Rebuttal to 7 Spammed Lies
The following 7 lies taken from itsnotnova's long refuted nonsense have been spammed at various locations where the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed paper list is referenced,
Lie 1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).
For a paper to be on the list it must support a skeptic argument against AGW or Alarmism defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." It is a strawman that the skeptic argument has to be related to the IPCC or what is subjectively declared a "mainstream scientific opinion". Various parts of the IPCC report are not alarmist and many alarmist claims are made by the news media or online. (eg. Climate Progress)
Lie 2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
While various papers may support the existence of an anthropogenic component to climate they reject alarmist conclusions about the cause and consequences. Such papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against Alarmism. Scafetta's papers for example support much larger solar forcings than the IPCC and thus a much more reduced anthropogenic factor.
Lie 3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
The list is not a single unified theory but a bibliographic resource. None of the papers contradict each other because they do not even refer to each other in this manner. A few are mutually exclusive, this is not hard to understand as skeptics accept that there exists independent theories on certain aspects of climate change, while collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.
Lie 4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/ and again http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/
All published criticisms have been rebutted by the authors of the original paper or a correction published. These rebuttals and corrections follow the original paper. Any other criticisms against these papers has never been submitted for peer-review and thus not taken seriously.
None of Dr. Idso's papers are seriously flawed and he has refuted the criticism's posted above,
A clarification of my position on the CO2/climate connection (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 81-86, February 1987)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Lie 5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
This is another strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are natural science papers only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers are in the minority and appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections separate from the natural science sections on the list.
Lie 6. "Poptech", the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2.
The list is not my thesis of a theory on climate change. The purpose is explicitly stated,
Purpose: To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;
"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"
- John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate
Lie 7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
No paper is listed were the author admits their entire paper or science was flawed. Certain papers have had corrections made to them which did not change the overall conclusion or purpose of the paper.