Steve Zwick walked back his comments about letting skeptics’s houses burn down and tries to clarify the point he was trying to make. I have further comments in a new Forbes article here. An excerpt:
Steve Zwick has posted an update to the post I wrote about last week and has decided the house-burning analogy was unproductive. Fine. I have written a lot of dumb stuff on a deadline. In his new post, he has gone so far in the opposite direction of balance and fairness that I am not even sure what his point is any more — the only one I can tease out is that people who intentionally bring bad information to a public debate should be held accountable in some way. Uh, OK. If he wants to lock up the entirety of Congress he won’t get any argument out of this libertarian.
Here is the problem with Mr. Zwick’s point in actual application: Increasingly, many people on both sides of the climate debate have decided that the folks on the other side are not people of goodwill. They are nefarious. They lie. They want to destroy the Earth or the want to promote UN-led world socialism. If you believe your opponents are well-mentioned but wrong, you say “they are grossly underestimating future climate change which could have catastrophic effects on mankind.” You don’t talk about punishments, because we don’t punish people who take the wrong scientific position — did we throw those phlogiston proponents in jail? How about the cold fusion guys?
However, when the debate becomes politicized, we stop believing the other side is well-intentioned. So you get people like Joe Romm describing the people on the two sides of the debate this way:
But the difference is that those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and hence the health and well-being of our children and billions of people this century quickly denounce the few offensive over-reaches of those who claim to share our goals — but those trying to destroy a livable climate [ie skeptics], well, for them lies and hate speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
This is where the argument goes downhill. When one group believes the other side is no longer just disagreeing, but “trying to destroy a livable climate” and for whom “lies and hate speech are the modus operandi,” then honest debate is no longer possible. If I honestly thought a group of people really, truly wanted to destroy a livable climate, I might suggest letting their houses burn down too.
It’s curious how the ideologues have attempted to hijack the traditional jargon used by sceptics and have tried to turn it onto the sceptics themselves. (The idea being, I suppose, that attack is the best defence.) I suppose I am a denier of climate catastrophe, just as I am a denier of Bigfoot, UFO’s, and the Loch Ness monster. 😉
So Lance, what do you think will happen when you go for your doctorate in atmospheric physics? Can one have an “informed opinion” under those circumstances? What do you think will happen if you state that there is “certainly no empirical evidence” for a catastrophe?
The original research you do for your dissertation had better be damn solid.
Go Oo-Ee-Pooh-Ee! I actually have family who teach there.
Just interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html
More activist journalist written by the clueless… (Although it’s not just climate science. Most science journalism I read these days is appallingly crappy…)
I expect Catastrophists are rather fearful of any research on cloud cover. A 1-2% change in average global cloud cover, caused say by chaotic atmospheric circulation changes, could potentially explain all of the global warming since 1950. (Good discussion on this topic can be found on the Dr Roy Spencer’s website.)
Now we can’t have that happen, can we… 😉
Of course, in order for us to be “saved” by clouds, there actually has to be some reason why we need saving in the first place…
Will, I extend to you the same challenge I extended to Lance just before he disappeared (perhaps he’ll grace us with his presence sometime soon?).
Write up an article about chaotic atmosphere circulation changes that can pass scrutiny from the scientific community.
Or, if not that, at least post your comment above over at Real Climate. As long as you are basically civil, they will allow you to respond.
Otherwise it looks like you are faking it.
And please, son, if you have to use emoticons, find at least two.
I’m a sceptic, not a scientist. If you want to read sceptical papers on climate change here are 900+ to start with that have been peer reviewed:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Go through the papers on cloud feedback. Get back to me when you’re finished. 😉
See, it’s better to look at the science papers, rather than activist blogs. This is why guys like you go wrong.
Also, one last word, I’m helping you out once only by finding a link for you using Google Scholar:
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
(If you’re unsure how Google Scholar works, ask your parents for help.)
Also, bad form if you’re pretending to “debunk” sceptics by citing bloggers for your sources of information. Go to the science, not the spin.
*****”I’m a sceptic, not a scientist.”
Congrats Will. You are the first of Meyers Minions to to admit, however accidentally, that you do not know what you are talking about and are unable to actually do the science (even as you attempt hit-and-run wit). And please, before you go any deeper, do not pretend anymore—Ebscohost, Academic Search Premier, or JStore are far better and more thorough than Google Scholar, which is still in its infancy and not nearly as broad as any of these; anyone who knows about online research knows this.
*****”See, it’s better to look at the science papers, rather than activist blogs.”
Still reading “No Frakkin”? Please don’t pretend you actually read “the science papers.”
And you do realize that “Real Climate” is actually run by the people who write “the science,” right?
Let’s cross post your cloud comment above and see what they say, shall we?
SO Waldo by ignoring all the science references and going off on some little dummy spit, I assume you concede all the points I made? 😉
BTW, sceptics may not be UFO experts, or experts on repressed memory syndrome, or experts on the lost continent of Atlantis, but that doesn’t mean we can’t spot the difference between bullshit and reality my friend. I’m happy to concede I know nearly nothing about Creation Science, but I can still smell BS when it enters the room. That’s because (a) I have intelligence, (b) I have academic training in scientific disciplines, (c) I know a great deal about this history and philosophy of science (more boring academic training I’m afraid) and (d) I’v been a sceptic for 30+ years of my life. So I’m good at telling the difference between good science and junk science. But don’t think sceptics get everything right. Everybody makes mistakes.
Firstly, Will, what points did you make?
Secondly, I concede nothing. And I’m still not sure what you think I’m supposed to be conceding.
You sad little pretender. Do you know anything about the “900 papers” you posted above? It’s fairly well known in the blogosphere, and it’s changed a good deal since last time I saw it: it’s added a disclaimer to the effect that, while only a handful of the papers are from actual skeptics, the list is suppose to “aid” denialists—meaning that the majority of the papers actually support theories regarding AGW (which must do); and they’ve taken off a number of “Energy & the Environment” papers and added a number of papers from European agencies—which is very interesting.
*****”So I’m good at telling the difference between good science and junk science.”
This is the single silliest thing you’ve ever posted. No you don’t, Will. It’s pretty apparent that you don’t know the first thing about science (looked up anything on Google Scholar lately?) and are faking it. I think it is just you and me in this big empty room, so you can stop pretending since it’s just me and I’m not buying it.
Your “I’m a skeptic, not a scientist” is brilliant, actually. You are a “skeptic” (which means you are simply going to disagree with the scientists) but not a “scientist” (which means you do and cannot do the science). Brilliant
Waldo,
I don’t post for 24 hours and you say I have “disappeared”? I have a life.
Let’s see, in my absence you have appealed to those morons at RealClimate and an activist hit piece on a member of the National Academy of Science, Richard Lindzen.
Nice work.
You say I should post at RealClimate? Well, I did. They edited my first two posts, ignoring peer reviewed evidence and then rabbit holed all subsequent posts.
Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign.
EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.
Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.
So you can spare me the BS about Mikey Mann and the biased Bozos at RealClimate.
Speak of the Devil!
I’m sorry, Lance; you didn’t appear so I assumed you’d bailed. My bad. But then, when I though about it, I thought, ‘Of course! Lance had to get started on his article.’ How’s it going? Do you have a target journal in mind? Science? Nature? Journal of Climate? It is best to target a particular journal since so many have in-house style guides and so on. I’m sure you’re up to it! Go boy go!! Although it occurs to me that you may have tasted your first “edit” on the RC boards—did it occur to you that you might have asked a nonsensical question? Post a link to your question! Let’s see what they say!
Just wondering: Why do you refer to Lindzen as a “National Academy of Science” member but RC scientists as “biased Bozos”? (please understand why I didn’t believer you were a college instructor at first) I mean, Mann also has awards, publications, and credentials a mile long, as do all of them, skeptics and alarmists alike. Why are you reverential to Lindzen but not to Mann? Likewise, are you also concerned about who is funding the Heartland, Willie Soon, Tim Ball, or any of the other denialist scientists?
And I’m sure you understand the irony an adjunct math instructor and blog poster yipping at some of the most prominent scientists working in the field today.
But then again, you’ve got bigger fish to fry! Write son! Write!
Waldo,
I’m finishing my final course grades for my classes.
Oh, and while I’m writing that peer reviewed critique of alarmist pseudo-science, that you ordered, maybe I can punch out the great American novel as well.
Anything else you think I should do in my “spare” time?
Notice hold little Waldo claims he knows nothing about the science of climate change, claims that nobody else here does, then declares boldly, “the majority of the papers actually support theories regarding AGW”.
But how have you managed to reach this conclusion little Waldo? 😉
Of course Waldo hasn’t read any of these papers, understands none of them… Then also declares, “It’s fairly well known in the blogosphere” that whatever he writes here must be true…
So basically little Waldo claims he knows stuff because he reads crap on the internet and believes it. The weird part is even *admits* that his sources of information are crap. Forget citing NOAA, Met Office, NASA or even more dubious sites like Wikipedia. (Let’s forget Google Scholar here altogether.) He gets his info from the “blogosphere”, comes here to “rebutt the evil deniers” then spits his dummy when he gets laughed at. Sad little fellow, but typical.
*****Anything else you think I should do in my “spare” time?
Nope. Just keep in mind that the scientists you so freely denigrate have produced literally hundreds of such articles amongst them.
****”Of course Waldo hasn’t read any of these papers, understands none of them”
****”he knows stuff because he reads crap on the internet and believes it”
Will, do you truly not see the irony of someone like you posting either of these two things?
It’s hilarious that you’re no longer citing “No Frakkin” and pretending that you have moved onto Lindzen’s work and then chiding someone for not reading and understanding the literature, particularly when you exhibit the basic research understanding of a first-semester freshman in college. As Maude Lebowski said: “Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.”
I will leave it up to you to research your 900 papers.
Waldo the reason why we’re sort of making fun of you – you’re a source of entertainment here as we bait you (sorry somebody had to tell you), is that you can never post anything without lying or distorting even the most basic statements. No Frakking COnsensus is a great site and here is the link again for interested readers:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
But not because you should just read whatever you already think you believe, but because you will find useful citations there where you can go check the original source material. That was the point of my original post, but of course you repeatedly distort this now. But that’s to be expected. If you could argue facts you would argue them. If you can’t argue facts, you just twist things around. That’s par for the course.
The other curious point (sorry to harp on about this) is that you admit to know nothing about climatology yet you mysteriously know my level of knowledge, you can identify all the “denier scientists” (because you have the power to separate the “good” scientists from the “bad”) and you also know what all the 900+ papers say without having read any of them. You’re clearly a genius 😉
And how do you know all this? Well, anonymous goofy people on the internet told you so. And the funniest thing of all is you actually admit to this as your sources. It’s funny and sad at the same time. Look, I apologise for laughing at you. It’s cruel I know. But you have your head so far shoved up your own arse it’s almost impossible to pity you.
You may keep trying this approach Will, but, if you look closely at my previous posts, you would deduce that I’ve spent a little time on your 900 papers site. You didn’t seem to figure that out.
Notice how many are “Energy & the Environment” (a questionable source with questionable review policies & funding),
notice how many are pay-sites which you cannot access without a subscription,
notice how many are by scientists or agencies which are hard to track down or seem not to actually exist,
notice how many are written overseas and non-accessible here.
This is a site of cherry-picked (possibly) peer-reviewed but often dubious sources which has been planted on the net for people just like you to post as evidence of “peer-review” literature.
How many of these papers have you read?
You are correct, however, that I have a very layman’s understanding of climatology. The difference between us is that I am perfectly happy to be honest and admit that. So I am happy to defer to Lindzen as I am happy to defer to Mann—my argument is not with the science, it’s with idiots like yourself who clearly know less than I do but keep the pretense that you are somehow a critic and skeptic of the AGW movement.
In fairness, I spent a little time on the “Frakkin” site. It was absolutely hilarious. I dig it when her “primary source” is a newspaper article or TV news broadcast on YouTube. I like it when her lonely scientist is a retired geneticist who was not a part of IPCC but thought their evaluation was not rigorous enough for his tastes. My favorite headline was “Medical Journals Spearhead Climate Lynch Mob”—Bwhahaha! And so on. And then you charge that I “just take people’s word” on the Internet. I must run for the moment, but I’ll be back to talk more about Ms. Laframboise’s goofy site.
PS—and keep telling yourself you’re the one baiting me. Dimwit.
My whacky Waldo… that’s the intriguing thing about your posts. You keep doing it too. First you admit you know nothing about the science, then you tell everyone here they know nothing about it either. Then you start to do an in-depth analysis on how all these papers are ‘wrong’. Or the authors don’t exist… Or they are not “peer reviewed” or you’ve decided a whole science journal is ‘bad’. You’re so clueless you even think that not being able to access a paper without a subscription is ‘suspicious’. ROFLAO. You’ve never used google scholar have you?
As for deferring, that’s what sceptics do. You’re calling me an ‘idiot’ yet you have no idea what my views on any of these topics – you haven’t bothered to ask… LOL.
The quality of the primary source is also relative to what’s being discussed. If the topic is that the media is sprouting rubbish on something, then a link to the newspaper article is perfectly logical. And BTW, the IPCC heavily links to press releases, newspaper articles and other ‘grey’ literature. Things you feel are ‘improper’. (For a science review, I would agree with you, such links are improper. But that’s the IPCC for you.) E.g. the whole basis for the IPCC claim that the himalayan glaciers would melt by 2030 was based on a link to a popular magazine article.
Of course you should never take someone’s opinion at face value. Whether you choose to see things Ms. Laframboise’s way or not is quite separate from whether you look at her source materials. That is a fascinating exercise in itself. But since you freely admit you get your information from the “blogsphere” fact checking isn’t really your thing is it? It’s more about making shit up, sprouting a dozen assertions without a single credible link backing up your statements, and then concluding to yourself that you’re very clever. Oh, and also insulting anyone who disagrees with you like a 5 year old. On the other hand, the point of me being here is I’m a little bored waiting for my PC to finish some processing work, so I thought I’d write up a few works to make more fun of you. You’re an endless source of entertainment.
You understand that some of the people here actually do have a purchase on the science (Pauld, Wally, Ted Rado, even netdr has some understanding) while it is fairly clear you keep running into things that are old news [Himalayan glaciers and IPCC] as if they were new discoveries. You’re actually even an amateur denialist.
My point is that nobody here is on the level of the actual scientists who do the science, and none of you would stand a chance if you ever got out of the blogosphere. That’s why you stay here. I think I’ve been remarkably consistent on this point.
To put it another way: You’re a skeptic, not a scientist. (What did you think you were saying there anyway?) While you pretend here, the real scientists do the work. I’m just pointing this out. Deny it if you will, Will.
Then, of course, there’s this little bit of irony:
****”sprouting a dozen assertions without a single credible link backing up your statements”
I went back through to see what you posted. What I found was two instances where you posted links to material which pretty clearly you didn’t understand. Everything else you’ve posted is a generalization or distortion from the denialosphere (IPCC ‘grey matter’), which again, is old news.
I’m afraid I’ll be on the road for the next couple of days, but I’ll check in if I can. And in any event, I’ll be back.
If, in the mean time, you think you’re smart enough, why don’t you see if Lance will race you to see who can write their own scientifically valid article first?
Cheers.
Oh, and by the way, the point of having a list of articles without subscriptions is to make it look like material is available to denialists even while it is not, kind of like the Ghost Armies of WW II putting up fake tanks.
And I’m still not sure how many of those papers you actually read.
Ah whacky Waldo, you’re a hoot:
“What I found was two instances where you posted links to material which pretty clearly you didn’t understand”
But you *do* understand it? But you also tell me you know nothing about the science… So how do you know what I do or don’t understand? That must mean that you have the understanding you repeatedly claim you don’t have. You’re hilarious!
Let me explain as briefly as possible a core principle of skepticism… Now as a sceptic I happen to have the opinion that ‘alternative medicine’ or ‘complementary medicine’ is largely (although not completely) bullshit. I’ve never published in that field. I’ve never done a university degree in complementary medicine either. I can’t tell one smell from the other when it comes to aromatherapy. And I don’t know where to stick the needles in if I tried to do acupuncture. So how do I *know* it’s largely all bullshit? According to your rather peculiar logic, I have no right to be critical of any of this crap because I don’t have the *expertise*. Have you ever heard of critical thinking? Or in doing basic detective work into finding evidence that supports the claims these individuals make?
Think about these things a little my whacky friend. But surely your mother must be calling you to dinner by now?
****”But you *do* understand it?”
Geeze dud, thick much? I’ve only ever claimed that I have a very layman’s understanding of the climate science and nothing more—again and again, as a matter of fact. For that reason, I am an *agnostic* in regards to the climate. I am happy to defer to the experts, alarmist and skeptics alike, and let the climate science community battle it out and come to the conclusion about what is happening in the environment, just as I am happy to defer to the oncology community about cancer and the geology community about plate techtonics and so on. It is a very easy concept. I realize it would be easier for you if I somehow argued that I know the science but you do not…but that’s never been what I’ve posted.
Of course, the climate science community has a pretty clear consensus about what’s happening in the atmosphere…but that’s another story.
As for your *understanding,* aren’t you the one who posted “[denialist scientists] use observations (data and numbers) to argue their case”? One of the dumbest comments among many dumb comments on these boards considering the nature of the entire ‘debate’—which does not lend much credence to your tacit claims above of *critical thinking* ability. It is quite possible that you have a Will Hunting level I.Q., but it is nowhere evident on these boards. In fact, every time you argue something you post a silly distortion from the denialosphere or a perfectly ridiculous blogsite like “No Frakkin.” Perhaps you’re the real deal and just abiding your scientific genius as you ascend to the heights as a “Capital Office” software tech (do you work from your grandmother’s basement?), but you’re sure hiding it here.
But I’ll tell you what, since you *do* seem to think you have the *expertise* and *critical thinking* skills, prove the scientists wrong. Don’t do it here where it won’t do any good. Publish your critiques and collect your Noble! That way you prove your *expertise* and *critical thinking*! Think you’re up to the challenge? Great, then prove it! Quick arguing with me about your *expertise* and *critical thinking* skills! It’s getting you nowhere! I’m not buying it and so you are simply wasting your time talking to me. Talk to the world, son! Prove the scientists wrong! Personally, I think they’d pick you up by the scruff of the neck and shake you like a little poodle, but hey! I could be wrong.
Quit yapping and put your money where your mouth is! Right now, Lance is working on his article which will put all the climate scientists to shame. You too could be on the band-wagon.
Otherwise it looks like you’re faking it.
By the way, can you get us any deals on toner?
PS—as a critical thinking experiment: an analogy is a comparison between two like things in which we gain greater insight into one of the things compared. Why is your analogy between ‘complimentary medicine’ and climate science a failure in this respect?
The “pretty clear consensus” of which you speak whacky Waldo is largely a media and political construct. Since you get your information “from the blosphere” and admit as much, it’s no surprise you believe this to be the case. Unfortunately the real world is vastly more complex than your childish understanding of it.
If you keep using wording like “denalist scientists” etc., you are implicitly assuming you can identify good scientists from bad scientists. Yet you also admit you don’t have the understanding to make such a distinction. You can’t have it both ways my little friend.
I’m not sure what your bizarre rant objecting to the dangers of critical thinking is all about. I.e, “Prove the scientists wrong!” etc. Which scientists? Who are you talking about? What claims? What do you think they are asserting?
There is what the media believes. There is what a lot of bloggers believe. There is what a half dozen or so scientists believe, who wrote the executive summary for the IPCC. Maybe you refer to these groups or maybe you believe something else. Me personally, I don’t care much about belief. Matters of science are decided by evaluating evidence. I accept the theory or evolution not because a small group wrote a report and told me I should believe what they believe. I accept the theory because I looked at the evidence and it was strong. Does that mean we understand everything about the processes of evolution? Not at all, but we know roughly enough to be able to make some broad statements about it. But what about the climate system? Unfortunately, we may be 50 or 100 or several hundred years away from understanding how it works. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that’s because you have a belief, not because you have evidence to support your belief. Sadly, my simple little friend, matters of science must be decided by evidence, not belief.
Waldo:
“
Waldo:
“
”
Yes more papers have been added to it and various clarifications to prevent it from being misrepresented as you have here.
“
Ok, forget the HTML,
Waldo:
“You sad little pretender. Do you know anything about the “900 papers” you posted above? It’s fairly well known in the blogosphere, and it’s changed a good deal since last time I saw it:”
Yes more papers have been added to it and various clarifications to prevent it from being misrepresented as you have here.
“it’s added a disclaimer to the effect that, while only a handful of the papers are from actual skeptics, the list is suppose to “aid” denialists—meaning that the majority of the papers actually support theories regarding AGW (which must do);”
The disclaimer says no such thing. It simply states that it is a list of papers not a list of skeptics. Hundreds of papers on the list are from actual skeptics. While some papers acknowledge AGW as real, they do not support it through their research. These papers however support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW “alarm”.
“and they’ve taken off a number of “Energy & the Environment” papers and added a number of papers from European agencies—which is very interesting.”
This is incorrect with each version of the list more papers from the scholarly peer-reviewed journal E&E have been added. Papers from scholarly peer-reviewed journals in Europe are completely valid.
Waldo,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
– Found at 174 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
– Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index 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
The Scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represent 14% of the list. There are over 769 papers from 256 other journals on the list.
The fact that many of the papers are not freely available on the Internet has to do with copyright law, go complain to the source asking you for the subscription. There is nothing unusual about this.
I have had no problem tracking down any scientist.
The geographic location of where the paper is from is irrelevant to it’s accessibility.
Using your illogical argument any list of papers supporting AGW Alarm would be “cherry-picked”. Yes all the counted papers on the list were peer-reviewed.
Waldo you lack of knowledge about the peer-reviewed literature is breath taking. Any list that included peer-reviewed papers on any subject would run into the same copyright laws and with most publishing companies requiring subscriptions. I have been able to locate many of the papers in full online and a PDF link is provided for these.
*****The “pretty clear consensus” of which you speak whacky Waldo is largely a media and political construct.
NOAA, NASA, IPCC, Union of Concerned Scientists, International Arctic Science Committee, Arctic Council, any number of national science committees, European science academies, African science academies—in fact, pretty much anyone who actually has the ability to do the science is concerned about the climate.
Most importantly, there is an overwhelming agreement among those people who actually study the climate as a profession. Take a look here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
Actually, I’ll help you. This is the National Academy of Sciences:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
So the consensus among those who actually can do the work is quite high and not a “media construct” (what do you think that means anyway?). Nor is it something “a half dozen or so scientists believe”; that is simply factually wrong, which I why I’m fairly convinced you know virtually nothing about the issue from any angle. That is one of your most clichéd posts yet—nice critical thinking there, Will.
As for “denialist scientists”—try taking advice on your chemotherapy from an electrical engineer, a retired geneticist, a retired weatherman, or a parks manager who studied engineering back before AGW was an issue. This is what you are doing when you come here, except you are talking about the climate. Would you risk your life by listening to Mr. Meyer about cancer treatment? Would you use your expertise in office products to evaluate your colon cancer? Does critical thinking give you a depth of actual knowledge?
*****“Dangers of critical thinking”?
Not sure how you twisted that one. I am charging that you aren’t actually doing any “critical thinking.”
*****“Prove the scientists wrong!” etc. Which scientists? Who are you talking about? What claims? What do you think they are asserting?
It’s very simple, Will. Pick one scientific issue in the climate debate. Research and write a publishable article that forwards your scientific evaluation of it or do original research into a matter regarding the climate that would pass scrutiny from the scientific community. Take on the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the IPCC. As you know, papers are very narrowly focused on one topic. For instance, pick one topic regarding climate that you think proves the Mann or Hansen wrong. Upstairs you claim that chaotic weather might explain increasing warming—use this as a basis for your research question; develop a thesis; investigate some aspect of the thesis; write an article on the topic; publish it in a respected journal. You apparently have a reason or reasons for disbelieving the NOAA, IPCC, NASA, and so on—so, tell us why.
If you can’t do this, then you don’t have the level of sophistication, scientific ability or knowledge that the scientists (who you so bravely denigrate and challenge here, in the shallow end) do. This will, Will, not stop you from blaring your opinion around the blogosphere, however, and that is why you are a skeptic, not a scientist.
What about that toner?
Hello Pop Tart, welcome to the mostly empty room which is Mr. Meyer’s blog.
I apologize if I misrepresented your “disclaimer”—it looked like you were carefully wording your statement just in case anyone actually reads up on your list.
Obviously you understand why some people question E&E’s reputation (otherwise you wouldn’t have had your list at your fingertips).
And the point about posting subscription articles which most of us can’t access is that it appears as it you are simply producing an agitprop for people like Will(who couldn’t really understand what you’ve posted anyway) to point at and yell, ‘Look! Peer-review!’
Did you “cherry pick” your list of articles?
Ah Whacky Waldo, you’re still a hoot. The “Union of Concerned Scientists” believes in AGW, therefore it must be true… Hmmm… “The union” is a left wing activist group. Anyone can join… You’re supposed to be a scientist, but nobody checks…
Where to even begin to try to straighten out all your ignorant claims? I can only tackle a couple at a time:
The IPCC is the only group that have done a full climate science review. It has only been reviewed twice independently (the IAC being the most famous) and was strongly criticised by both independent reviews. As for NOAA, NASA, and a hundred other science groups… they have not checked the work of the IPCC, they simply rubber stamp it. This is how it works: If you’re a member of an academic group and you produce a report, the administrative bodies of everyone in that group ‘rubber stamp’ the report. But they don’t independently check the findings of the report. I think the problem here is that in your simplistic world, you make the mistake of assuming that a bureaucratic rubber stamp ‘means’ something. That’s a political claim, not a scientific one.
Your “overwhelming agreement” claim is a bit of a laugh as well:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
So you get a paper in part written by Stephen Schneider, that uses a convoluted methodology, to try to argue that his catastrophist point of view is the ‘correct’ one? Schneider started off warning us that the world was doomed because of global cooling (back in the ’60’s) and later switched to global warming. He made 50 years of doom filled predictions and never got a single claim right before he died. So you’re using his paper as ‘evidence’? ROFLMAO
I’m sure there are hundreds of crazies and wrong headed people out there you can cite, but who cares?
As for statements such as: “Take on the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the IPCC.” — how charmingly clueless. 😉
The only 97% survey I have seen asked two questions (1) has the planet warmed recently and (2) can humans contribute to this warming. I would answer yes to both questions so that makes me part of the esteemed 97%. In fact, 9 out of 10 sceptics would be part of that 97%. And this had nothing to do with agreeing with the IPCC. It wasn’t even the question asked…
If there really was a “overwhelming agreement” why not just do a simple survey asking the scientists for their views? No doubt this has been attempted by many groups but never published by them, because they kept getting the ‘wrong’ answers. 🙂
As for consensus, if you believe in that sort of thing, here are 31,487 scientists and 9000+ PhD’s who disagree with you:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Me personally, I don’t believe that tallying the totals of opinion is a productive way to settle scientific argument. But since this is the way you view the world, the above evidence must therefore compel you to change your mind.
“Obviously you understand why some people question E&E’s reputation (otherwise you wouldn’t have had your list at your fingertips.”
Yes of course, because political activists like to create smears.
Just for Fun:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/
*****”No doubt this has been attempted by many groups but never published by them, because they kept getting the ‘wrong’ answers”
Who?
*****”9000+ PhD’s who disagree with you”
Good God Will, you are always so late to the dialogue. Everything you cite above has been hashed over ad nauseum in many places, including CS. Do you know this and cite anyway or are you just coming to this stuff?
But okay, 1st critical thinking challenge: Who are your “9000+ PhD’s”? How many are names who do not seem to be actual people? How many are actual climate scientists? Does just having a “PhD” mean one automatically understands climate science? Are there, say—I don’t know—vets and business professors on your 9000 list? Are you so dumb that you believe a blanket-mailed slip of paper with a mark-the-box and a line for your name actually challenges the consensus of scientists working and publishing in the field? Not to mention, the OISM is a sham organization run out of a warehouse on the coast (it also takes on “socialism” and nuclear war). I was going to post some links to a number of articles examining closely who had actually signed the petition, but I cannot keep doing your homework for you…really, look into this and if you are so gullible that you fall for this crap, no one can help you.
2nd critical thinking challenge: “The only 97% survey I have seen asked two questions (1) has the planet warmed recently and (2) can humans contribute to this warming.”
Is this the survey the National Academy of Sciences used in the citation above?
Come on, Good Will Hunting, use that smart critical thinking facility.
And what are you doing here anyway? Don’t you have an article to write?
****”political activists like to create smears.”
This we can agree on. So why do you support political activists such as Warren Meyers and the OISM?
Waldo, you need to do better research then desperately Google for things that have been refuted long ago (this includes everything you will find),
Rebuttal to Greenfyre – “Poptart gets burned again, 900 times”
“Greenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true. […]
His absolute lack of integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has never updated his original posts to correct any of the lies that were pointed out to him. In comparison the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list has had many corrections to it to fix various legitimate criticisms. As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.”
The Truth about Greenfyre
“Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.”
Ah wacky little Waldo… I’ve had these debates many times in the past and they always go around in this tight little circle impervious to information.
“Everybody agrees with the IPCC” – As in the Union of Concerned Scientists (leftist activist group) and Stephen “Global Cooling” Schneider’s paper, etc. ROFLMAO
Or “It’s well known in the Blogosphere” – your basic information source. 😉
Or “97% of scientists all agree” – except such surveys make no such claims about whatever odd things you believe in or the IPCC or anything of the sort.
You’re given hundreds of paper and lists of thousands of scientists who seem to be disagreeing with your opinion. These immediately become “evil deniers” or the papers are not “peer reviewed” (in your imagination) or the work of these scientists are somehow automatically “bad” or “wrong”. It’s necessary, otherwise cognitive dissonance sets in and we can’t have that, can we? 😉
Look, I am of the view that these sorts of arguments are bullshit anyway. LOL. Augments from authority, “consensus”, etc. The Petition Project is no more credible in a sense, than those papers that try to argue the opposite. But if you believe in consensus, then you must take the Petition Project seriously or you come out looking like the worst kind of ignoramus and hypocrite. I take the more old fashioned view that scientific matters get settled by evidence, not by what some activist group wants the rest of us to believe. But the sad thing is that you can’t even put these second rate arguments forward in a credible way without making a fool of yourself. Any sceptic here could play devil’s advocate and do a better job than you at putting forward the other side’s case. You really need to go away and learn stuff and come back here once you know something more than the rubbish you’ve read in political/activist blogs. (But I appreciate what with school work and TV, you probably won’t find the time.) However, you are in a room full of grown ups now. 🙂
Weirdo,
The list is extensively referenced and read as the web analytics I have demonstrate.
I understand the desperation of those who are ignorant that E&E is listed in the ISI and cited multiple times by the IPCC.
Your perpetual ignorance on subscriptions for copy-written papers is astounding. Trying to make an issue out of something that is the norm with scientific publications only demonstrates your ignorance.
No the list is not cherry picked because no peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic argument is discriminated from appearing on the list.
I understand your frustration learning of such an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments, you will just have to accept that the world is not flat.
I see Weirdo is Google Scholar Illiterate as well as ignorant about the scientific literature,
Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS
“A recent paper published in the PNAS, “Expert credibility in climate change” is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.
Note: All Google Scholar numerical result totals will change over time and sometimes every time you search.
PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar.”
Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada)
“The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.
The non-expert writer of this analysis of credibility, James W. Prall at Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, is not only not an expert in the field of climate change, he is also not an expert in electrical and computer engineering, at least not in the sense that some might assume from his University of Toronto affiliation. Mr. Prall is an administrator who looks after computers at the university, not a scientist or even a lowly researcher in the field. If it strikes you as odd that an editor at the National Academy of Sciences would accept someone with a life-long service and programming career in the computer field to judge the academic credentials of scientists, it gets odder.
Prall’s methodology in determining who is credible as a scientist involves the use of Google Scholar which, he explained last fall to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “studies just the scientific literature. They look at peer-reviewed journals.” Prall uses Google Scholar to determine how often people publish and how often they are cited. Based on the number of hits that Google Scholar produces – not on any analysis of the actual content of climate studies – Prall determines scientific merit. It’s an easy and straightforward process, he explained, that anyone can perform.
Does Google Scholar really limit itself to scholars? No. Search “Al Gore” on Google Scholar and you will find some 33,200 Scholar hits, almost 10 times as many as obtained by searching “James Hansen,” a true scientist and easily the best known of those endorsed by Prall as a bona fide believer. Neither does Google Scholar limit itself to “just the scientific literature.” Google Scholar finds articles in newspapers and magazines around the world: 113,000 in the New York Times, 22,000 in Economist, 21,000 in Le Monde, 16,000 in The Guardian.
Prall maintains his data on a portion of the University of Toronto website (this is his personal website, and not affiliated with the university, he is careful to note). I first came across him while in the CBC’s studios last fall, when he was invited by CBC Radio to counter my views by presenting a forerunner of his study, which was then unpublished. His results then differed little in the message they conveyed: “According to Jim Prall’s database, of the 615 scientists who published papers on climate change, the sceptics are outnumbered 601 to 14,” CBC announced.
Prall’s now-published work has some important differences. To give his work the trappings required to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, his study has several real scientists as co-authors, the best known and most credible among them being Stanford’s Steven Schneider, who was previously best known for predicting global cooling.
But Prall’s reliance on Google Scholar has not changed. He even tells us what search term he used to arrive at his results – key in the author by first and last name and, to obtain “climate relevant publications,” add the term “climate.”
Works beautifully. Al Gore turns up in such “climate sensitive” academic publications as Vanity Fair, Sierra Club Books, and HollywoodJesus.com.”
This remarkably convoluted “study” meant to “prove” that 97% of climate scientists agree on everything claimed by the IPCC… Strange how it’s always 97% and not 96 or 98… 😉
Why not cite a straightforward survey asking climate scientists what they actually think? Well that has been done and it gave Believers the ‘wrong’ answer so they will never see them cite them.
The narrative that Whacko is espousing here is that everyone agrees on the tens of thousands of separate claims and statements made by the IPCC. Incredible alignment of views, eh? There are no shades of grey. No dissent on any claim at all. No messy science as found in every other scientific research field in the real world. It’s a very child-like view of reality.
****”Why not cite a straightforward survey asking climate scientists what they actually think?”
Ah ha! Will, here is your article! Will you take it on, Will? You’ve been steadfastly ignoring my dare to actually write anything that can pass scrutiny (as well as my requests to have my toner needs met), and this was not what I had in mind, but this would be a good place to start. I guess you think the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree is with the conclusions of the IPCC is evidence of collusion…but I’m not sure how you came to this except you seem to think 97% is a suspicious number. Nice critical thinking. Well anyway, we already know what the climate scientists actually think, you dope; it’s called peer-review literature, the overall conclusion has been surveyed any number of times, and scientific opinion is vetted by the scientific community you so bravely yip at here.
By the way Pop Tart, Will is a big fan of Google Scholar (look up above). Good job on coordinating your responses. That’s really funny, actually.
****”No the list is not cherry picked because no peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic argument is discriminated from appearing on the list.”
This makes no sense. Either you deliberately chose specific papers out of the thousands published on the science for a specific purpose or you posted random papers taken from God knows where. And this looks like you cherry picked a list of papers which greenfyre does a pretty good job of frying. You look pretty silly there—I’ll take a look at your cross-post later this week, but it better be pretty good. And by the way, your website is cherry picked.
But the bigger issue—what makes this whole board and sites like Pop Tart’s so funny—is that neither of you can stand up to the actual scientists (Will will continue to willfully ignore my challenge to write a PR paper; most denialists simply disappear from the boards, as Lance and netdr have, when challenged to put their money where their mouth is). All either of you can do is post about how you’ve out-smarted the scientific community on blog posts.
Well Denialist Wackos I’ll be on the road tomorrow, but I’ll see you all on Wednesday of this week.
Cheers.
Odd little whacky Waldo write:
“You’ve been steadfastly ignoring my dare to actually write anything that can pass scrutiny”
“is that neither of you can stand up to the actual scientists”
Except for these 900+ sceptical papers which already exist:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I defer to the science. You should do the same. As for the rest of your bizarre little rant, I can’t make heads or tails of it. Sorry.
Weirdo, Will did not misuse Google Scholar the way the Google Scholar illiterates did in the PNAS paper. Will correctly suggested you use it as a tool to locate a full copy of a specific paper. This has nothing to do with it’s inability to be used for obtaining accurate numerical totals for search queries of peer-reviewed papers. If you do not understand the difference then I suggest you never reference the PNAS paper again.
My argument makes perfect sense, as you are calling any list on a certain topic “cherry picked”. A list that included papers supporting ACC/AGW Alarm would be cherry picked to you. Your argument is invalid because the list is not claiming to be anything but “Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm”. If I only included some of the papers relevant to this title and not others, that would be cherry picked.
Name one valid argument Greenfyre makes.
It is total lie that I have backed down from anyone. I have instead gotten banned from those sites and my posts deleted when they cannot refute my arguments.
I’m not sure what whacky Waldo is trying to achieve by repeatedly linking to nonsense amateur blogs and social/political activist websites. I’ve made a few references here to “kooky left wing” groups but I don’t want to exclude “kooky right wing” groups either. Both sides are poor sources of information at least in terms of debunking claims. (Although either side can be useful for grabbing links to source materials.) However, for some reason the apocalyptic nonsense seems to be a fad of the “left” right now.
So he comes onto a sceptical website, espouses all sorts of silly claims which he can’t back up, or if he tries to, he links to obviously dubious sources. So he makes a fool of himself. The more foolish his claims, the more erratic his postings become. Anyone sitting on the fence reading whacky Waldo’s postings and then comparing to them to sceptics, would quickly conclude that Waldo is a dick. That doesn’t say much about the science of climate change of course. But it is illustrate of how crazies can sabotage the discussion on these topics. So Whacky Waldo is an ignorant zealot. What’s new? Sadly, the web is full of them, whether the topic is HIV denial, UFO’s, Creation Science, Aromatherapy or some form of environmental Catastrophilia…
****”I defer to the science. You should do the same.”
No you don’t, Will.
First of all, no one is fooled about your actual abilities, let alone your claim that you can tell the difference between “good” science and “bad” science.
Secondly, you cherry pick the blogsites you want to believe, such as Cherry Pop Tart’s cherry picked list of papers, the hilarious “No Frakkin,” or the Oregon Petition project. Do you really not see the irony?
Thirdly, if you really did understand the science, you could enter the conversation by performing scientific evaluation of your own. If you can’t perform on the level of the climate scientists, you really should defer to the science, which is not in the blogosphere. It’s really very simple. I would suggest you are playing obtuse on the subject.
Fourthly, do you really not see the irony in posting “linking to nonsense amateur blogs and social/political activist websites.”
Climate Skeptic is an amateur blog run by a social/political activist. Poptech is an amateur blog run by a social/political activist. So is “No Frakkin,” WUWT, Climate Vent, or virtually any of the denialist blogs you’ve cited—-none of these people are climate professionals; all of them have a political axe to grind. Do you even think about what you post?
There are very few who sit on the fence in Meyer’s little demesne, but if a reasonable person drifts through, Pop Tart sounds like a petulant nutbag protecting a silly and discredited little project, and you sound like a complete fraud who says really dumb stuff in an attempt to sound erudite.
a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.
The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list.
Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers we analysed, which is seven percent of the total.
Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a thinktank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Idso has also been linked to Information Council on the Environment ( ICE ), an energy industry PR campaign accused of “astroturfing”.
The second most cited is Dr Patrick J Michaels – with 28 papers to his name. Michaels is a well known climate sceptic who has revealed that he receives around 40% of his funding from the oil industry.
Third most cited is Agricultural scientist Dr Bruce Kimball – the list shows that all of his cited papers were co-authored with Dr Sherwood B Idso.
Three respected scientists have independently complained that their climate studies have been misrepresented by sceptics in order to bolster a list of papers thrown together to challenge the consensus on global warming.
The authors of the list claim it includes more than 900 scientific papers which question human forced climate change, an assertion which has been repeated on blogs and the Global Warming Policy Foundation website. As we have already reported, nine of the ten most prolific authors have links to oil giant Exxon.
Some of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.
However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change – and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.
Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work – the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.
Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list:
“I’ve responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I’ve said so many times to them and in print.
“I’ve asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I’ve never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well … and all want their names removed.”
A paper on the list by Zeebe et al. published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2009 studies the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is a period of rapid temperature rise around 55 million years ago.
The authors found that feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide.
The lead author, Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, said:
“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.”
These two papers contribute to the scientific consensus on climate change, rather than undermining it. Earth’s climate has changed throughout geological time. Studies like the papers listed here have helped to explain why, broadening our understanding of the climate system.
It is precisely our knowledge of these processes that allows us to eliminate them as the cause of the current warming trend. Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are now the dominant factor forcing today’s climate.
A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed how the 11-year solar cycle has an amplified effect on climate signals in the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said:
“It’s odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability.
“It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, ‘This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'”
The inclusion of a paper studying the sun’s influence on climate is in itself very odd. It’s well established that solar irradiance has contributed little to warming since the 1960s, whilst the Earth’s temperature has risen. For example, a paper by Scafetta & West (2006) says:
“Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”
The authors of the list at Popular Technology appear to believe that studying the effect of non-human effects on the climate provides evidence to undermine the theory of man-made climate change.
In fact, it is precisely such work which shows that the man-made changes to our planet are unprecedented.
And Pop Tarts “refutation” to the above is pretty lame:
“Christian lists ‘comments’ from three authors without providing the question he asked them”
Pretty lame son.
Hence the “disclaimer.”
You cherry picked and cherry picker poorly, grasshopper, indicating you, like Will, don’t really know what you are doing.