An alarmist spammer who comments at Jo Nova's site by the screen name "Blimey" is now doubling down on his insanity. After being refuted ad nauseam in the comments there he thinks making a blog post to consolidate all his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments will make them any less ridiculous. He is so incompetent that he did not even read the list correctly (Lie #4) or understands that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature (Lie #13).
This has since been updated see, Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" #2
1. He continues to post his perpetual strawman argument about the list being about AGW and not ACC/AGW Alarmism,
Despite this being explained to him many, many times he continues to desperately repeat this same strawman argument about the list, "destroying, disputing, rebutting, refuting or rejecting AGW" when the list is explicitly titled, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"."...but they don’t destroy AGW as some people might be fooled into thinking.
...Seeing this list people might be fooled into thinking these papers somehow rebut the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
...the author of these papers likes to categorise this list in his unique way, thus making it appear there are a lot of papers that dispute the science of AGW."
Alarmism (defined) - "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
2. He misinforms about why papers are listed and perpetuates another strawman argument about the list being created to "dispute the IPCC report",
Papers are listed if they support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Many papers were listed not because I decided they rebut something but because a skeptic had already cited them in an argument elsewhere. Alarmist claims can come from anywhere in the media, including but not limited to the Internet. In the cases of the "someone" on the Internet they are not random people but well-known activists, environmentalists or journalists."Poptech will list papers if HE decides they rebut an alarming claim made by "someone" on the internet. A paper doesn’t have to dispute the mainstream climate science found in the IPCC report in order to be included."
What is considered "mainstream" is subjective. Again, despite it being repeatedly explained to him he continues to repeat the same strawman argument that the list was created to "dispute the IPCC report". This is utterly false as the list was created to be a bibliographic resource not a report.
An 868 page report challenging the IPCC's conclusions is freely available,
Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pgs) (NIPCC Report)
3. He lies about why the word "Alarmism" was added to the title of the list,
There was no mistake, just a clarification to the title to make it more clear to the intent and purpose of the list by adding the words "ACC/AGW" and "Alarmism","...originally Poptech listed this list as “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” as Watts and others noted. Poptech’s ALARM was added later when he realised his mistake in listing certain papers."
"Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
The list had originally stated, "The papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." - as explicitly archived on Watts Up With That? in the notes following the list. This was later moved to the top of the list and changed to,
The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism defined as, "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
4. He is apparently clueless to the impact of popular U.S. politicians on the Climate Debate,
(1) "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?"Poptech lists three people that seem to hold such a view, 2 politicians and one commentator at RealClimate.org. Yep, that’s right, three people are enough for a claim to be said to be “widely held”.
- John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate
John Kerry received 59 Million votes for President of the United States in 2004 and has been a U.S. Senator representing 6.5 Million people from the state of Massachusetts for over 25 years.
(2) "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidate
Al Gore was Vice President of the United States (population: 250 Million+) for eight years and received 50 Million votes for President of the United States in 2000. His documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" is the sixth highest grossing documentary film to date and made $50 Million worldwide.
Both politicians have represented very large constituencies and thus can have a significant influence on the debate. Their views are widely held by those who have voted for them. Not to mention Al Gore's "documentary" is being shown worldwide in schools,
So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada, May 20, 2007)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK, October 3, 2007)
Climate change film An Inconvenient Truth for Australian schools (The Daily Telegraph, Australia, October 27, 2010)
5. He states another strawman argument about the purpose of the list,
No such argument is made anywhere on the list. The reason for listing the comment from RealClimate.org is to demonstrate that alarmists had been implying the false notion that these papers do not exist."Is he really suggesting that climate science is never critically looked at; that other climate scientists simply accept what others say?"
6. Being a computer illiterate he references Wikipedia,
Wikipedia is simply "truth based on who edits last" and should never be cited as a source since nothing that appears on it can be trusted without further verification. Unfortunately most computer illiterates like him do not know this."The scientific consensus is the result of thousands of papers on the topic with many of Poptech’s papers the casualties."
Most of the papers on the Popular Technology.net list are intentionally ignored or unjustly dismissed by those few pushing the false notion of "consensus". These papers are not "casualties".
7. He continues to state the strawman argument about the list being a theory,
Despite this being explained to him many, many times he continues to make this strawman argument. No claim is made anywhere on the list that it is a theory of any kind, while it is explicitly stated that it is a bibliographic resource,"Gullible people that don’t take the time to study Poptech’s list may be fooled into thinking it represents coordinated science that proposes an alternative theory to AGW."
"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;
8. He continues to misinform and make strawman arguments about why papers are added to the list,
The criteria is explicitly stated on the list,"Poptech, it became apparent that the papers get added to the list according to a flimsy set of criteria. His loose definition allows all kinds of papers to be included in the list, remarkably even when they supported AGW theory! The list is a collection of poor science, irrelevant papers, and a mixed bag of contradicting theories."
"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."
As further evidence of his perpetual strawman arguments he continues to state the obvious, that some of the papers acknowledge AGW (in some form). I have no idea how many times this has to be explained to him but a paper that supports a skeptic argument against Alarmism will likely acknowledge AGW (in some form).
He provides no evidence that the papers include poor science or are irrelevant. It has been explained to him many times that various papers are mutually exclusive. This is not hard to understand as skeptics accept that there exists independent, mutually exclusive theories on certain aspects of climate change. Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.
9. He updated his previous 7 Spammed lies to 9,
Lie 1. The author may disagree with having his paper on Poptech’s list.
The list has nothing to do with an author's personal opinion but whether a paper supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarmism. This is explicitly stated in the disclaimer on the list,
"Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against Alarmism."
(1) Roger Pielke Jr's "criticism" has been refuted,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. - Roger Pielke Jr.
Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"
His papers were not listed because they support his "Hypothethis 1" but because they support skeptic arguments against Alarmism,
Nine Fallacies of Floods (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 42, Number 2, June 1999)
- Roger A. Pielke Jr.
"Fallacy 2: Damaging flooding in recent years is unprecedented because of global warming" - Roger Pielke Jr.
Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2005)
- Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch
"The paper concludes that with no trend identified in various metrics of hurricane damage over the twentieth century, it is exceedingly unlikely that scientists will identify large changes in historical storm behavior that have significant societal implications" - Roger Pielke Jr.
Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005 (PDF)
(Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42, February 2008)
- Roger A. Pielke Jr., Joel Gratz, Christopher W. Landsea, Douglas Collins, Mark A. Saunders, Rade Musulin
"Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century." - Roger Pielke Jr.
- Are there trends in hurricane destruction? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11, December 2005)
- Roger A. Pielke Jr.
"My analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend" - Roger Pielke Jr.
(2) Harold Brook's "criticism" is a strawman argument,I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming. - Harold Brooks
His papers were not listed because they support skepticism of AGW but rather they support a skeptic argument against Alarmism. In this case the environmental and economic effects of ACC/AGW in relation to tornado activity.
Does Global Warming Influence Tornado Activity? (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 89, Issue 53, pp. 553-554, December 2008)
- Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Robert J. Trapp, Harold Brooks
"The number of tornadoes classiﬁed as the most damaging (rated F2–F5 on the Fujita scale) actually appears to have decreased over the past ﬁve decades." - Harold Brooks
Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
- Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III
"Using wealth and inflation adjustment, it seems clear that the most damaging tornado in U.S. history was the 1896 Saint Louis–East Saint Louis tornado, which produced damage equivalent to $2.9 billion in modern terms. ...We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual tornadoes has increased through time." - Harold Brooks
Neither author has been able to show that their paper(s) cannot support a skeptic argument against Alarmism.
Lie 2. The paper can agree with the IPCC and mainstream climate science but disagree, even if only slightly, with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper or internet article.
The IPCC is irrelevant to the purpose of the list. While some papers directly criticize it, the IPCC has nothing to do with whether a paper appears on the list or not. Papers are listed if they support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Alarmist claims can come from anywhere in the media, including but not limited to the Internet.
Climate Progress was mentioned as an example of where you can find alarmist claims that are not in the IPCC report. Romm's Knorr diatribe was not what I was referring to.Poptech lists this paper because a website claimed the oceans would at some point reduce their uptake of CO2 in an alarming manner – which one? Well only recently Poptech gave us a clue by saying Climate Progress. This gets worse. Let’s take a look at what Climate Progress actually said...
The title and content of the University Press Release makes it very clear why it was listed,
Controversial new climate change results (University of Bristol, UK, November 9, 2009)
"This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket."
Romm's diatribe has to do with misinterpreted reports of this paper. However Romm has presented alarmist claims in relation to this subject in the past,
Big news: The ocean carbon sink is saturating (Climate Progress, October 22, 2007)
"The long-feared saturation of one the world’s primary carbon sinks has apparently started. ...If the oceans stop taking up CO2, the atmosphere will inevitably take up more, accelerating global warming." - Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
Something else for the deniers to deny: The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide (Climate Progress, January 15, 2009)
"Among the greatest concerns is the growing evidence that the major carbon sinks are saturating, that a greater and greater fraction of human emissions will end up in the atmosphere. - Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
Lie 3. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW.
None of the papers "confirm" fundamental properties of AGW, some simply acknowledge AGW (in some form). None of this is surprising as a paper that supports a skeptic argument against Alarmism will likely acknowledge AGW (in some form).
He then goes on to lie about and cherry pick out of context statements from one of Dr. Scafetta's papers,
None of the listed papers in the Solar section "rebut" a solar theory on climate change. Instead they support various skeptic arguments for a solar theory. These arguments vary between simply an increased solar forcing with a reduced anthropogenic factor not supported by the IPCC to a complete solar origin of climate change....nor does he mind if it also rebuts other “denialist” theories such as “It’s the sun”.
This is an out of context quote that is simply the author laying out the other side of the argument so he can offer an explanation. Which he does later in the paper,For instance, one of Poptech’s papers, (Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record - Scafetta & West 2006) say:
"Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone."
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2006)
- Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West
"Minor disagreements between the patterns can be due to possible imprecision in the proxy reconstructions of temperature and/or solar irradiance records and to indetermination of the time-lag, which is also frequency/amplitude dependent. For example, the temperature record peaks around 1950 while the solar temperature signature shown in Figure 2 peaks around 1960, however, by adopting a different TSI proxy reconstruction [e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1997], the two peaks would almost coincide. ...The difference since 1975 might also decrease if part of the observed NH warming comes from spurious non-climatic contamination of the surface observations such as heat-island and land-use effects [Pielke et al., 2002; Kalnay and Cai, 2003]. Some authors [Christy and Norris, 2006; Douglass et al., 2004] suggest that the recent surface warming is overestimated because temperature reconstructions for the lower troposphere obtained with MSU satellites since 1978 present a significant lower warming than the surface record,"
They don't "confirm" anything, they simply suggest how an increased solar forcing could affect the climate while noting,Similarly they also confirm the existence of greenhouse gas feedbacks, responsible for the lag between temperature and CO2 levels in the interglacial periods
"It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et al., 1999]."
"Most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are probably still unknown."
Again, the list has nothing to do with the IPCC report or any one theory. While a few of the papers are mutually exclusive that has nothing to do with any disagreeing with each other as they do not refer to each other in this manner. Skeptics accept that there exists independent, mutually exclusive theories on certain aspects of climate change. Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change. Again, a paper that supports a skeptic argument against Alarmism will likely acknowledge AGW (in some form).The IPCC report and AGW theory uses thousands of scientific papers that combine multiple lines of evidence together to build the theory of AGW. By contrast Poptech’s list is a collection of papers that not only disagree with each other, but also support many aspects of AGW at the same time.
His "point" is a strawman argument.Poptech counters by saying “The list is not meant to be a single unified theory” – and I agree 100%. That is exactly my point.
Lie 4. The papers on the list can hold completely opposing views with each other.
As explicitly state in the disclaimer, "Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently." This is not hard to understand as skeptics accept that there exists independent, mutually exclusive theories on certain aspects of climate change. Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.Since Poptech’s aim is not to show how AGW theory is wrong, but simply to show that there is peer-reviewed science holding an opposing view, it opens up the possibility for different papers on his list to disagree with each other.
Again, this is still a strawman argument. No claim is made anywhere that the list "constitute a scientific theory that debunks AGW". It is a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.Once again Poptech counters argues by saying “The list is not meant to be a single unified theory” – and again I agree 100%. That is exactly my point, his list does not constitute a scientific theory that debunks AGW...
What is "significant" or not is purely subjective. I believe the list to be significant as well as many of the papers on it. So do many skeptics.– there is no significant paper, or set of papers in his list that impacts on our understanding of AGW.
Lie 5. The paper can be seriously flawed.
No paper is listed where the author has conceded their paper to be "seriously flawed". A few papers have had corrections made to them and published but this is standard practice in scholarly journals. Published corrections are included on the list following the original paper. All other criticisms have been rebutted by the authors and the published rebuttals are also included on the list following the original paper. Just because a critic claims a paper is "flawed" does not make it so.
This is a pathetic excuse for the lack of any published rebuttal to most of these peer-reviewed papers and is a nice exercise in hand-waving but nothing more.Some obsolete research won't even get time devoted to them in order to rebut them, peers accept that the research was flawed and move on without spending valuable time writing a rebuttal.
Citations are a measure of popularity not scientific validity.Hence science that works eventually gets accepted and cited by more experts.
This is a lie as Idso rebutted those criticisms in this published correspondence,In 1980 Idso published his findings which contained many different experiments all arriving at a very precise and low figure. [...]
...Idso’s work was flawed. His work was rebutted on several occasions ...yet Idso remained elusive on answering those criticisms.
A clarification of my position on the CO2/climate connection
(Climatic Change, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 81-86, February 1987)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Climate Research is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0936-577X)...the controversial Inter-Research Science Center which has a very questionable review process.
- EBSCO lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- "Manuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 reviewers"
The Climategate emails brought to light that the paper in question was properly peer-reviewed,
Climategate Email 1057944829
"I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to fuel a public attack. I do not know the source Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who are well known for their support for the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never accepted any research money for climate change research, none from any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I have no pipers to pay. [...]
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected based on the guidance I received. All are reputable paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans [von Storch] and Clare have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive alterations accordingly. This was done." - Chris de Freitas
Then from the infamous Dr. Jones himself,
"I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was Ray [presumably Bradley, a known hockey team member]. [...]
I believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler [not a skeptic]" - Phil Jones
I stated no such thing. I had read Idso's correspondence some time ago when I had free access to that database. I do not anymore and the paper is not freely available online so I have no way to quote from it.Poptech claimed Idso rebuts the criticisms, but when asked to cite exactly where in the paper this occurs, Poptech goes silent, then eventually admitted to not having read the paper at all.
This entire post has been rebutted,For more examples of science Poptech likes but has been shown to be flawed, visit http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-a ... -debunked/ .
Rebuttal to "Anti-AGW papers debunked"
Lie 6. 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. Even where errors were found, they were corrected but the author did not dismiss the entire paper.Even if a paper has been found to be flawed AND that flaw was conceded by the author, Poptech will continue to list it.
These papers are still useful as he explicitly states,Idso produced papers in 1980 and 1982 which he since conceded were incorrect.
"I have subsequently gone on to show how they can be used in concert with still other non-equilibrium natural experiments to ultimately evaluate that most elusive parameter." - Sherwood Idso
Lie 7. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, political 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.
Alarmist Challenge: Provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climate scientist".
Lie 8. The paper may not be peer-reviewed.
No paper is listed without first confirming the Journal is peer-reviewed. With all Journals that are challenged as to their peer-review status further confirmation is done using academic databases by EBSCO, Elsevier, Proquest and Thompson Reuters. This detailed information is provided in the notes following the list. Every time a journal is challenged, I have provided this information.Poptech appears to be taking liberty with his claim that all the papers are peer-reviewed. As seen in this discussion Poptech is listing many papers as peer-reviewed and then expecting others to prove that they are not. One thing is for sure, he’s incapable of proving that they are.
All of this misinformation is corrected here, including the misinterpreted quote,There are quite a few papers on Poptech list that are published via Energy & Environment, a journal known for poor publishing standards and who’s editor, sceptic Boehmer-Christiansen says “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”. Not the kind of comment you expect from an impartial science editor. Boehmer-Christiansen also appears multiple times on Poptech’s list.
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)Peer-review information for Poptech’s papers is not available, so we never know for sure if anything from Energy & Environment is peer-reviewed,
- Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
E&E is a interdisciplinary journal that also covers social science and policy areas so it is not surprising it is listed as such by the ISI. All of which is irrelevant to the fact that it is peer-reviewed.One thing in E&E’s favour is that they recently were listed in ISI (peer-reviewed) but looking at their Coverage, it’s for “Social Sciences Citation Index”
Lie 9. Poptech, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper.
This is a strawman argument as I made no claim I agree with the findings of each paper. The list is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not my personal theory.
Formal training in "climate science" is not needed to compile my list. My formal education in the physical sciences and extensive writing of research papers during my University education as well as my extensive experience as a computer analyst are more than sufficient for this task.Poptech doesn’t have any formal training in climate science...
Again he states the perpetual strawman argument of the papers on the list being "against AGW". It is explicitly stated that papers can be listed if they support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism.Of course with Poptech not having a background education in climate science does not really put you in good stead for determining if a paper is for or against AGW,
The authors claim of misusing their work is based on the same strawman arguments he is using. They base these claims on false reasons for why their papers were listed. This is rebutted here,Even when an author has explicitly said that Poptech is misusing their work, Poptech refuses to budge in his own amateur belief that he is right...
For further reading … http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04 ... misleading
Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers
This propaganda is completely refuted here,Perhaps worth considering is what organisations fund the “skeptics” who’s papers appear on Poptech’s list. Whilst looking at various discussions about this list I came across this link.
9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
His ignorant conclusion:
To conclude his ignorance he cites the computer illiterate post from Skeptical Science that has been completely refuted,There are hundreds of thousands of papers on climate change.
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
"In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.
Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate."
There is nothing strange about the classification method as it has been stated to him many time and appears explicitly on the list,Poptech resorts to his own strange classification method in order to list a few hundred. Of the papers on Poptech’s list, many have been debunked, many are not disputing claims against AGW but instead “Alarmist” claims from “someone” on the internet, many contradict each other and many may not be peer-reviewed.
"The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism."
None of the papers have been "debunked" and I am at a loss for how many times he has repeated the same strawman argument about all the papers not disputing AGW. In the cases of the "someone" on the Internet they are not random people but well-known activists, environmentalists or journalists.
Alarmist Challenge: Prove that any of the papers on the list were not peer-reviewed.