CORRECTED: Mothincarnate has removed all the misinformation I pointed out in this rebuttal. I am archiving this so people can see the aggravation I had to go through to get this corrected.
Rebuttal to 260+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern
Preface: His list is a strawman argument. No credible skeptic has ever claimed there are no peer-reviewed papers that mention "anthropogenic global warming". The claim has always been by the alarmists that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. This is one of the reasons why the Popular Technology.net list was created. It is interesting to see his concern about this when it is frequently claimed by alarmists that there are thousands of these "references" in the IPCC report. The fact that he is even attempting this demonstrates the perceived threat the Popular Technology.net list is to him. Is he scared rational, independent and open-minded people might not support his alarmist mantra? I say yes.
1. He lies that 'Adam' "recruited" me to comment on his blog,
"When I pointed out as much and the pointlessness of Poptech’s list, he seemed to have recruited Poptech’s own Andrew for support." - Mothincarnate
This is not true as I found his blog and decided to comment on it on my own. I understand he may be computer illiterate but I am not. My reasons for commenting were clear, he was stating misinformation about myself and my work.
Update: He has changed this to say, "Andrew (aka Poptech) magically appeared out of nowhere ( it seemed highly surprising that Andrew appeared out of the blue following my initial referring to him – does he google himself all day?)." - Mothincarnate
There is nothing magical about knowing how to efficiently use the Internet. No I do not Google myself everyday I simply know how to use the Internet efficiently.
2. He lies that I considered a social science paper (Free speech about climate change) the same as a natural science paper,
"How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who considers Monckton’s article on free speech on climate change in the same league as say an independent study in PNAS which returns the same conclusions as previous studies in like scientific journals?" - Mothincarnate
This is a strawman argument as was explained to him the first time he attempted to make it. If social science issues were not important to the debate than the WGII and WGIII sections would not exist in the IPCC report.
Update: He has changed this to say, "How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who supports others claiming his list is a scientific (although admittedly he carefully avoids using the word ‘scientific’) basis that challenges apparent confidence in the high likelihood of the existence of AGW, when even a quick gloss reveals contradictions and social/opinion articles?" - Mothincarnate
His reference to "others" here means Adam, who has never made any claim that no social science papers exist on the list as they do in the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report. No claim is made that the list is only of natural science papers (though many of these exist on the list) but rather that they are all peer-reviewed. The list does not only include papers that support skepticism of ACC/AGW but also ones that support skepticism of Alarmism, defined as concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic. The list is not a unified theory but a bibliographic resource.
3. He lies that I was ignoring "scientific evidence" and simply demanding the right to be unconvinced,
"How does demanding that one has the right to say they’re unconvinced by the science behind AGW counter scientific evidence to the contrary?" - Mothincarnate
This is a strawman argument as I do not find what he considers the "scientific evidence" convincing to support Alarmism and never stated my argument as he implied. I have been extensively researching alarmist claims for years and found them unconvincing.
Update: This has been changed to, "How does asserting the scientific importance of Poptech’s self-contradictory list of random articles counter the conclusions largely held by the scientific community to the contrary?" - Mothincarnate
This is a strawman as no such argument was made. The list is presented as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed literature supporting skeptic arguments. The list is not self-contradictory because it is not a unified theory but a bibliographic resource. It is used to counter the conclusions held by some in the scientific community.
4. He lies that I believe any scientist who expressed confidence in AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists,
"the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists." and "Poptech defending an unchallengeable position – that all scientists who publish work that comes to the same conclusions as those above represent a small sheltered group of alarmists". - Mothincarnate
I made no such claims anywhere. His inability to comprehend and follow the conversations he has with people represents a serious mental deficiency. This is something I have run across with many alarmists. He combines comments to him with his own to make a new strawman argument. The first comment of mine he used as part of his strawman argument was in reply to his use of alarmist websites in a pathetic attempt to smear the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment,
"You have provide misinformation about the journal from sites with vested interests to smear it – Sourcwatch, the late Dr. Schneider’s personal site and RealClimate.org. That is not being objective, that is attempting to attack the journal for ideological reasons." - Poptech
He began fabricating this into a strawman argument of the "mainstream scientific community" which I replied,
"The sites you listed are either environmental activist sites or alarmist scientists which do not represent the mainstream scientific community. They represent an insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism." - Poptech
I was referring specifically to the late Dr. Schneider and the scientists on RealClimate.org not any scientist who expressed confidence in AGW theory.
CORRECTED 5. He falsely implied I presented him two books as a peer-reviewed scientific argument,
"He also informed me his 'personal research' has lead to his conviction and suggested I read the questionable grey literature;" and "apart from this list above providing a good resource for those who actually wish to learn about the subject from respected journals as opposed to questionable journals, grey literature..." - Mothincarnate
In a good faith attempt on my part to have him understand some of the more prominent skeptic arguments he was presented with two books, The Hockey Stick Illusion and The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. These were not presented as pure scientific sources but books that clearly lay out some of the concerns skeptics have. He instead refused to read them. Somehow without reading them he manged to labeled them "questionable grey literature", falsely implying I presented them as peer-reviewed science.
Update: This has been added, "(not that I’m stated he puts this in the same league as the articles in his list, such as social and economic opinion articles and the random assortment of science literature, but he maintains that I’d learn something overlooked in my university training)" - Mothincarnate
I will accept this as corrected from my original complaint, however regarding the existence of social science papers on the Popular Technology.net list he has failed to answer the question, "Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report 'relevant scientific literature'?"
6. He makes various implications about his list which are either irrelevant to the Popular Technology.net list or are an implied attempt to discredit it,
"I provide a like list to Poptech’s but on the ‘other slant’. I will not provide counter articles, where there may in fact be some (ie. biased like Poptech’s list), but I will ensure that all are written by scientists (or review papers citing relevant material), the journals appear on the SCI list (unless specified), that there are no replications and no paper is over 20yrs old (unlike Poptech)." - Mothincarnate
- All the papers on the Popular Technology.net list were written by scientists, social scientists or policy advisers. The few papers by policy advisers appropriately only appear in the socio-economic sections.
- SCI (Science Citation Index) is a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 3,700 peer-reviewed journals using a subjective inclusion process. There are thousands of peer-reviewed journals that are not included but are with competitors. Scopus indexes 17,000 peer-reviewed journals. Whether a journal is indexed by SCI is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
He is failing with his own criteria,
- Seppälä and Jokela (2010) - Biology Letters (Not SCI listed)
- Legras, Mestre, Bard and Yiou (2010) - Climate of the Past (Not SCI listed)
- Bosello, Roson and Tol (2007) - Environmental & Resource Economics (Not SCI listed) - This is a social science journal!!!
- Rahmstorf, Archer, Ebel, Eugster, Jouzel, Maraun, Neu, Schmidt, Severinghaus, Weaver and Zachos (2004) - Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Not SCI listed)
- Feinberg and Willer (2010) - Psychological Science (Not SCI listed) - This is a social science journal!!!
- Church, White, Aarup, Wilson, Woodworth, Domingues, Hunter, Lambeck (2008) - Sustainability Science (Not SCI listed)
- He mentions there are no replications on his list, falsely implying that these existed on the Popular Technology.net list inflating the count. The migration issue causing a duplication of two papers on the Popular Technology.net has already been corrected but it was irrelevant to any criticism because no paper was ever double counted. Everyone who has made this claim has failed to show otherwise because if they counted the list they would find well over the stated number of papers.
- There are over 800 papers on the list less than 20 years old. However, the age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory.
7. He nonsensically attempts to discredit the Popular Technology.net list by discrediting his own, "I freely admit this is in itself a ludicrous list of cherry picked articles and is not a scientific basis on which to base you person views upon".
The Popular Technology.net list is not ludicrous at all but 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 U.S. Presidential Candidate
8. He falsely claims that the number of citations a paper receives determines it's scientific validity.
Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity.
9. Being unable to argue against any of my positions he now recommends people spam his strawman argument of demanding I refute all of his papers where ever I post.
This is just bizarre as I never made this challenge to him with my list, Adam did. I still support Adam's position that these papers are being ignored and he is not addressing the scientific arguments made in these papers. If he was intellectually honest about having this discussion with Adam he would not be censoring him from replying but alarmists cannot handle debate and once they are getting destroyed, move quick to censor their opponents like Mothincarnate has done. Adam explained to him what he meant,
"I didn’t mean for mothincarnate to do exactly what I was saying. I was just trying to say that he should actually provide evidence for his claims and actually try and have a valid argument against the list. He has not shown anything wrong with it at all." - Adam
To be perfectly clear I confirmed this via email with Adam,
"I was just trying to show that he should stop avoiding the arguments. When I said “Why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list." I didn't actually mean him to do that. In all of our comments he had shown nothing wrong with the list, and he simply made faith claims. What I was trying to say in my comment, is that he should just get off his backside, and for once actually make a credible argument, rather than repeat faith claims." - Adam
I could not agree more and this is why I had said this to Mothincarnate,
"Adam has a very good point as many people do not take the time or simply ignore the scientific arguments being made by those they are criticizing." - Poptech
10. He lies and calls me a troll simply because I showed up to defend myself against his lies.
It is amazing how posting in defense of yourself or your work can be considered "trolling" in the mind of an alarmist.
11. He lies about the purpose of the Popular Technology.net list, stating that if it is not a unified theory it is invalid.
I understand the difficulty alarmists have with independent thought and that they cannot comprehend that skeptical scientists may agree that there is no cause for alarm but disagree on other details. The Popular Technology.net list is not supposed to be a single skeptical unified theory but rather a bibliographic resource for all of them.
12. He lies that I am defending an unchallengeable position.
Actually I am challenging a perceived unchallengeable position, "Alarmism".
13. His obsession with Monckton borders on insane.
The Popular Technology.net list has nothing to do with defending the scientific arguments made by Monckton yet he demanded I defend them because of a comment I made,
"Mentioning Monckton is a strawman argument as he is never seriously brought up by anyone credible as a climate scientist. I have never and would never claim him as such. I respect him as a passionate and skilled communicator of many of the skeptic’s arguments." - Poptech
I was not about to get into a drawn out discussion on this issue as it was irrelevant to the Popular Technology.net list.
"Yes I am ignoring debating about Monckton’s graphs because I never brought them up nor did I bring him up. He is more than capable of defending himself on these issues. I cannot tell you how many times he is brought up to ME when I am discussing things that have NOTHING to do with him." - Poptech
This would be the equivalent of during a discussion of his list, I ignore his list and demand he defend all the scientific arguments made by Al Gore.
The problem here though is some sort of mental derangement about Monckton with him, as Monckton's name comes up 6 times in that post, 13 times in his other one (brought up each time by him) and for fun 303* times searching his blog. He also attempts to link to 4 different videos criticizing him. What does this any of that have to do with the peer-reviewed papers on either list? Absolutely nothing.
* The number presented is what was returned at the time of the search as Google numerical result totals for search queries can change at any time.
Mothincarnate reminds me of a scared child who does not want to hear there is no Santa Claus so he puts his fingers in his ears and runs away yelling "I can't hear you".
Note: I had replied to all of his comments directed at me in his blog but he censored various replies from appearing so he can pretend he won the argument in his mind.
Update: He is now letting some of my replies through but on a different post in a childish attempt to make them appear as if they don't deserve to show up in the thread where I originally posted them.
Rebuttal to The Deranged Moth
"Mothincarnate" continues with his deranged behavior by falsely claiming I considered him deranged for simply creating a list of papers, ignoring my comments stating otherwise,
"I have not taken offense to your list but the incorrect claims you have made regarding me in the commentary accompanying it."
I don't think he has taken me out of context, I have proven he has taken me out of context.
He then recommends you read the "exchanges" where he censors many of my replies! Why would you want people to read incomplete conversations? How would that accurately represent what was said?
He makes an unbelievable comment, "I don’t enjoy all this public debate nonsense over the AGW theory because it’s much more political and for the most part a war of papers rather than a reason-fuelled debate." I attempted to have a reasoned debate and simply asked him to read two books, which he has used ever since to attack me as presenting him with "denier grey literature". The irony is neither book denies AGW. "Reason fueled debate" to him is apparently just agreeing to every thing he says and when you deviate he censors you.
It doesn't take long for an interjection of religion into any alarmist position and he is no different. He brings up the Bible as an example of contradictions. First of all I am religiously agnostic and well aware of the controversial aspects of the Bible (BTW which version?). Again, I understand the difficulty alarmists have with independent thought and that they cannot comprehend that skeptical scientists may agree that there is no cause for alarm but disagree on other details. The Popular Technology.net list is not supposed to be a single skeptical unified theory but rather a resource for all of them.
He proceeds to make unsubstantiated declarations that the papers are "not part of our wall of scientific understanding", "irrelevant" or "cherry picked faults" but (this is great) actually make the theory more robust. Yes papers that find fault with the theory in the mind of an alarmist actually make the theory better! I cannot make this stuff up.
Finally he claims to have attempted to "explain" things to me as if he is some sort of "authority" on any of this.