists (the commentators that is, no worries with the poor journos copping this flak)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43002
(I googled a couple of the noisiest, OKM & Eaton, and it's not a one off - I thought that any mention of that PNAS article by science news sites may have been a target of the winged monkeys. But those 2 are no stranger to posting their subset of standard denier assertions on that site)
in a rather funny sequence of events, the day after Steven Goddard wrote a post, predicting the latests coast ice break up in Barrow, the ice vanished from the beach.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-reco…
Goddard has used the "thick" ice on the beach of Barrow as a major indicator for the growing sea ice thickness he postulates in his WuWt posts...
ouch. it actually looks as if the ice broke off the day (early 25th) BEFORE Goddard wrote his post (26th).
http://ak.aoos.org/data/ice/radar/BRWICE/staging/radar/SIRwebanim_more…
Watts once again outdoes himself in poor taste. 'Yellow badges'? If this were published in Germany, the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (the main Jewish association here in Germany) would fly off the handle. Nazi comparisons are being thrown around like they cost nothing these days...
Timely speech from [Wongy](http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong/2010/major-speeches/June/…).
@26 andrew adams
Yes it is a really silly statement.
For a start, the 30 year thing is a 'window', you can move it along to any point. It is a statistical analysis that gives an indication of the minimum window that will show the trend through all the noise in the data.
Really it does in maths what people do with their eyes and brains when they look at a noisy graph (or at least intelligent people do).
I don't know if you people can watch BBC Panorama down under but last evening's Panorama 'What's Up With the Weather?' is now on BBC iPlayer at:
http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00swp0k/Panorama_Whats_Up_With_t…
Yeh! Looks like the Beeb still has not caught the difference between climate change and weather.
Following a couple of news items by David Shukmen wheeling out Benny Peiser as the skeptic, sorry denier expert I was curious how this Panorama would play out. Not quite so bad but still simplistic and to wheel out Lomborg is as bad as, if not worse than, using Peiser. And to allow a clip of Melanie Phillips was as daft. Phillips is well known for her lack of understanding of things scientific following her MMR rants. She must order vitriol by the tanker load, probably has it on stream at home.
Christy displays classic cognitive dissonance when he agrees that the greenhouse effect is real and that additional man induced CO2 is increasing warming and then display uncertainty about the fact that humans are responsible for most of the current increase in warming. I cannot make Christy out.
A recent paper on ocean acidification (Tans 2009) is "debunked" by the Idsos at CO2Science (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N26/EDIT.php). See how many major errors you can spot in their 4 paragraphs - I counted three.
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
One would think, wouldn't one, that if Richard Coutney were an enthusiast of intellectual rigour, and the noble search for the truth, that he would arrange for the many open letters and petitions that nominate him as Dr Richard S Courtney or Richard S Courtney PhD to be corrected.
Seeing as how he has never actually, you know, been awarded a Doctorate.
I'm sure it comes as a great surprise to learn that your comment has yet to appear.
[Phil said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2620…)"... he would arrange for the many open letters and petitions that nominate him as Dr Richard S Courtney or Richard S Courtney PhD to be corrected. Seeing as how he has never actually, you know, been awarded a Doctorate".
Maybe it's one of those blog doctorates?
Seems Mann has, 11-12 years on, finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.
""I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate," he said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Mich…
Think it's time some people who called me a liar here issue an apology.
That's odd Martin, I can see my comment, and a follow-up comment I made today (not that I have got any engagement from the other sadly clueless commenters). Perhaps check again?
Actually just realised you might have thought I commented on climaterealists - I didn't :)
Ah, you're right. I see them now.
So, some of you are attempting conversation with the inmates there?
We've been discussing the terminally deranged at Tamino's too, BTW.
Speaking of Watts, he's speaking with none other than David "worst climate science paper ever" Archibald tonight (Wednesday 30th June) in Belconnen Canberra. 6:30pm, Labor Club Belco.
I've got stuff on tonight and can't get over to it, but if anyone wants to ask a question or two of him...
Another false accusation from Steve McIntyre
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/29/revisiting-tar-figure-2-21-part-1-ano…
According to self-appointed climate science auditor Steve McIntyre, Mann took it on himself to truncate Briffa's data set and replaced the deleted data with instrumental temperature data, thus creating less of a drop at the end of the resulting smoothed chart. But a closer examination shows the evidence for instrumental "padding" is far from certain. And the difference engendered between different possible "padding" values is minimal in any case.
Even worse, the key element of McIntyre's narrative, namely the accusation that Mann himself truncated Briffa's data set. In fact, it turns out that the actual data set used by Mann (as sent by Tim Osborn on Keith Briffa's behalf) contains values only up to 1960 - exactly as in the figure produced in TAR. So once again, we have another egregiously false accusation from Steve McIntyre, one that has been echoed by McIntyre acolytes and CruTape Letters authors Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller.
FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.
Richard S Courtney has a B.A. in Material Science and a DipPhil in Material Science, the later was received for distance learning.
You say that like it's a bad thing. 1) Gun ownership is not a conservative value, lots of libs like owning them. 2) It wasn't a state's right decision at all, it was a decision making clear the rather obvious import of the Bill of Rights--it applies to the states uniformly, and the idea of rights needing 14A incorporation is frankly pretty dumb dammit. 3) State's don't have rights--they have powers, and they don't have the power to deny you the means of self defense.
As I remind my liberal friends...do you REALLY want just the neocons and rightwingers to be armed? Bad idea.
So what - do you bleed less if you get shot by a liberal?
Why - are you expecting a shootout?
poptech claims
>FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.<
So you swore or use threatening words - or are you claiming there's a conspiracy where 'good' people can have their responses shut down if the content isn't 'correct' at the Guardian?
ChrisC @61
All in all it sounds like a must-see event, as it looks like the Tim Curtin sideshow will be there too :)
@Poptech:
FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread. Happens everytime and is the only way people like him can pretend to win arguments, sad.
You are a real life example of Offspring's Pretty fly for a white guy
"Our subject isn't cool, but he thinks it anyway/
He may not have a clue, and he may not have style/
But everything he lacks, well he makes up in denial!"
Calling your a$$beating at the grauniad a victory? Baghdad Bob would be proud of you.
Well, someone who can't tell the difference between E&E and a real journal isn't exactly firmly in contact with reality.
The Dalton Minimum Cometh. :-)
New Dalton Minimum](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=2)
++++
Poptech: "FYI I effectively dismantled KIY at the Guardian, that is until he was able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread."
Poptech, you really, really, don't know what you're talking about.
When you call someone a liar on CIF your post will be deleted. Everyone's had a post deleted at some point.
As for locking the thread, that's possibly such a clear demonstration of how your mind works: All CIF threads get locked at some point. All of them! The one in which KIY was handing you your ass in a sling actually ran for longer than usual. Take off your victim-martyr hat, no one's gonna cry for you, you just got it wrong... quel supris.
Vaguely related to the Australian Climate Sceptics' current perambulating comedy routine, has anyone noticed how closely the party's kangaroo logo matches that of the Australian Olympic Committee's licenced image?
The 'Sceptics' put both of the 'roo's feet on the ground, and whacked a Southern Cross behind it, but otherwise it is substantially the same. I'd be interested to know if the differences count as the sort that I understand are required for trademarked logos to qualify as being distinct - I'm sure that cohenite has run his divorce lawyer's eyes over it, but I still think that it's unashamed plaigarism.
Trouble is, if the AOC decided to pursue it, they'd only end up recruiting for the party. I wonder if that might have been cohenite's intention all along...
Come on Anthony - fill us in.
[Dave Andrews said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2620…):
I think that first you need to demonstrate that you have never lied in any of your postings on Deltoid.
There are many here who would be surprised if you could actually do that.
"Seems Mann has, 11-12 years on, finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.
""I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate," he said.""
That is Dave, lying in the post where he demands that we apologize for calling him a liar.
If he stopped sodimizing the corpse of irony, we could give it a christian burial.
Neither but the comments can obviously be censored at the guardian for not having the collective bias. This was demonstrated by the deletion of my comments. Then the close of the thread makes it look like I never responded.
[Elspi](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2621…), that metaphor is one of which I would be proud...
You are obviously delusional. KIY kept changing the subject after I refuted everyone of his erroneous claims. Finally he had to get the mods to remove some of my replies so he could look like he won a point and then of course lock the thread so he could pretend I never responded.
Re. 74 Poptech
You called KIY a liar. I saw the posts. That's abuse, so your comments were cut. Plain and simple. Do you see everything that doesn't go your way as a conspiracy? That seems to be a common trait amongst the loudest denialist noisemakers.
The thread wasn't shut down because of you. This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but the Guardian isn't all about you and your dwindling list. They always shut a thread down after a few days and, as I said earlier, that thread was kept open for longer than usual. Get over yourself.
KIY stated lies, which all alarmists resort to at some point after I refute all of their nonsense.
J Bowers, were you ever able to find those duplicate posts KIY claimed were on the list? Oh that's right he "handed me my ass". Too funny.
Factually stating my comments at the Guardian were censored and the thread conveniently locked just after KIY posted last is pure coincidence I am sure.
Dave Andrews @56
Now put your thinking head on and consider why and how the hockey stick became such a prominent feature of the debate.
Think deniers and straw men.
You, Andrews, have just created another straw man for what Mann actually said does not equate in any way to 'finally admitted that the hockey stick was not what it was made out to be.' Put your thinking head on and consider that also.
ROFL. Denial comes in many forms. As for KIY talking about duplicate posts, are you sure you don't mean repetitive points? Do you not recall my comment...
KIY wasn't the only one to think so.
Re: 77 J Bowers
KIY is a liar,
1. He lied that duplicate papers were on the list.
2. He lied that non-peer-reviewed papers were counted (Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers)
3. He lied that E&E is not peer-reviewed
4. He lied that Pielke requested that his papers be removed off the list (I have yet to receive an email from him or any other author on the list for that matter).
5. He lied that the list has no formatting.
ect...
So I guess to some stating lies is "winning an argument".
63 PT,
You are such a funny guy! You couldn't dismantle a Lego house. All you did was repeat the same old drivel you always repeat, which KIY destroyed line by line. Do you really think that KIY was "able to get the mods to delete some of my responses and lock the thread"? You don't suspect that they were deleted for the same reason your mindless repetition gets deleted in other forums and blogs? Are you really that delusional?
Thanks for confirming that Courtney does not have a PhD, though.
Richard S Courtney has a B.A. in Material Science and a DipPhil in Material Science, the later was received for distance learning.
I'm happy to accept your assertion of Courtney's bona fide scientific credentials, and indeed that he is on the editorial advisory board of a genuine peer-reviewed scientific journal. Which makes it even more remarkable that he may come out with a comment like
Poptech. Re: Duplicate papers - are you claiming these as two seperate papers?
Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
- Vincent Courtillot et al.
- Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328â339, 2007" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
- Vincent Courtillot et al.
He lied that Pielke requested that his papers be removed off the list (I have yet to receive an email from him or any other author on the list for that matter).
Let's remind ourselves of what Pielke said on his blog.
Now maybe he hasn't specifically requested you to remove them but it is pretty clear from the above and from the subsequent comments that he disputes that they should be included.
...Or these?
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
- Correction to "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
- Response to "Comment on âInfluence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
You don't bleed more when you're shot by a conservative, so I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. Firearms ownership isn't an indicator of political identity, but for some reason far too many of erstwhile fellow liberal travelers seem to want to make it so. It smacks of bigotry.
And no, not expecting a shootout just yet. Also not expecting to have an abortion, but I'm glad other people are free to do so if they're in need. Not planning on the house catching fire, but I keep a fire alarm and extinguisher handy. Not planning on stabbing anyone, but I have a knife at the ready.
Now, can we get back to discussing climate change?
Chris S.
Vincent Courtillot et al.
First is the actual paper, the second is the published response from the authors to a published comment on their original paper. They are two separate documents. Only the first is counted the second is provided as defense of the original, this is explicitly stated in the first sentence,
"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers."
Counting all these would make the count +50.
There are no duplicate papers on the list, KIY lied multiple times about this. Anyone intellectually honest can see he lied. He is a demonstrated liar who's worthless commentary is just that.
TrueSceptic, you are wrong KIY got dismantled line by line which is why you see him consistently dropping off points as I took them apart. He even repeated various lies after proven that they were not true and failed to provide evidence to support them.
The only justification for their deletion was to not embarrass KIY any more than he had already been.
I never claimed Courtney had a Ph.D. and neither did he. Some lists incorrectly stated this which is not his fault.
Poptech is good fun. I've read the last few posts on this thread with a growing smile. I assume these are similar points to those made at the Guardian site? In that case, will Poptech soon accuse you all of lying and throw a proper hissy fit? That would be entertaining.
andrew adams,
What Dr. Pielke Jr. said was explicitly clear - if the list was only of papers that do not support anthropogenic reasons as the main cause of climate change then his papers do not belong, this is not true and was explained to him in his blog. The list explicitly states that: "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW." Thus his papers fall into the later categories. No where does he demand any papers be removed from the list.
Stu,
I only accuse those of lying who actually do. Now could you please provide support for KIY's lie about duplicate papers on the list? Prove me wrong, provide a single duplicate paper on the list. KIY repeated this lie multiple times at the Guardian and failed to provide any evidence of this, despite repeated requests.
Tim, can you lock this thread please? ;) ;)
No, Poptech, I was only joking. Don't throw your dummy out the pram.
By the way, Poptech, you just called KIY a liar multiple times. See, that kind of behaviour at the Guardian gets your comment deleted. You making the connection yet? It's really simple: Don't call people liars and your post stays up for all to see. Unless, of course, the whole point is to get deleted so you can run off to teacher and claim victimhood.
J Bowers,
I have posts up with that word in them and they are not deleted so your theory is falsified. I had three comments censored for unknown reasons all conveniently in reply to KIY, all refuting misinformation he stated.
Re. 94 Poptech
They probably weren't reported. Thanks for letting me know, I'll go and sort it out now. Can you give me the times and dates to make it a bit easier?
Ah, so you admit to reporting my posts to get my replies censored, how very fascist of you. I see you cannot have anyone actually reading my replies as they clearly refute all the misinformation KIY and yourself peddle.
Re. 96 Poptech
Comments don't have to be reported to be deleted, given there are moderators. Some crap does get through, though. What really makes me roll my eyes is the way you immediately assumed I was being serious. If wanting to feel a persecuted martyr is your thang, feel free. All good for your little propaganda war I guess.
I think Poptart is just trying to get the Curtin thread buried.
Ooh I hope not, my post is the last in that trainwreck thread and I want to know what Tim's response is.
I have started the monumental task to go through poptech's list in more detail. Already before I reached 20 I found a duplicate (hint to poptech: conference proceedings are often followed by a 'real' publication with a different title, but the paper is essentially the same), and several opinion papers of which the "peer review" status is highly questionable. It appears that one journal's "peer review" process consists of the Editors doing proofreading and making changes they consider appropriate (in discussion with the authors).
Don't expect a final result of my audit anywhere soon, but it will come, probably hosted by greenfyre.
Poptech,
But by saying "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW" you make the criteria for inclusion so broad that it becomes meaningless. You can have dissgreements about the economic or environmental effects of AGW while accepting that AGW is real. Even if we accept that your 750 papers are all genuine, serious and peer-reviewed then by your own definition some are going to be mutually contradictory so how can you use them as a basis for any coherent and consistent argument.
90 Stu,
It always follows the same pattern. See [Greenfyre](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climat…), [Greenfyre again](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-d…), and [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/21/trust-climate-sc…)
At the JREF, he went on a spamming and insult spree and got banned.
@Andrew Adams:
The list contains a reference to Gerlich & Tscheuschner, which contradicts quite a few of the other papers on a rather fundamental point. It shows the stupidity of the list (or rather, the person who made the list) in a nutshell.
Marco,
Those are not duplicates but separate papers with similar names. Since you intentionally do not mention the papers you are challenging there is no way to confirm what you are saying.
andrew adams,
The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.
The fact that many are mutually contradictory doesn't bother you then Poptech? So long as it allows people to tout the sceptic argument 'de jour' you're happy, and who cares if tomorrow we refute what we said today?
J Bowers,
"You called KIY a liar. I saw the posts. That's abuse, so your comments were cut. Plain and simple."
Interesting that I'm regularly called a 'liar' here, even though Bernard J would have difficulty finding a post to prove that despite elspi's repetition of the mantra above.Yet none of these posts, which you style 'abuse' seem to get cut. Funny that.
106 Stu,
I have to defend PT on this. He's collected anything and everything that he considers to be "skeptical". Given that "skeptics" believe a dozen contradictory things at once, and change even those at random, almost on a daily basis, who are we to argue with what he chooses for his list?
So, did anybody go and spend some time with the cranky pensioners at their Denio-fest last night?
Personally, I chose to spend the evening sticking pins in my eyes, so I was unable to go.
Oh gaaawd, he's back (poptech, that is).
Is there no forum on the planet he doesn't spam with his "750 peer reviewed papers" or his other great list - the newspaper articles on "global cooling" to prove that every scientist in the world thought we were headed for an ice age?
Poptech somewhat amusingly seems to believe that providing fairly underwhelming "lists" is actually better than knowing anything about basic physics.
Stu,
Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way. Since the list is not about any single argument this is perfectly acceptable. The list is a reference for all of them as noted.
Mike,
I have never spammed the list anywhere and it is interesting to not the large volume of skeptics with degrees in physics.
Poptech, having a physics degree does not endow someone with a knowledge of climate science. In fact, it doesn't make someone have any commonsense whatsoever. A guy with a physics degree once asserted to me that carbon dating could be in error by millions of years, which is interesting seeing as it isn't used to date anything more than some tens of thousands of years old.
"Dr Death", here in Australia, had all the prerequisite qualifications in medicine and surgery. Any idea why they might have called him "Dr Death" and he just got convicted of several counts of manslaughter the other day, and is now awaiting sentencing?
What matters is not their degree, but the substance of what they have researched and their proven competence in their field of study. The blogoshere is littered with blatantly ridiculous and stupid statements from "scientifically qualified" sceptics or people with various degrees.
> mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none
> of the papers refute any of the others
> or even mention them
"not the IPCC, anything but the IPCC"
Having a physics degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic physics.
Lets take a sample on one of Poptart's list, Gerlich & Tscheuschner. This article fails Poptart's claims of peer review. The G&T paper was as [a review papaer](http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html), not a research paper.
Whats the difference between a 'review' and and 'reseach' paper?
>*[research papers undergo stringent refereeing](http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/mkt/aims_scope.shtml),* whiles reveiw papers are by *"invitation only"*.
Even if you didn't know the above, you have to know the trash in G&T was not peer reviewed from its content, if you had any sense.
> Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way.
Wow!
So if a paper is published which - if correct - means that *another* paper must be wrong, but it doesn't *mention* that other paper, then it's NOT actually a refutation? And then one can claim it to be "mutually exclusive" instead of "mutually contradictory" and ... somehow think that the first paper really *doesn't* contradict the second?
That's some grade-A flying pretzel syllogic right there. You've got a great career in politics or advertising ahead of you.
jakerman,
Seriously? You distorted the context,
"To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing."
That is just commenting that they have stringent refereeing for research papers.
Try reading their submission guidelines,
"Authors are invited to submit original review or research articles for publication in IJMPB...
All submitted articles will be refereed."
Sorry it was peer-reviewed and there is nothing you can do about it.
Just saw this review article by Susan Lozler
Deconstructing the Conveyor Belt
The article points out observations that differ with the Global Conveyor model, but does not dismiss the fact that there is meridional overturning over a long timescale.
This underscores the maxim "All models are wrong, but some models are useful".
This also underscores the importance that meso-scale level ocean modelling will play in future GCMs. The Imperial College Ocean Model (ICOM) project, using a unstructured horizontal (and vertical in future plans) coordinate system, looks well-placed to contribute to these future models.
Tragically, this natural progression of science will be beaten up (Again) by the denialati, saying that the GCMs are wrong hence the IPCC is wrong hence there is no need to worry folks.
Here is one of the less shrill bloggers take on it - Ocean Conveyor Belt Dismissed - noting the descent in tone of the title. It has already been picked up by Climaterealist.com and will soon descend to the benthic level of tabloid journalists. I predict this to be reported as the "nail in the coffin" by the likes of Andrew Bolt etc within a month or so.
Anthony
Poptech, the paper that got published in the conference proceedings was followed up by the *real* publication in a regular journal. This happens to quite a few papers. I myself have two papers in conference proceedings that ultimately went into a proper journal. As is proper, I do not count those conference proceedings papers as "peer reviewed", because they are not.
And don't worry, you will get to see my comments in a few months (I'm not going to spend much time in the near future on it). However, I can give you another few hints so you know what to expect: opinion papers are often not peer reviewed, especially the short ones. They are not that hard to spot in your list. American Scientist is not peer reviewed either. And this is all without even looking at whether the paper warrants to be included as "skeptical". We've already had a discussion on Zeebe et al, which proposes a *higher* climate sensitivity or *additional positive feedbacks* to explain the observed temperature change. And you call it "skeptical"...
@116, Poptech
Having a medical degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic medicine.
So would you allow a dermatologist to do your heart valve replacement surgery? In fact, would you even want their opinion on a heart valve replacement?
Having a physics degree does not prevent someone from misrepresenting scientific research, from failing to understand more specialised areas of science, from being not very good at science, or from offering unreliable opinions on particular scientific topics.
So personally, I'll stick with the opinions of specialist climate scientists who are considered highly reputable within their field of expertise. You go with whoever makes you feel better about your own opinions. It's clearly what you want to do.
Is there any further point in me arguing reason and logic here or am I flogging a dead horse?
Poptart:
>*That is just commenting that they have stringent refereeing for research papers.*
As distinct to the process for review papers.
As [the content of G&T](http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninform…) would not pass any credible stringent peer review by those competent to referee it.
Mike, re 122
"Is there any further point in me arguing reason and logic here or am I flogging a dead horse? "
In respect of Poptech's views, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse.
I debated with him several years ago on a minor UK political forum and exposed to people there his widespread trolling - for that is all it is.
That is also why I expressed my surprise in post #14 :-
Is Poptech still peddling his crappy databases? Still claiming Energy & Environment is a scientific peer-reviewed journal?
He must be some super-masochist to keep on surviving all these beatings he gets everywhere :)
A classic case of 'denial'.
Poptech @119 June 30, 2010 11:04 PM. A multiple choice question for you. There may be more than one correct answer.
When you say G&T's "paper" was "peer-reviewed and there is nothing you can do about it", do you mean:
a) scientists with established credentials in, significant current experience in and a string of publications on one or more subjects directly relevant to climate science went through it with a fine-tooth comb and, after several rounds of revised drafts, accepted the final product; or
b) His Sirness Lordy Lord Discount Monckton looked at it on the 8.55 to Paddington and pronounced it fit for consumption; or
c) someone took G&T's paper to the seaside, propped it up on a deckchair and looked at it from a nearby jetty; or
d) b) and c) above.
What Poptart seems to be doing is his own version of the Oregon petition, in which the figure of 31,000 "scientists" is meant to impress. What the OP actually is is an unaudited list of self-claimed graduates, and even that represents a pitifully small proportion of the graduates in the USA over its eleven year period.
But for the average poptart-eating Joe 31,000 - like Poptart's "700 peer reviewed" papers (or whatever he claims) - is meant to impress. Quantity not quality of content. Nobody is ever meant to actually read any of them; the 700 is the substance.
He will never accept that his criteria are rubbish and disagreed with by some of the included authors, nor will he amend the title to "Poptart's Great Catalogue of Alleged AGW Denial and Miniscule Claim To Fame", which nobody would have any problem with. In another six months he'll surface with it again, hoping everybody has forgotten.
A classic waste of time and I'm sure I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said over the course of his 6 month campaign by others and which have had all the effect of water on the average duck.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/30/climate-craziness-of-the-week-the…
Watts seems to have been taken in by a three year old April Fool joke over at RealClimate. (Sheep Albedo)
> What the OP actually is is an unaudited list of self-claimed graduates, and even that represents a pitifully small proportion of the graduates in the USA over its eleven year period.
My favourite puncturing of the OP (and I apologise, I can't remember precisely where this came from) was something along the lines of: even taken at face value, statistically speaking the OP represents a smaller percentage of scientists than those that are clinically insane.
Of course, once you weed out all the dead people and Spice Girls from the list, it gets even less impressive.
Actually, SteveC, I think this comment was unfair. On balance, the greater part of G&T is not really science per se.
So given this, how difficult can it have been for someone at IJMP to find some fellow polemicists to do a peer review?
Unfair, as I said.
Dr. Harold Brooks has asked for his paper to be removed from the list. Is it still there?
The point is is that several scientists have requested that their papers be removed from the list.
Talking of G&T and other "skeptic" papers, I'm assuming that Poptech removes them once they have been thoroughly debunked.
So G&T should not be on there. Nor should papers by Michaels and McKitrick, Douglass, McLean, or those speaking to the alleged GCR hypothesis (that hypothesis has been soundly refuted so many time sit is not true) etc etc.
One might be able to argue whether or not E&E is peer-reviewed. However, E&E is not a reputable journal and has strong political leanings, EOS.
Many of the papers on the list do not even remotely question or refute the theory of AGW.
[SteveC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2624…), you bastard, you now owe me a cup of tea and a brand new keyboard.
[MapleLeaf said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2626…)One might be able to argue whether or not E&E is peer-reviewed. However, E&E is not a reputable journal and has strong political leanings, EOS.
Given it's almost non-existent citation history and editor Sonja's recorded [comment](https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Sep5-CHEartic…), E&E is to peer reviewed scientific journals what Health & Efficiency is to The Lancet. And probably used for very similar purposes.
What poptart is unable to appreciate is that appearance in a respected journal isn't like getting a shiny badge in a packet of cereal that you can walk round showing off to your gang, but an indication that they contain information of actual use and interest that can be tested and cited elsewhere. At best, it's information that's an addition to the human project.
But poptart's overly apparent interest is in big numbers, however meaningless. He's very much like Goddard, and just as clueless. IOW, typical would-be, upper-strata denier intelligentsia wannabee, who no doubt only longs for one day getting a hat tip from Big Stevieboy.
Do You find the defendent Guilty Or Not Guilty?
Not Guilty M'Lord.
And is this the verdict of you all?
It is M'Lord.
Have you anything to add?
Yes, we have. Dr Mann's success in proposing research and obtaining funding to conduct it clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession. Dr Mann's work, from the beginning of his career has been recognised as outstanding [...] clearly, Dr Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of the accepted practices in his field.
I see. You do realise that these conclusions are a Climate Auditor's worst nightmare?
And your point is?
http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.p…
ClimateGate. SO last year.
The PDF has a bug. Including part of what Phil quotes.
It appears that [Bishop Phil](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/1/mann-cleared.html#comme…) (no relation) concurs with you Phil.
Heh. Smugness is so unattractive. Not to mention unBritish. But let's take a short respite to savour Dr Mann's COMPLETE EXONERATION, and the discomfiture hopefully felt amongst those who caused this - that all their books, blog posts and 'humourous' videos have come to naught. Sweet.
Oh, and try not to puke, guys.
Phil Clarke - I hear that the shortest measureable period of time is not 100 attoseconds as previously stated. It is now defined as the interval between a top climate scientist being cleared of all charges and a âscepticâ blogger posting a sentence containing the word âWHITEWASH!!!â.
Dave H @128:
Dave, there is a view that says the list would be more impressive had they kept the Spice Girls and the dead people and got rid of the rest... ;-)
Has..... MICHAEL MANN BEEN COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY EXONERATED WHICH MEANS HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER??!!
Oh, ding dong. Top drawer.
Dave H, as you were. I just had a derr... moment, think I've been reading too much WTFUWT recently.
Note to self - I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must READ THINGS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING. I must...
desk>
Check @133. Yes, I was being incredibly generous. E&E is not carried by the ISI for good reason.
Who in the blazes is "Clinton Gillespie"?
http://ijish.livejournal.com/12611.html
I understand it is now technically possible to add a sound file to a web page to provide ambient music or an appropriate soundtrack ...
Surely the correct mood music for this page can only be 'The End' by The Doors.... ?
Marco, some conference proceedings are peer-reviewed. Though that this is more of a distraction and not worth arguing about.
Opinion papers can be peer-reviewed. Zeebe et al. does not propose a higher climate sensitivity is suggests causes other than CO2.
Mike,
My comment,
"Having a physics degree endows someone with the knowledge of basic physics."
was in response to yours,
"Poptech somewhat amusingly seems to believe that providing fairly underwhelming "lists" is actually better than knowing anything about basic physics."
To answer your question you are not following basic logic or reasoning as you created a strawman argument by changing your criteria to "specialist climate scientists". I was not responding to that but rather your comment on "basic physics".
jokeman,
G&T passed peer-review and there is nothing you can do about it, except whine. Your whining is noted.
Clippo, you exposed no such thing and I have yet to take a beating anywhere.
SteveC,
When I say G&T was peer-reviewed, I mean peer-reviewed to science journal standards.
MapleLeaf, no scientist has ever asked for their paper to be removed from the list ever. Dr. Brooks wrongly assumed his paper was listed because it rejected AGW which is not true, it is listed because it supports skepticism of the environmental effects of AGW, in this case about tornadoes.
MapleLeaf,
Papers will be removed if they are retracted by the journals otherwise no. And E&E is a reputable journal despite your repetition of that talking point. You are correct as many of the papers simply support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of AGW.
Cheeky,
The correct interpretation of Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's quote is,
"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.
I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.
The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.
I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.
In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish." Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
Better get your facts straight, though I am not sure you have the ability to research such things.
MapleLeaf,
The 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.
> When I say G&T was peer-reviewed, I mean peer-reviewed to science journal standards.
And you (apparently deliberately) ignore **post-publication** peer-review which is even more important than pre-publication peer-review - and which in G&T's case has shown that it's a load of horse dung.
Of course, if you **want** to be known as a peddler of horse-dung as long as it includes the message you prefer, then that's a different matter...
@Poptech, do you personally think the G&T paper you've cited has any scientific credibility?
The next time someone starts babbling about how everyone in the 1970s was predicting a new ice age, you might want to point them to this:
[Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100703/ap_on_re_us/us_nixon_library_docume…)
Following up on my previous post: the Nixon Library has scans of some of these documents online.
[Moynihan Memo for John Ehrlichman, Sept. 1969:](http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf)
Excerpts: "As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change...
"The process is a simple one... The CO2 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it...
"It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects. For example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower temperatures, and might offset the CO2 effect. Similarly, it is possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the CO2 rise. (E.g., stop burning fossil fuels.)"
[Hubert Heffner Memorandum for Daniel Moynihan, Jan. 1970:](http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/55.pdf)
Heffner was the Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Excerpt: "I am replying to your note querying whether we should become involved in the issue of CO2 and atmospheric temperature rise. The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between. One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise from CO2."
Poptart writes:
>*and there is nothing you can do about it, except whine. Your whining is noted.*
Your irony is noted, even if it sailed above your own head.
re 148:-
Clippo, you exposed no such thing and I have yet to take a beating anywhere.
Unfortunately I DID poptech - and your inability to accept those beatings there and here, and practically everywhere else where there are 'thinking' people, just confirms your extreme 'denial' and trolling problems.
>*And E&E is a reputable journal despite your repetition of that talking point.*
More irony from poptart!
@146, Poptech, you can dance around the issue all you like, but this really isn't hard to understand:
I was not originally referring to "their" knowledge of basic physics. I was referring to yours. You know, your apparent tendency to simply produce a list of people and imply something to the effect that global warming is disproved by a small minority as a substitute for arguing any specific case yourself. I've got a theory on why you do that.
You then start harping on about having physics degrees endowing people with basic knowledge of physics (by implication referring to those in your "list") as if to suggest that it endows them with great authority on climate science by default.
Was that your implication? I'm not creating a strawman - I'm just suggesting it seemed that was the point of your statement, or was it just a meaningless throwaway line of no relevance at all? You tell me, poptech.
BLACKLIST OH NOES!!!!! Climate anti-scientist John O'Sullivan exposes his mass e-mailing list.
> From: JOHN OSULLIVAN <john0sullivan@btinternet.com>
> Subject: [co2isplantfood] My latest legal analysis upon discussions with Dr. Judith Curry
> To: judith.curry@eas.gatech.edu
> Cc: a.batty316@btinternet.com, alan618034@earthlink.net, allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk, attorneys@hrbclaw.com, AussieHonestClimate@yahoo.com.au, avril_soleil@ yahoo.com, drrocket@cableone.net, aaprjohn@northnet.org, bobashworth@earthlink.net, piers@weatheraction.com, camerond@parliament.uk, catalyst@eis.net.au, [...]
You've got to laugh when you read Poptech going round in circles in his own little world.
Even Pielke knew what he was up against :
Pielke : Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-)
The response is classic Poptech :
"Actually using my logic it is impossible to find your papers in support of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus."
Pielke : I'd be interested in your definition of ["man-made" global warming], which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way.
Response :
"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."
That link again
(Comments 22 onwards)
(My emphasis above - that is Poptech's 'get out of jail card' : he creates the strawman and argues against something which no-one else is arguing about)
Don't you love it when a blogger 'expert' tells a proper expert (whether you agree with or like him or not) what's what about his own (Pielke's own) papers and his own personal views :
"Since I am in no way implying a certain hypothesis to you or your dad's position (nor any of the other author's of the papers) I am not removing them from the list."
You will also notice that the last response from Poptech (Andrew as he was then) was two and half years after the penultimate one, giving him the chance to have the last word and make it look as if was actually engaged in a conversation which he can then claim he won. Truly bizarre.
Also funny to see how confused and upset some of the other posters are :
"Roger, seriously, I think you're off-base here: I looked at the list with nothing in mind particularly either way, and my only surprise was that you were surprised."
"Roger, you and your dad are sceptics. This is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to be proud of."
"Roger, your papers undeniably represent skepticism towards AGW."
JMurphy,
Pielke's comment about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus was in relation to the statement I originally had with an incomplete sentence: "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of" which should have been, "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made" global warming". It now says,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW."
So it solves both the criticism of using a scientific term and making sure the sentence is complete.
I have yet to receive an email from any scientist, including Dr. Pielke requesting to have his papers removed off the list. The reason is, I am not using their papers in support of rejection of AGW but in support of skepticism of the economic or environmental effects of AGW (skepticism of alarm).
I never told Dr. Pielke what his own personal views were, so please stop lying.
LMAO, the date stamp is Month+ Day not Month + Year.
The real reason that the Pielkes want their papers removed from Popfarts list is that they don't want their papers bundled in with the fetid sludge of denier papers Popfart has dredged from the bottom of the barrel of "sceptic" papers.
Just a little bit of innocent fun:
http://instantoilspill.com/?url=http://wattsupwiththat.com
*grin*
Re. 165 Marco: Nice find! :)
Interesting.....
poptart ill defines his threashold as:
>*The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW.*
Meaningless. The IPCC should be on the list under poptart's ill-definition; the IPCC support skepticism of zero cost economic impact. Gavin Schmidt should also, he promotes skepticism of runaway Venetian GW.
Almost every claim about AGW is skeptical of another. Thus every paper about AGW would meet the poptard criteria.
Clippo, you got your ass handed to you. It is sad you have to pathetically pretend otherwise here so you can save face in front of your fellow alarmists.
Poptart writes:
>*you got your ass handed to you. It is sad you have to pathetically pretend otherwise*
Andrew is always ironic.
Mike, I have never provided a list of people to imply global warming is disproven. Not sure why you feel the need to use strawman arguments constantly, though I have theory about that.
My implication was that those with degrees in Physics understand basic physics and more than capable to understand climate physics, apparently better than certain self titled "climate scientists".
Jokeman, could you show me where the IPCC report mentions skepticism of AGW or the economic or environmental effects of AGW, thanks.
Poptart writes:
>*could you show me where the IPCC report mentions skepticism of AGW*
Why? I'm addressing your ill-defined criteria:
>*The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of AGW.*
Your question is attempt to distract and ask another meaningless question about 'mentioning skepticism'.
Could you show me paper related to AGW that fails your ill-definition?
Jokeman, you just said the IPCC is skeptical so surely you can show me where it uses the term in it's report.
I have no problems adding more qualifiers to the definition even if you know exactly why the papers are included on the list.
Andrew, just to humour you, and perhaps to also spell out the obvious point your intellectual superiors here are trying to make to you, here is a snippet from the IPCC's AR4 which fits your pointless definition for how stuff can make it onto your idiotic list:
AR4, WG2, Ch17.3.2.1
"...the literature lacks consensus on the usefulness of indicators of generic adaptive capacity and the robustness of the results ..."
There - *now* will you admit that your silly list is pointless?
Poptart writes:
>*I have no problems adding more qualifiers to the definition*
Really? Do your best then, cos your ill-definition is currently meaningless. Currently you could include the tooth fairly if it suited you.
Tell me what is the sense in having a list with a rubbery meaningless selection definition? Either you want to contribute something solid or you want to make ethereal nonsense points like with your current unbounded definition.
Poptech muses: *Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal*
Nonsense. The ISI WOS is a very reliable way of determining the soundness of the science published in that journal. Articles in journals with higher impact factors are cited more frequently and thus becomore more attractive for scientists in which to submit their work. Because of this, these jounrnals often have a much more rigid policy on how strong the peer-reviewed articles have to be to get accepted. Some have a policy of rejecting 80% or more without peer-review; others require the 2-4 referees to be uniformly positive about the study under review. Journals at the lower end of the citation index do submit papers for peer-review, but are often much more relaxed on how strong that review needs to be to get the articles accepted. I should know; I have reviewed articles for 53 journals that appear on the WOS (from the top to the bottom in terms of impact factor) and I was a former Associate Editor at Nature. Poptech is therefore speaking utter rubbish.
"could you show me where the IPCC report mentions skepticism of AGW"
It's all over it.
Examples: EVERY SINGLE TIME where it says "likely or very likely".
Do you see that phrasing ANYWHERE in G&T's paper about their conclusions?
No.
The "skeptical" papers are very unskeptical about the case against AGW. This is why they are called denialists, not skeptics.
Jokeman,
I understand you are slow with reading so I will repeat it for you,
Pielke's comment about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus was in relation to the statement I originally had with an incomplete sentence: "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of" which should have been, "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made" global warming". It now says,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."
PIan,
Pielke Jr. never requested his papers to be removed from the list. I have never received an email from him and his father has never commented on the list.
Vince, I could not find any intellectual superiors here so I am not sure what you are referring to.
I added a qualifier,
"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."
The list is anything but pointless as you all are spending so much time on it. Fascinating how the web hits on only that page are increasing exponentially. Whatever you guys are doing is not working because all I get are thanks via emails as people use the papers in debates. I understand this probably bothers you but I just wanted to say thanks.
Jeff how "reliable" the ISI is subjective. Citations and "Impact Factor" are a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity. Your assumptions about the peer-review policy of other journals is just that and meaningless. What I stated was accurate.
Poptech says, "What I stated was accurate".
Says who? You?
The he adds. "Vince, I could not find any intellectual superiors here".
Oh no. Another legend in his own mind.
Poptech, I'd like to know what unique qualifications you possess to be able to claim that *"Citations and "Impact Factor" are a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity"?* My assumptions are based on the general quality of articles that appear in the pages of journals with a range of impact factors. My best work appear in the pages of Nature, Ecology Letters, Ecology, TREE, Jounral of Animal Ecology etc., because I knew that submitting my best work to these journals would, if accepted, get them more recognition amongst my peers. I also know full well the limitations of my research and when to submit my lesser work to smaller journals. There is no doubt that, with few exceptions, the best research ends up in the best journals. What I say is accurate.
Lastly, as others have pointed out elsewhere, there are actually very few actual climate chnnge 'sceptics'. By nature all scientists worth theri degrees are sceptical. Note th guarded language used by the IPCC and scientists who support the theory of AGW, and juxtapose this with those in the other camp who try and give the impression that AGW is either some doomsday myth or else that there is a natural cause. Either way, they are not sceptical at all, but are, in fact, in denial, most probably because of their own political and idealogical biases. I just hope that you are not another one of these indoctrinated denialists who has come to contribute his two cent's worth here. If you are, you'd better come armed with more intellectual acumen than you have thus far, or else most of us here will see as just another contender for the Dunning-Kruger crown.
Jeff, no there are those who I would consider intellectually superior to me, they are just not here.
Now Jeff, I would like to know why you do not understand what the definition of subjective is and why you keep using subjective criteria?
Your "assumptions" are subjective.
"General quality" is subjective.
Your "best work" is subjective.
What is the "best research" and best journals" is subjective.
I understand you have a hard time separating your emotions from logic, I on the other hand do not have this problem.
Jeff, your personal attacks due to lack of intellectual ability are noted.
Sometimes, against one's better judgement, an immediate response begs for its freedom. A better man than I might refrain from granting such, but I have always treasured liberty...
Puptalk, your inability to find what you sought was certainly constrained by the fact that your head was, and remains, firmly ensconced in your colon.
The only thing that you'll find there is the fæcal matter that you've been shovelling about as you delve deeper into your attempt to become a living Klein bottle.
Bernard raises a valid point.
re:168
Clippo, you got your ass handed to you. It is sad you have to pathetically pretend otherwise here so you can save face in front of your fellow alarmists.
Coincidentally (or is it?) Poptech has re-appeared on the minor forum I post mostly on - and posting his cr&p again.
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/78484-750-peer-revie…
He's the ultra masochist troll - I'm not wasting time on him anymore.
In my previous post, I forgot to add my thanks to the rest of you here for exposing Poptech for the troll he is.
Bertard, have no fear I will not be using your personal yoga tricks that you use to impress your friends here.
Clippo, who states he is not spending anymore time on me does so while obsessing about me. He will be back for his regular beating.
Bazinga.
Popfart really is a nasty piece of scum. He is the troll who posted my personal information on a blog. He posted phone numbers, my home address, photos of my house and a map showing its location. He has definitely crossed the line and he should be barred from all sites where reasonable people discuss science related matters.
He is a very scary person indeed, I don't know what is causing his psychosis but people should be warned of his proclivity to be nasty and viscous.
Poptech wrote : LMAO, the date stamp is Month+ Day not Month + Year.
Fine, I got the time period wrong but not the facts, i.e. that you sneaked back in to the thread and left a message, trying to pretend that you were carrying on a conversation and to have the last word. Still sad.
Maybe the 'Dunning-Kruger effect' should be renamed the 'Poptech effect' ?
Yes the denialism train certainly does attract those of the psychopathic mindset.
Hey, what do you know. Being an astronaught is the equivalent of having a degree in climatology. Thank God for that.
JMurphy, you cannot sneak into Pielke's blog, he gets emailed when you comment. He knows I made that statement and he also knows I am well aware of his personal opinion on AGW, only rank amateurs would not know his position. All meaningless as I have now provided a scientific definition and a disclaimer so alarmists cannot distort it.
John,
Your heroes don't have degrees in climatology,
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
Ian, the issue here is that you consider yourself the good guy, so therefore, as the good guy, you won't break the law or even the mores of social decency to have your way.
However nutjobs like poptart consider you THE ENEMY. And therefore, since you're the enemy, ANYTHING that he can do to shut you up and get rid of you is fine.
Poptech, Ian Forester makes some serious charges against you. Please address them.
191 Ian,
viscous? I like that. Thick, sticky, so hard to get rid of. Takes ages to wash away all traces.
199 Tim,
Yes, he did that at Greenfyre's (I don't know if he's done it elsewhere). He was placed under moderation.
There's something of the cyberstalker in these extreme fanatics. He's not the only one behaving in this way, of course.
199 Tim,
It was [here](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-d…).
Someone asked for his contact information, I looked it up in Google. Pretty serious stuff looking someone's contact information up in Google for someone who always posts as their real name and has his contact information all over the place. I posted it as "contact information". Funny how hysterical everyone is getting over using Google.
FYI I don't consider Ian the enemy, just not very bright.
I think if you restrict everyone from ever using Google you should be able to keep this one under wraps.
203 PT,
That someone was another [nasty, arrogant, delusional cyberstalker](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-d…).
Can you not see the difference between doing what you did and just suggesting that someone use Google themselves? Actually, don't bother with an answer: we know you can't. Your psychological state precludes any insight or any concept of reasonable behaviour.
re 189 Poptech
You obviously can't read !!! I said I wasn't going to spend any time on you in that democracy forum thread. I'm tempted not to here but I'm enjoying seeing you thrashed so much.
You also claimed I 'ran away' from you at 'Greenfyre'. I don't think so - I remember your pointless trolling was exposed AGAIN there - I couldn't add any more than than your other beaters did.
Does ANYBODY in science agree with you ? LOL
ANYWAY - to probably the whole world of science, your puny & fraudulent efforts to undermine the overwhwelming consensus in AGW are less irritation than a flea on an elephant's backside. Retire quietly Poptech - for your own mental health.
Trueskeptic,
If someone asks a question I can answer I try to be helpful.
Clippo,
You run away from every argument as soon as you start losing and desperately look around for someone to bail you out.
Yes, many, many, many scientists agree with me, they all emailed me thanking me for the list or offered papers to add. Not a single one objected (imagine that). But don't worry no one is paying attention to it, the hit counter is just skyrocketing by itself. Carry on, your "consensus" has nothing to worry about.
Popfart lies again:
Popfart is the biggest liar on this blog. Every second word he spews out is part of another lie.
Do you know what the word "honesty" means? I didn't think so.
You are pathetic, you and your buddy Pete Ridley.
207 Ian,
I think you hit on the truth there. I don't think he's capable of understanding honesty (or reasonable behaviour, or rational thought, or scepticism).
More of Popfart's lies:
That is another of your lies. No one asked for my personal information and even if they did, anyone with any sense of morals and ethics would not have broadcast the information on a blog posting. You are morally and ethically challenged.
You are a vicious, viscous slime ball.
As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is, and what he considers its use to be. In reply to a point I raised that some of his papers contradict others, he said:
>Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way. Since the list is not about any single argument this is perfectly acceptable. The list is a reference for all of them as noted.
Lotharrson noted:
>So if a paper is published which - if correct - means that another paper must be wrong, but it doesn't mention that other paper, then it's NOT actually a refutation? And then one can claim it to be "mutually exclusive" instead of "mutually contradictory" and ... somehow think that the first paper really doesn't contradict the second?
So, Poptart considers the list to be a reference for all kinds of sceptical arguments. This is apparently a service he's happy to provide, despite the fact that he knows at least some of them must be wrong (describing them as 'mutually exclusive' - but Lotharrson blows that soft term out of the water). Always willing to spread misinformation eh? How obliging of you, Mr. Tart.
Hang on, poptart said [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2632…)
>Someone asked for his contact information
But [here](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-d…) he said
> I simply provided Dr. Forresterâs contact information in case anyone was interested.
I stand corrected, Poptart. If you could point me to any of Buzz Aldrin's peer reviewed research in the field of climatology I'd be happy to retract my mockery of you.
Tell you, what, I'll even widen the net to include Energy And Evironment, South African engineering journals, and even Better Homes And Gardens to give you a fighting chance.
AH:
PopTart also said:
>You should not insult computer scientists.
That sounds like a *threat* to me.
Do you often traverse the internet threatening people, PopTart? That must add to your credibility considerably.
Poptech, no further comments will be accepted from you until you apologize to Ian Forrester.
Everyone else, there is no point in putting questions to him until then.
Anyone know if the good folks at www.poptech.org have taken exception to Popfart and www.populartechnology.net? The latter scarcely has anything to do with popular technology anyway - just a series of rants from someone who doesn't understand what global warming is.
Been away for a while, but Poptech is gamely struggling on.
I guess Poptech's non-answer to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2628…) implies that he really doesn't mind being known as a peddler of horse dung.
I see his list scope definition used to be:
> "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made" global warming"
...[where](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2630…)...
> ..."man-made" global warming is a layman's term...for recent climate change being **solely** caused by humans
By that criteria, you'd be hard-pressed to find a **single** climate science paper that would NOT be on his list, since no reasonable climate scientist argues that all observed warming is anthropogenic.
That alone should tell you that his "list" is mired in bullshit, since he failed to understand and act upon what the criteria implied.
Or you could observe the prevarication embedded in the definition, which conflates skepticism of both "all warming is anthropogenic" and "any and all (hypothesised) environmental and economic consequences of said warming" (and not even constrained to consequences that are said to be "negative"!)
If you want to be pedantic, then you've be even *more* hard-pressed to find a paper that was NOT skeptical of one of those things.
And yet poptech's list apparently comprises a mere 700+ papers (never mind that many of them disagree with each other). Pretty poor effort all round. Either that, or his stated criteria is NOT what he's using to construct the list (tut tut!)
Then he changed the criteria:
> The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW
It's almost as bad as the previous version for most of the same reasons - **and** it presumes that Poptech and the reader agree on the meaning of "AGW" which I suspect may not be as frequent as the readers imagine.
Poptech - what's your precise definition of "AGW", and while you're at it what's your definition of "the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW"? This would help people understand what propositions you claim the list supports skepticism of (and whether you even understand the scientific claims in the first place).
>*As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is*
Its also funny to watch some try a protect their credibility by disassociating themselves from poptart's list. I wonder if Lindzen (like RP Jr) would be unhappy to be compiled with floor scapings such as G&T 2009 or McLean et al., or the ['worst ever"](http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html) Archibald 2006?
Though I doubt it was Poptart's aim to tarnish by association.
"So, Poptart considers the list to be a reference for all kinds of sceptical arguments"
So let's help poptart out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
All he has to do is "hide the answers".
Ahhh, its clear to see Poptart's devious little strategy. His list includes piles of articles in Energy and Environment, a journal that does not appear on the ISI Web of Science. Hence his feeble attempt to belittle the Wos. E & E is a social sciences journal, and IMHO to have credibility in the Earth sciences it would have to be recognized by the Wos and appear in their index. It doesn't.
His list is also a scraping the barrel affair, citing articles by just about every shill, nincompoop and outlier in the debate on climate change. Some of the papers he listed are described as 'submitted' several years ago, meaning that they were either bounced or else were never published. Many of those that appear in the better journals (Nature, etc.) are old and are not about contemporary climate change at all.
Since poptart's web site appears to be run by a bunch of computer geeks, it is a wonder that anyone pays them any attention at all. Again, as far as I am concerned this is another example of a bunch of right wing libertarians downplaying the volumes of evidence for AGW to promote a political agenda. In other words, poptart and his buddies are denialists.
More [amusement at WUWT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/06/dilbert-on-the-utility-of-forecas…)
So, "Scott Adams evidently understands AGW adherents completely."? Guess what? Adams did look at [the GW issue](http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/global_warming_…). Although he certainly has some caveats, his [main conclusion](http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/global_warming_…) is that
Not that the creator of a comic strip (that I think is clever, funny, and perceptive) is any sort of authority on science but you'd think that even a Wattard would check...
just checked out slopfarts website, yep, he's a loon
^ Wow, and that's from someone who was encouraging Curtin to 'keep up the good work'.
Stu,
That's exactly what I was thinking!
I love how poptech calls astronaut Phil Chapman a "NASA Astronaut legend" in his website list of four (yes, four!) astronauts sceptical of AGW.
I'm really into NASA stuff and I confess I'd never heard the name before. A brief investigation soon showed why: as one of the scientist-astronauts he never flew in space.
I'm sure he's a nice fellow and highly knowledgeable in his CV areas of electro-optics, inertial systems, and gravitational theory (as was Buzz Aldrin on the topics of orbital mechanics and early computers), but they don't really sound much like climate science. Although this sort of blurring of the lines of expertise is really nothing new from poptech, is it?
TrueSkeptic, all very interesting except the first comment blows Adams' argument out of the water:
>issues on global warming is sometimes confusing. I have read an article saying that global warming is a lie.a myth.
Cop that, Adams. Unassailable logic there.
Peter Sinclair, Greenman3610, with his fantastic Climate Crock videos has released another. It concentrates on what the military has to say. This is a great idea as the nutters generally looooove military or profess to do so in their brand of lunatic patriotism.
As an ex-weapons engineer of the RAN I've always found that brand of nutterism as very odd as we tended wherever we could (within budget) to be an early adopter of science, as does every other military.
apologies - I forgot the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBURjOdOG8
So, did anyone notice The Australian doing its thing today? Followed by the comment thread of madness.
[UN's climate report 'one-sided'](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-climate-report-one-sided…)
The stupid, it burns. Thank goodness for Richard of Sydney, who points out what the report actually says, not the Australian's spin on what the report says.
A
224 John,
Most amusing, but what does it have to do with WUWT's use of a Dilbert strip?
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Russell inquiry reports.
Some ringing phrases:
"We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis"
"It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.
"It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance."
My, my... they almost seem to be saying that people who rely on FoI requests or who claim that nothing is certain without detailed scrutiny of the computer models must be incompetent. Surely not!
@227, yes Amanda I did. Sent a letter to them too.
The truth of the Dutch report was tucked away in the 3rd last paragraph where I imagine someone at The Australian hoped that no-one would notice it: "....the IPCCs main findings were justified and climate change did indeed pose substantial risks".
The problem is, as we all know too well, that climate sceptics rarely ever read much past the headline, and are certainly almost never inclined to actually look up any scientific research. The report was just lazily reprinted from The Times (UK) as usual, but a sub-editor somewhere within News Ltd seems to insist on writing grossly misleading headlines for global warming stories.
And then the stupid comments start flowing - always from the same people mind you.
Interesting piece in the ABC website today, about how [insurance agencies have moved on to climate change as fact](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/08/2947679.htm?site=thedrum).
Just how much dribble can the mainstream media continue to publish? In response to a cold snap in Sydney, Bonnie Malcin writing for the Telegraph UK states:
'Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.â
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/austra…
Perhaps if anyone out there knows Bonnie they could refer her to the NOAA report âState of the Climate Global Analysis May 2010â.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
And while I am ranting about deficient journalism, OVEHG succinctly sums it up in âPoor journalism plagues The Australian front page againâ
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5565
Where do they get such obvious bullsh!t from?
very funny story on WuWt.
Steven Goddard is not mentioning Barrow any longer. his forecasting skills did not work that well on sea ice break-up.
Steven has written a post, claiming that there was no change to land fast ice at barrow on the 26th of June. it turned out, that the land fast ice was gone from Barrow the day BEFORE the post was written.
he also made strong claims about the break-up on NARL near Barrow. Steven talked about the latests break-up on record and was still saying I expect that the ice will last longer than July 8. in comments on the 5th of July, even though the ice broke on the 4th.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup
forecasts don t get more wrong than that.
>>Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.
>Where do they get such obvious bullsh!t from?
This being the Telegraph, I imagine her un-esteemed colleague James Delingpole told her. It's probably his He may even believe it too.
prediction.
^ fits into the above post in the appropriate place. Repeat after me: Reread before posting. Reread before posting.
Another UK media retraction:
[UK Telegraph retracts and apologies for bogus Tata story, but doesnât apologize to Pachauri for smear](http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/06/telegraph-christopher-booker-rich…)
And guess who is once again implicated in the bogus news story - none other than Richard North.
Just have to share quite the most offensive comment I've ever read on WUWT:
> âWhere are todayâs Feynmans, Handlers and Crichtons?â
> You are reading one of their blogs right now.
Comparing Watts to Feynmann? Sweet Jebus...
Dave H, while it is very tempting to attribute such comments to the depths of cretinisation attracted to and indeed exemplified by ol' Anthony's blog and suchlike, never forget that there are Institutes, Foundations, and associated think tanks and moneyed interests like you wouldn't believe stoking things along.
And they don't employ the kind of grade school drop-outs that swarm like flies, which sometimes the aforementioned interests forget, when they're trying to blend in and drop a new meme or two.
Anyone able to explain this?
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.201019…
If you look at the Jacobshaven Glacier (I think that's what it is, about halfway down the coast a glacier with a long tongue) you can see that behind it (on the south side) seems to be a lot of water that can't escape. And on the north side there's an area of a smaller galcier that merges with the Jacobshaven that seems to have broken up and collapsed.
Is this normal? And check out the melt ponds!
Monckton replies to Abraham. with about 500 questions.
have a laugh:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-q…
Re. 241 sod (Monckton's response)
Looks like an ambush for legal action.
1 Are you familiar with the convention in the academic world that if one wishes to rebut the work of
another he should notify that other in good time, so as to avoid errors in the rebuttal and to afford the other a
fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute the rebuttal?
Did you contact Al Gore before issuing a criticism of 'Inconvenient Truth' or are you a hypocrite? Did you contact Professor Michael Mann before accusing him of genocide?
4 Do you accept that your talk was calculated to do very great harm to my reputation?
"Abe, baby, if you present yourself as âa scientistâ â as you do throughout your talk â then it is as a scientist that you will be judged and found lamentably wanting. You may like to get your apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance." Heh.
9 Do you appreciate that, in common sense as well as in law, given your claim to expertise âin the areaâ of
climate change (2-3), any statement by you in that area that you assert or assume to be true but whose truth
you have negligently failed to verify is as much a lie as any statement that you make in the knowledge that it
is not true?
Can I phone a friend?
17 Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a âprofessorâ (3, 62)
more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?
Though you have described yourself as a member of the House of Lords, is it not the case that you are not and never have been? That you stood for election and received zero votes?
BTW Monckton is a good recycler
No 1 is the same as
2 Since you knew how to contact the Science and Public Policy Institute, which I advise on policy matters,
and since you would have had no difficulty in contacting me to notify me that you were intending widely to
disseminate your material, what steps (if any) did you take to attempt to notify me of what you proposed to
do to ensure that I was given a fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute your attempt at a rebuttal of
my Minnesota talk
is the same as
6 Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very
lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?
is the same as
21 Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why
you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to
assist you with identifying the sources of my material.
is the same as
23 Please explain why, before you contacted numerous third parties in connection with my talk, you did not
at any time contact me to verify whether your characterization of my conclusions was fair and accurate
My favourites so far:
27 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said, âThe worldâs not warmingâ ....are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I said, âThe world is not warmingâ, or at least to qualify it by acknowledging that, though I said the world had been cooling since 2001, I had displayed the above graph plainly establishing that the long-term trend is a warming trend?
You said I said the world is not warming, but you're wrong because I said the world is cooling.
30 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that âSea
levels are not rising at all" ...Is it not true that, in my talk, I reported evidence that the ARGO bathythermographs had shown a slight cooling of the oceans throughout the six years since they were first deployed; and that, at the time of my talk, there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years?
You said I said that sea levels are not rising. But you're wrong because I said sea levels are not rising.
Tim - perhaps we could crowdsource a suitably amusing response. I might do some more, but not if it involves, you know, actually watching Monckton in action.
the questions are completely absurd. this must be one of the most stupid replies i ever read.
Monckton confirms his position as a clown of the denialist movement.
466: Will you, therefore, now be good enough to take down your talk from whatever public places it has
reached; to pay $10,000 to the United States Association of the Order of Malta for its charitable work in
Haiti; to ensure that your University, which failed upon my request to have your talk taken off its servers at
once, pays $100,000 to the same charity for the same purpose; and publicly to disseminate a written apology
and retraction substantially in the following terms:
pathetic.
From personal experience as a subscriber to a message board group, Monckton likes to liberally throw around the threat of legal action - even when (a little like Tim Curtin) he laughably and egregiously misunderstands the entire basis of his claim to have a case. I doubt this time around that his claims will prove any more substantial.
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)
Andrew (39) - Courtney is a member of the E&E editorial advisory board (see the sidebar here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm)