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.
Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term “climate change” and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as “[citation]” so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on “global warming” since I don’t know how many of those will be duplicate hits.
Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.
Those folks totally pwned you, Pop Tart. You’ve been reduced to the status of a tartlet.
Now, Pop Tart will be tempted to claim something to the effect that he’s already rebutted the above or that I am not ‘thinking for myself’ (which would be pretty funny for someone who posts other people’s work). But I’ve read your rebuttals—incredibly weak and written in the convoluted style of the shyster.
So how about this: here is Peter deMenocal’s directory information: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/eidirectory/displayuser.php?userid=196
Here is Richard Zeebe’s directory information: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe.html
If you think these two scientists were railroaded into a response regarding your blog, why don’t you contact them and find out what they really thinks about being part of your .1% list?
As for my own two cents, I’ve already pointed out that many of the articles are subscription only or from non-English agencies—and no one here has actually read, much less understood the articles in question—so the only purpose for tartlet’s 900+ papers is to allow people like Will to point and shout, ‘Look! 900 papers!’ even though he has never read them and never will.
Really, you guys are getting ass-whuppins out there. Must hurt.
Poor Weirdo, he just learned how to use Google,
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Their responses follow,
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Kimball: “No.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Kimball: “No.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Kimball: “Almost all of my work co-authored with Sherwood Idso has been about the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on the growth of plants, and I have never published on whether elevated CO2 affects climate. Further, all of the CO2 work was funded by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy.”
Idso: “I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented — and continue to present — what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.”
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
In Part II of his desperate attack on the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list, Christian lists “comments” from three authors without providing the question he asked them. Based on his false statements about why papers were included on the list, the question was likely based on a strawman argument intended to mislead the authors. This tactic has been tried in the past by alarmists since asking a legitimate question based on the truth would not get the response they hoped for. All the papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW alarm defined as, “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” It is made explicitly clear in the disclaimer that the list has nothing to do with any of the personal positions of the authors,
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 ACC/AGW alarm.
1. Christian lies about what the list claims to include, “The authors of the list claim it includes more than 900 scientific papers which question human forced climate change” and “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.”
What the list includes is explicitly stated in the title and the first paragraph,
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Read: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.”
ACC/AGW Alarm (defined), “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”
All the papers support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarm and thus relevant to the “theme” of the list.
2. deMenocal et al. (2000) is listed explicitly under the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) section because it supports skeptic arguments for the existence of the MWP and that it was a global rather than a regional phenomenon.
Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period
(Science, Volume 288, Number 5474, pp. 2198-2202, June 2000)
– Peter deMenocal et al.
The actual data from the paper shows,
“At Hole 658C, the LIA cooling is also represented by two distinct 3°C to 4°C cooling events between ~1300 and 1900 A.D.; the earlier Medieval Warm Period (MWP), between ~400 and 1000 A.D., was only marginally warmer than present”
In their paper, Fig. 4 (West African SST) shows this clearly.
While for whatever reason they inject a comment unrelated to their work,
“…although the warming in recent decades is unprecedented relative to the past millennium (36).”
This comment is sourced to a Michael Mann paper not their work. What is interesting is the citation is incorrect, “36. M. E. Mann, J. Park, R. S. Bradley, Nature 392, 7797 (1998)”. I could find no such paper with these authors, journal and date. Michael Mann does not have any such paper listed on his CV. The closest thing he has is the infamous MBH 98 paper (The original Hockey Stick), “Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998”. Since that comment has nothing to do with the work the authors performed, it is likely it was injected in at the request of a reviewer or editor. Regardless deMenocal et al. (2000) supports skeptic arguments relating to the MWP.
Regarding Peter deMenocal’s comments,
“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.”
Since Dr. deMenocal does not know why his paper was listed he cannot make any such claim. He says he has said so “many times to them”, who is “them”? Certainly not Popular Technology.net as I have never received an email from anyone on these issues. Dennis Avery’s list has nothing to do with the Popular Technology.net’s list as the former’s wording is very different from ours. So confusing the two lists is a very serious mistake. Dr. deMenocal has never been included on any list here in relation to his personal position on AGW nor has the other Columbia colleagues he speaks of. I respect their personal position on this issue and have never attempted to misrepresent them. Their personal position on the issue does not prevent skeptics from using this paper to support skeptic arguments.
Update: I emailed Dr. deMenocal with the question: “Can your paper, “Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period” be used to argue for the existence of a medieval warm period (MWP)?”
deMenocal: “Yes. But this is not the relevant question.”
This is a strawman argument as Dr. deMenocal does not decide what the “relevant” question is. This is decided by the skeptic argument that is being supported. In this case the skeptic argument was for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and that the MWP was a global rather than a regional phenomenon. Since he kept attempting to create a strawman argument for why his paper was listed I directly asked him to tell me why his paper was listed and he failed to respond.
3. Zeebe et al. (2009) is listed because it supports skeptic arguments that CO2 was not a past primary climate driver and thus unlikely to be a current primary climate driver.
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, Number 8, pp. 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe et al.
The actual data from the paper shows,
“At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5C of the warming inferred from proxy records.”
Since up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing this clearly supports skeptic arguments against CO2 being a past primary climate driver. The paper explicitly mentions that other forcings would have to account for the discrepancy,
“If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then …forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming.”
Regarding Richard Zeebe’s comments,
“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.”
This is a strawman argument as his paper is not used to support skepticism of AGW but rather AGW Alarm as there is nothing misleading about showing evidence that CO2 was not a past primary climate driver.
Update: I attempted to email Dr. Zeebe but received no response.
4. Meehl et al. 2009 is listed explicitly under the solar section because it supports skeptic arguments for a solar theory of climate change by providing a mechanism for how small solar fluctuations are amplified to produce a larger influence on the climate.
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing (PDF)
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
– Gerald A. Meehl et al.
The actual data from the paper shows,
“Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.”
While for whatever reason they inject a comment unrelated to their work,
“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 (10).”
This is to a paper by Judith Lean, “SORCE Contributions to New Understanding of Global Change and Solar Variability” not their work. The same paper that is at controversy in the IPCC report, Judithgate: IPCC ‘consensus’ was only one solar physicist.
Regarding Gerald Meehl comments,
“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.'”
There is nothing odd about including a paper that supports skeptic arguments for a solar theory on climate change as opposed to one based on alarmist AGW theory. As already stated his last sentence had nothing to do with his work but that of another controversial paper.
5. Christian lies that, “It’s well established that solar irradiance has contributed little to warming since the 1960s, whilst the Earth’s temperature has risen.”
No that is not established at all and many of the papers in the solar and cosmic ray section argue against this. Such as,
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issues 17-18, pp. 1916-1923, December 2009)
– Nicola Scafetta
“Since 1980 …The sun may have caused …a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used.”
6. Christian misrepresents a quote from Scafetta & West (2006), “Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”
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,
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(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,”
7. Christian lies about what is “believed” at Popular Technology.net, “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.”
What is “believed” is that peer-reviewed papers supporting larger natural influences on climate beyond what the IPCC and alarmists acknowledge supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm since they support a reduced anthropogenic influence.
Weird is Google Scholar Illiterate as well! Thanks for proving that.
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.
Weirdo, I already emailed them and one of them repeated the same strawman argument that the Carbon Brief stated, the other did not answer.
Sorry to break it to you but I have not only read most of them but understood them. I have had access to every one of those databases at one time or another and I was also able to locate many of the papers myself online where they are no longer available.
Now tell me why their papers were listed? Because if the answer is to to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming then that is a lie and a strawman argument.
You would not peddle in dishonest behavior like the Carbon Brief does, would you?
What kind of vast conspiracy theory must someone like whacky Waldo believe in, to try and put forward the claim that 900 different scientific papers published in numerous scientific journals are all the work of ExxonMobil. How utterly bizarre… and a great deal of smearing is required. He’ll be busy making stuff up and citing nut jobs on the internet for months. 🙂
But that’s the mind of the conspiracy theorist for you… This vaguely reminds me of the pro and anti-nuclear energy advocates. (That topic is also highly political.)
To give an example, the IAEA – you know the scientists who actually studied all this – calculated up to 4000 eventual deaths from the Chernobyl accident. 50 deaths having been directly attributed.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/chernobyl.html
OK, that’s the science part. What does the Union of Concerned Scientists claim? Up to 25,000.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/chernobyl-cancer-death-toll-0536.html
What does Greenpeace claim? 200,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
And so it goes.
Why is this relevant? Well, because sceptics generally tend to argue that the Catastrophists exaggerate the global warming “problem” by 3-6 times. With the nuclear debate we see the same sort of pattern. Anti-nuclear groups exaggerating by between 6 and 50 times however.
And guess which sources whacky Waldo prefers to reference? 😉
“Carbon Brief” is a green activist blog; from their own website:
“Our writers
Christian Hunt has previously worked as a web editor for Greenpeace and as a researcher for the Public Interest Research Centre. He has a degree in Mathematics and Philosophy from the University of York and an MA in Conflict Resolution.”
And lists their “scientific” “resource” as “Skeptical Science” – which is itself an amateur blog written by enthusiastic alarmists.
With this scant material whacky Waldo tries to smear 900+ actual peer reviewed scientific papers. What’s that feeling you get when you read someone’s post and it’s so stupid – and you know the person writing it is too stupid to know how stupid it is – that you actually start feeling embarrassment yourself on their behalf?
Odd how Waldo is digging his little conspiracy theory – 800 of those 900 papers or so are written by evil Big Oil! 🙂
He keeps insisting that NOAA, NASA, all the world’s scientific institutions, etc., are on his side (whatever that means), but can’t produce a single citation from a credible scientific source.
This is no surprise. Since these papers cannot exist in his reality, he only has these various options:
* The papers are fake
* The scientists don’t exist
* The journals are fake or part of a conspiracy
* The paper’s don’t say what they actually say
* It’s a Big Oil conspiracy funded by Exxonmobil anyway
Did I leave anything out? Every one of Waldo’s choices requires some level of delusional thinking but that’s to be expected.
Yeah, nice attempt, tartlett, but you still got spanked. I’ll have to rebut your rebut in parts, but let’s see.
****M. E. Mann, J. Park, R. S. Bradley, Nature 392, 7797 (1998)”. I could find no such paper with these authors, journal and date.
Congrats. You found a typo. Certainly we must disregard the 850,000 other papers on climate change now.
****”All the papers support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarm”
How so? The scientists who wrote them don’t seem to think so. This is almost impossible to argue against, tartlet—the scientists themselves have said you are misusing and misunderstanding their work. It’s pretty clear.
****”Since Dr. deMenocal does not know why his paper was listed he cannot make any such claim.”
What? Once again, you are making no sense; this is simply the use of confusing syntax to cloud the issue. DeMonocal does not want his paper associated with organizations such as the Heartland and amateurs such as yourself—it’s very simple and very clear.
*****”“Yes. But this is not the relevant question.” This is a strawman argument as Dr. deMenocal does not decide what the “relevant” question is.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you didn’t actually understand the paper? One thing about denialists, they always claim to “understand” but close scrutiny (as with your blog) suggests very few denialists actually do understand the science behind climate change.
****”This is a strawman argument as his paper is not used to support skepticism of AGW but rather AGW Alarm as there is nothing misleading about showing evidence that CO2 was not a past primary climate driver.”
I extend to you the same challenge Will is ignoring: write a peer-reviewable paper on how DeMonical’s research and what you think it means. You can’t, I’ll wager, and that’s why you stay safely in the blogosphere.
Gotta run, but I shall return.
I did notice that you have no active comments on your rebuttal. Interesting.
Will, I used to generally ignore you on these boards because you wrote such nonsensical things that I honestly have to read and reread to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Such as this—
****”He keeps insisting that NOAA, NASA, all the world’s scientific institutions, etc., are on his side (whatever that means), but can’t produce a single citation from a credible scientific source.”
Do you seriously not see the significance behind the shared conclusions of the NOAA, NASA, and, in fact, all the major scientific organizations in the world? You might still come to different conclusions if you can do the science yourself, but your comment indicates you are not processing on a very basic level.
Just to prove to you how easy it is to find this material—which, by the way, is produced by “credible” sources—I’ll post these:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.T6lbTlKCnKc
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
But “my side” is very simply that you, tartlet, Mr. Meyer, Lance et al. are simply not able to actually do the science, even as you would challenge the conclusions of the scientists who actually can prove the science. Everything I have seen so far supports this observation.
So, in an effort to avoid any additionally pointless conversations with you Will, I am going to issue you a challenge. I will make it very simple.
Earlier you claimed that chaotic weather could possibly explain why temperatures are rising worldwide.
I will leave these boards forever if you can get Science or Nature to publish an article you write on why chaotic weather can possibly explain why temperatures are rising.
Obviously, you will need to write an article that can be peer-reviewed. After it has been reviewed, you can send tartlet a PDF to add to his list of cherries.
Think you can do this?
Sorry, the number of links seems to have caused “moderation.” Let me try this again.
Will, I used to generally ignore you on these boards because you wrote such nonsensical things that I honestly have to read and reread to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Such as this—
****”He keeps insisting that NOAA, NASA, all the world’s scientific institutions, etc., are on his side (whatever that means), but can’t produce a single citation from a credible scientific source.”
Do you seriously not see the significance behind the shared conclusions of the NOAA, NASA, and, in fact, all the major scientific organizations in the world? You might still come to different conclusions if you can do the science yourself, but your comment indicates you are not processing on a very basic level.
Just to prove to you how easy it is to find this material—which, by the way, is produced by “credible” sources—I’ll post these:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
But “my side” is very simply that you, tartlet, Mr. Meyer, Lance et al. are simply not able to actually do the science, even as you would challenge the conclusions of the scientists who actually can prove the science. Everything I have seen so far supports this observation.
Weirdo, you are incredibly clueless,
“Certainly we must disregard the 850,000 other papers on climate change now.”
What 850,000 papers? No such number exists. Are you trying to solidify your Google Scholar illiteracy? Maybe you really did not understand how devastating my rebuttal actual was. Then again it does take someone computer literate to comprehend it.
“How so? The scientists who wrote them don’t seem to think so.”
Really? Quote where they claim their papers cannot be used to support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.
“What? Once again, you are making no sense; this is simply the use of confusing syntax to cloud the issue. DeMonocal does not want his paper associated with organizations such as the Heartland and amateurs such as yourself—it’s very simple and very clear.”
There is no confusing syntax. All three authors FALSELY believed their papers were listed to support skepticism of “AGW” not because they support skeptical arguments against “ACC/AGW Alarm“. DeMonocal has no control over who uses his paper to support their argument or not. The only question is whether the paper actually does and they all do.
“Did it ever occur to you that maybe you didn’t actually understand the paper?”
It still does not occur to you that he did not understand why it was listed? His paper was listed to support skeptic arguments that the MWP both existed and was global contrary to alarmist assertions that it was not.
“I extend to you the same challenge Will is ignoring: write a peer-reviewable paper on how DeMonical’s research and what you think it means. You can’t, I’ll wager, and that’s why you stay safely in the blogosphere.”
I know exactly what it means and it has nothing to do with the strawman argument you or the author believe for why it was listed. I don’t have to write a peer-reviewed paper to include papers on a list because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.
Linking to long refuted nonsense is quite embarrassing for you Weirdo, it is even more embarrassing that you lied and claimed to have read the rebuttals. It is clear you do not have the ability to understand the arguments being made as you cannot even comprehend that “ACC/AGW” is not the same thing as “ACC/AGW Alarm“.
See May 7, 2012, 8:53 pm above.
“Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.”
This is fast getting pointless, tartlet.
The scientists you list do not want your patronage. Your increasingly convoluted syntax means you are trying desperately to figure out a way to justify their inclusion in your ridiculous little list. I understand perfectly well that you are playing a semantic game with the concepts of “skepticism” vs “Alarm,” but it all boils down you misappropriating and misrepresenting the actual scientific work which you cannot do. You are correct that the scientists cannot control what happens to their papers once they are published. However, that does not make your list any more worthwhile.
*****Christian lies that, “It’s well established that solar irradiance has contributed little to warming since the 1960s, whilst the Earth’s temperature has risen.”
Well, he seems to have simplified the evidence, but this would seem to bolster his statement:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
****”I don’t have to write a peer-reviewed paper to include papers on a list because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.”
You don’t have to do anything. But this would indicate you can’t actually perform the science, which means you don’t actually know what you are talking about, which indicates you are talking out your sunspot.
****”What is ‘believed’ is that peer-reviewed papers supporting larger natural influences on climate beyond what the IPCC and alarmists acknowledge supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm since they support a reduced anthropogenic influence.”
If you do really mean “Reduced anthropogenic influence,” prove it. You’ve got 900 papers. Write up your arguments. Submit.
Join Lance and Will in Science magazine.
****Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Kimball: “No.”
He authors with Idso, who works for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which receives “direct funding.”
Again, nice try with the semantics.
*****Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”
In other words, “Yes, it does have an influence.” He too tries semantic evasion, and does not really answer the question.
*****Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Kimball: “No.”
Well, we you take his word on that if you want…but this is hardly the definitive proof you seem to think it is.
What joy Wacky Waldo has given us in his recent exchanges:
Well cited statements of fact are untrue because it’s “well known on the blogophere” to be otherwise.
We must “disregard the [other] 850,000 other papers” on climate science which don’t actually exist. I wonder when he will give us the link to the qualified list. 😉
(Actually typing “climate science” (with quotes) in Google Scholar reports only 27,200 hits and to my amusement even several of the top hits were ‘sceptical’ in perspective.)
Around 800 of 900 papers have actually been written by ExxonMobil or ExxonMobil paid for them or something else very strange happened where a single oil company manages to write hundreds and hundreds of rubbish papers on climate science, and nobody in the climate science community notices because it all gets past peer review, except Waldo discovers the conspiracy. That’s gold.
Hard to see how it can get any more stupid, but then again, I was positive prior to this that it couldn’t get any more stupid, but with Wacky it actually *does* get more and more stupid with each of his posting. Damn, where’s my popcorn?
You dumbshit, Will, geezus. If you are going to try and skew the facts, at least don’t try to skew things that are right above your head on the boards. By far, you post the dumbest things I’ve ever seen on CS. I mean, wow…I just don’t know what to say.
This is what the Denominator actually searched for:
“I limited the search to the term “climate change” and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles.”
And then there’s this:
****”nobody in the climate science community notices because it all gets past peer review, except Waldo discovers the conspiracy.”
You idiot! I’ve been linking to sites which consider the corporate connections. It’s right over your head. I didn’t “discover” anything. Did you seriously not understand that?
If you are going to continue to babble and exaggerate, at least don’t kid yourself that a fence-sitting reader is going to find you credible or even very smart.
So when you write “even several of the top hits were ‘sceptical’ in perspective,” it is too easy to simply point out that you can’t read the posts on this board, much less scientific literature.
Which reminds me, how’s that article coming?
Still unable to actually do the science?
Whacky Waldo would you admit to making any mistakes in your postings? I’m just curious. What mistakes so far would you be prepared admit to? I can spot twenty or thirty right away but would you admit to even just one or two mistakes?
For example, your last claim that there are 850,000 climate science papers in existence? Are you prepared to admit that you just made that up?
How about 9 out of 10 ‘sceptical’ climate science papers are written by ExxonMobil? Would you admit that as being a mistake as well?
Or do you stand by every one of your claims?
Hmmmm…there has got to be an explanation for that last post…
…well you can read otherwise you wouldn’t be able to write…unless you are having someone read to you and are dictating responses back…but that doesn’t seem very likely. And that still wouldn’t explain this latest weirdness…
Are you an alcoholic?
You are getting stranger and stranger…and you are apparently getting more and more confused and disoriented with each posting, which would suggest you are, in fact, getting drunk…
Is it noon yet in Australia?
If you are, in fact, wasted right now—and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with being apparently drunk and posting—you will never get that article written, however, and I am really looking forward to learning that chaotic weather can account for the hottest decade on record.
So drink some strong Austrailia coffee, mate, shake off the cobwebs, and get to work!
Or maybe get some sleep and come back tomorrow.
Perhaps this thread has unwound to the point of being worthless…actually it’s been pretty worthless all along…now it’s just getting weird.
Whacky Waldo there was no explanation in that post. It was just a confused rant that actually was even more stupid than your original claim. (Yes they actually do get dumber and dumber.) Now you assert that there are 954,000 articles disproving ‘sceptical’ views on climate science, not 850,000. You actually don’t explain how a more or less random google search disproves 900+ ‘sceptical’ peer reviewed papers on climate science. I think what you are attempting to do here is now admit that the 900+ peer reviewed papers do exist, but *when compared with everything else ever published in science* the number 900 is relatively small. But I could use the same argument to assert that climate alarmist papers are very small, relative to *everything that’s ever been published in science.* So your ‘argument’ is stupid.
Would you admit that this is a mistake or not? I expect you will just post insults and duck the question asked, but I am genuinely curious on how your odd little mind works.
Thanks.
Wait a minute! You think I did the Google Scholar search I referred to above. You didn’t realize I was quoting these websites:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
And I didn’t do a search on Google Scholar for climate change, these folks did:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html
Tartlet would know who these people are, so I didn’t bother to link to them, but you did not know these were other sites and did not know I was cutting and pasting from them. As I posted many moons ago, tartlet’s 900 list is old news in the blogosphere (a point you seem to have conflated with all sorts of information).
Bwahahahaha! Oh God that’s funny. I couldn’t figure out why you thought I’d “made stuff up.” Whew. I was a little concerned—it’s not nice to make fun of alcoholics.
Okay. Geeze, I thought you were drunk. Now I know you were just clueless.
But, just so you know you’re still f***ing up the reading section of the test: it’s not ‘9 out of 10’ skeptical authors—it’s 9 of the 10 MOST CITED authors on tartlet’s list who have connections to Exxon.
Maybe you are drunk.
Gosh, that’s a relief. I thought you weren’t going to be able to take time from selling office furniture to work on your theory of chaotic weather and global warming.
So how’s the writing going anyway?
What has any of that strange rant got to do with the questions I asked? Let me bring it up to date because your story keeps changing…
You claim that there are 954,000 climate science papers in existence? Are you prepared to admit that you just made that up or got confused by listing papers that have nothing to do with climate science?
How many sceptical papers of the 900+ have been paid for by ExxonMobil?
Will, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!
I didn’t make that number up.
I lifted the number from the “Skeptical Science” website above.
The writer at “Skeptical Science” performed the Google Scholar search
His name is Rob Honeycutt.
Rob Honeycutt came up with the number of papers. I provided the link. He explained how he came to this number.
This is very simple—how come you can’t understand this? ARE you drunk?
*****”How many sceptical papers of the 900+ have been paid for by ExxonMobil?”
You will have to figure out that number by yourself. I grow weary from your inability to do your own research or figure thinks out for yourself. I’ve actually provided you with a site that does the math for you.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! For someone who brags about his “critical thinking,” it sure takes a lot to get a simple explanation across.
Seriously, you are drunk, aren’t you? Damnit, if I’ve been wasting all my time….
And I hate to remind you, but you’re supposed to be working on your first foray into actual science. Have you gotten much writing done?
But little wacky Waldo, what are you trying to claim? You’re not making any sense at all, not that you made much before. 😉
You wrote:
“I limited the search to the term “climate change” and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles.”
What does this mean? How is this relevant to the 900+ sceptical articles on climate change. It’s just a random number pulled out of a semi-random google search. What is your point of giving me this information?
Also, when I asked you to clarify how many of the 900+ papers were paid for by ExxonMobil you replied:
“You will have to figure out that number by yourself.”
OK, I figured it out and it means you are clueless and have confused yourself. Is that what you mean for me to conclude or did you have something else in mind? 😉
Really?!
This—
“I limited the search to the term “climate change” and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles.”
is a quote from the website posted below:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html
This will be the last time I explain this.
You have an article to write anyway.
Yeah, I feel kind of bad, Will.
I knew you were easy to confuse. Sorry.
Wacky, I’m asking you a simple question. I’m not asking you where the quote came from. I’m asking you to explain your argument. What do you think this number means? How is it to be applied to your cliam in relation to the 900+ science papers?
Also, if you don’t know how many of the 900+ ‘sceptical’ climate articles are paid for by ExxonMobil (another question you’re ducking), does this mean you admit you were wrong and confused yourself?
Okay—I’ve come to the obvious conclusion.
I think the number of papers means that, even if tartlet did find 850 papers that support his claim of limited human effect on the climate, his list is only a fraction of the work done since the 1970s on the Earth’s climate.
The overall consensus of the scientific community which did the overwhelming amount of work on the Earth’s climate (of which tartlet’s cherry picked list represents a tiny fraction) is that the globe is warming because of human activity.
What the overall consensus of people who looked closely at tartlet’s list is that it is bogus. This indicates that tartlet’s 850 papers do not support his conclusions.
All this suggests that you posted a bogus list without looking into it.
And I do not admit that I am wrong in anything except that I didn’t mean to confuse you, which appears to be a fairly simple process.
Now Willy, one of those websites above actually cites the number of Exxon scientists. If you can’t find where in the links above, that is your problem. No one says you have to believe me, after all. Find out on your own.
You never did answer: How is the writing coming? Are you ducking this question?
OK, a response, finally. But I already dismissed your argument as absurd in an earlier post. There are probably hundreds of ‘sceptical’ papers in the climate science field and probably as many ‘alarmist’ papers. The thousands that remain then, not falling into either category.
What you’re doing then is assuming that every scientific paper ever written that is not ‘sceptical’ in tone, must therefore be ‘anti-sceptical.’ This is of course absurd. I can make an equally stupid claim and argue that any paper that asserts nothing about climate ‘alarmism’, must therefore be anti-climate ‘alarmist.’
Can you see now why your claim is nonsensical?
Regarding Exxon ‘scientists’ – if 900 or 800 or 700 papers are all written by ExxonMobile scientists, how did they get past peer review? The climate science community must be publishing a lot of rubbish, eh? And if they are publishing so much rubbish, how can we trust those alarmist papers you love? Maybe that is rubbish too, since nobody is doing a proper job with peer reviewing this material.
Can you see now why this claim is also nonsensical?
There’s nothing nonsensical there, Will. You may think you have “dismissed” my argument, but that does not mean that it’s dismissed.
The PNAS survey cited above actually finds that the vast majority of recent climate work supports AGW, as do the scientists.
As for getting past ‘peer review’:
Firstly, the majority of tartlet’s papers actually support AGW.
Secondly, look at the number published in E&E.
Thirdly, there are scientists doing valid work who doubt the current consensus on global warming.
Fourthly, I have said it before and I’ll say it again: I do not love “alarmist” papers, nor do I loath skeptic papers, if such things actually exist—I do not know if AGW is real or not. All along I have said this.
Fifthly, there are only a handful of actual skeptic scientists; only a few of these are actual climate scientists; most of these are not climate scientists at all but electrical engineers, geologists, ect. and a number of this people are associated with companies like Exxon. Tartet cited a number of these. You will need to research this yourself because I have grown weary of spoon feeding you.
What I know is that you know actually less than I do and are a terrible “critical thinker.”
My argument has always been that people like you and I should step out of the climate debate—I mean, look at our conversation above! We wasted all day sparring about a subject neither of us know anything about!
Now, are you going to write about chaotic weather and global warming?
Wacky these claims of yours have already been debunked here. The stuff about E&E which even the IPCC cites. The stuff about the papers not supporting scepticism when they do. Which ones? Someone is not a climate scientist because you say they are not. What evidence? Repeating this nonsense won’t make them ‘undebunk’ so to speak.
Let me illustrate how you are misusing Google Scholar. If I type “climate scepticism” into it I get 87,500 hits. If I type “climate alarmism” into it I get 2,430 hits. Does this mean that climate sceptics outnumber climate alarmists 36 times in the scientific literature? (Because that’s the type of argument you are presenting.) Or does it mean you don’t understand the implications of randomly googling?
Also, you missed this question:
Regarding Exxon ‘scientists’ – if 900 or 800 or 700 papers are all written by ExxonMobile scientists, how did they get past peer review? The climate science community must be publishing a lot of rubbish, eh? And if they are publishing so much rubbish, how can we trust those alarmist papers you love? Maybe that is rubbish too, since nobody is doing a proper job with peer reviewing this material.
Can you see now why this claim is also nonsensical?
****”900 or 800 or 700 papers are all written by ExxonMobile scientists”
This is the nonsensical part. The vast majority of papers support AGW. Can you actually find 900 “skeptical” papers? Just because you came up with 87,500 papers does not mean you found “skeptics.” Let’s try a short experiment—
I just did a Google Scholar advance search: I clicked “Biology, Life Sciences, and Environmental Science” and “Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science.” I used the term, “climate change.” I came up with over 720K hits. I performed the exact same search using “climate skeptic” and came up with 578 hits. Most of these seemed to have used the word “skeptic” somewhere in the text; they were not necessarily skeptic papers. I performed the search again using “climate skepticism” and came up with 3,810; again these used the term “skepticism” somewhere in the text—they were not necessarily “skeptical” papers. Phrases such as “Thus Republicans embrace climate skepticism as a strategy that pays off in polls” and “Hence the skepticism that climate change can reasonably be connected with enduring societal change” caused Google Scholar to pull them up.
In other words, there are probably very, very few actual skeptic papers anywhere in Google Scholar or anyplace else.
All of which substantiates Honeycutt’s original contention that tartlet has only a fraction of the overall wealth of knowledge regarding climate science. His argument, which I pasted into this thread, still stands.
How many of those papers have you actually read, Will?
Now, you repeatedly ignore my question: Are you capable of joining the scientific conversation and writing your own paper on chaotic weather?
You repeatedly ignore this question to play random numbers with Google Scholar (and you do realize I didn’t do that search, right?), but I’m curious: can you write a scientific paper yourself?
Don’t avoid the question any longer:
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?
“Can you actually find 900 “skeptical” papers?”
Yes Wacky the full list is here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Could you list the papers that are not sceptical but which are claimed to be sceptical? That would prove your point, I suppose.
Also a question about why you think the authors of all or some of these papers are not climate scientists. If they are not climate scientists but the papers are about climate topics and they passed peer review in scientific journals, why would it matter whether you think someone is a ‘real’ climate scientist or just a ‘scientist’ or an engineer or someone else with the required expertise? The peer reviewers thought they were qualified. The scientific journals thought they were qualified. Why don’t you think they are qualified? What special knowledge do you possess Wacky that the scientists don’t have?
Also, why do you want me to write a scientific paper? Of what relevance is that? Could you explain this strange request?
I’ve already explained it and you are trying to pretend that I haven’t. I challenge you to prove that you can actually do the science you claim you understand well enough to judge. Just answer the queston; Pop Tarts is a dead issue—the answers to your questions are in he links I’ve posted or answered on this very board, not the least of which are the scientists who claimed tartlet was misusing their research.
Quite prevaricating! Either you can or cannot work at the level of the scientists you appear to doubt.
Now, answer the question:
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?
And, by the way, I’m sure the majority of the papers tartlet cherry picked were fine, peer-reviewed papers.
Tartlet simply misappropriated them—which is very abundant in any of conversations above.
You are trying absolutely anything you can and making stuff up as you go, aren’t you?
Probably because you can’t actually do the science yourself.
So you’re saying now that “I’m sure the majority of the papers… were fine, peer-reviewed papers.”
So you agree. Wonderful. We’re making real progress now. So all those other posts rubbishing the papers, claiming they were fakes, and attacking the scientists was a bit of a silly error on your part then? OK, we all make mistakes I guess.
OK, let’s move onto this:
“Either you can or cannot work at the level of the scientists you appear to doubt.”
But hold on. I haven’t rubbished any scientists. You’re the one who has been smearing and attacking the scientists. I’ve actually been defending the authors of these 900+ peer reviewed papers (at least as a broad principle). Doesn’t that therefore mean that you are the one that should be writing a scientific paper and not me? 😉
Weirdo,
“Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.”
Are you also illiterate? Did you not understand this post? Did you not read it?
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 60,130 (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.
3. Rob produces erroneous results using a search query without quotes,
He does an advanced Google Scholar search query for the search words,
climate change
In his blog post he incorrectly lists them as a search phrase using quotes, “climate change”. There is no mention that no quotes were used. As you will see this dramatically affects the results.
He then adds two advanced filters,
* Biology, Life Sciences, and Environmental Science
* Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science
The results,
climate change (no quotes + filters) – 956,000
When quotes are used you get a dramatically smaller result,
“climate change” (filters) – 635,000
It is clear Rob is only interested in results for the search phrase “climate change” yet by not using quotes he included erroneous results that simply included both words in any context, including having nothing to do with “climate change”. Such as,
Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders: The Case of the Climate Control System in Automobile Development
(Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 160–172, March 1999)
– Christian Terwiesch, Christoph H. Loch
Why is Rob counting results about climate control systems in automobiles?
6. It is impossible for Google Scholar to be used to verify more than 1000 results for any search query because it is hard limited to 1000 verifiable results,
Can I see more than 1,000 search results? (Google Scholar Help)
“Sorry, we can only show up to 1,000 results for any particular search query. Try a different query to get more results.”
Thus it is impossible to verify Rob’s claims as searched, making his conclusions meaningless.
“The scientists you list do not want your patronage. Your increasingly convoluted syntax means you are trying desperately to figure out a way to justify their inclusion in your ridiculous little list. I understand perfectly well that you are playing a semantic game with the concepts of “skepticism” vs “Alarm,” but it all boils down you misappropriating and misrepresenting the actual scientific work which you cannot do. You are correct that the scientists cannot control what happens to their papers once they are published. However, that does not make your list any more worthwhile.”
It is pointless because you do not have the mental capacity to understand the argument. At least your friends can understand sometimes. Nothing is convoluted because you are illiterate. A paper can support the existence of ACC/AGW but still support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm. All three authors falsely believed their papers were listed to support skepticism of AGW, which is false. Arguing this is a strawman argument. Your belligerence on stating the same refuted thing over and over with out making a logical argument is poor tactic used by those without the capacity to rationally debate.
You have failed to show that their papers cannot support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.
Weirdo, Christian did not do his homework and does not understand anything he is talking about.
“Well, he seems to have simplified the evidence, but this would seem to bolster his statement:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm”
Just because claims exist supporting his position does not mean this is a settled argument,
No that is not established at all and many of the papers in the solar and cosmic ray section argue against this. Such as,
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issues 17-18, pp. 1916-1923, December 2009)
– Nicola Scafetta
“Since 1980 …The sun may have caused …a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used.”
The 900+ list has hundreds of papers on it supporting skeptic arguments for a solar theory on climate change.
Weirdo,
“You don’t have to do anything. But this would indicate you can’t actually perform the science, which means you don’t actually know what you are talking about, which indicates you are talking out your sunspot.”
Not writing a paper or not has nothing to do with my ability to understand the science. I know exactly what I am talking about, the fact that you keep trying to argue long refuted nonsense demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.
“If you do really mean “Reduced anthropogenic influence,” prove it. You’ve got 900 papers. Write up your arguments. Submit.”
The point was that the Carbon Brief lied and does not know my position on anything. This is irrelevant to the fact that this list is a resource for skeptics and was never meant to be a unified argument but simply a resource where they can find peer-reviewed papers to support their arguments.
I am not writing a paper get over and that is not a valid argument against the list, desperation man.
“Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Kimball: “No.”
He authors with Idso, who works for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which receives “direct funding.”
Again, nice try with the semantics.”
None of the papers Dr. Kimball coauthored with Dr. Idso were funded by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Those papers were funded by the U.S. Government. Are you an idiot?
“Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”
In other words, “Yes, it does have an influence.” He too tries semantic evasion, and does not really answer the question.”
Yes, in that he could NOT get funding from the U.S. Government. It is not how you nefariously implied as in they dictate the outcome of the science.
“Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Kimball: “No.”
Well, we you take his word on that if you want…but this is hardly the definitive proof you seem to think it is.”
Your continued smearing of credentialed and honorable scientists is noted.
“This is what the Denominator actually searched for:
“I limited the search to the term “climate change” and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles.””
NO THEY DID NOT USE QUOTES YOU COMPUTER ILLITERATE!!!! THEY SEARCHED WITHOUT QUOTES!!!! DID YOU NOT READ THIS POST?
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WITH ANY SEARCH IN GOOGLE SCHOLAR YOU CANNOT GO PAST PAGE 10 OR 1000 RESULTS? THIS MEANS THE NUMBER IS BOGUS AND UNVERIFIABLE BECAUSE GOOGLE SCHOLAR DOES NOT ONLY INDEX PEER-REVIEWED MATERIAL BUT ALSO,
http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html
“Google Scholar includes journal and conference papers, theses and dissertations, academic books, pre-prints, abstracts, technical reports and other scholarly literature from all broad areas of research. …Shorter articles, such as book reviews, news sections, editorials, announcements and letters, may …be included.”
“I’ve been linking to sites which consider the corporate connections. ”
You didn’t link to anything but your smear site. There is no corporate connections,
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
Weirdo, is clearly computer illiterate and just oblivious to this post,
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
Skeptical science searched Google Scholar using these two words,
climate change
WITHOUT QUOTES!!!
This means it will include results that have both of those words in them in any context that can have nothing to do with “climate change”. Such as,
Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders: The Case of the Climate Control System in Automobile Development
(Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 160–172, March 1999)
– Christian Terwiesch, Christoph H. Loch
Even if you use quotes this is irrelevant because NOTHING PAST PAGE 10 OR 1000 RESULTS CAN BE VERIFIED. This is very simple to prove,
Weirdo provide me with the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search.
GOOGLE SCHOLAR DOES NOT ONLY INDEX PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS!!! Thus any search will include erroneous results.
CONCLUSION: GOOGLE SCHOLAR NUMERICAL RESULT TOTALS FOR SEARCH QUERIES ARE WORTHLESS!!!
Weirdo, please provide the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search.
****”So all those other posts rubbishing the papers, claiming they were fakes, and attacking the scientists was a bit of a silly error on your part then?”
No you idiot! Geeeeze! You really are drunk, aren’t you? You really do not get things! How many times must one explain stuff to you. I’ll try again—
Tartlet misappropriated a number of papers which did not support his conclusions.
Several of the scientists have questionable associations.
Several of the scientists have asked that he pull their papers from his website.
And even if tartlet managed to find 850 papers of any sort, they are insignificant in the larger picture.
My God you are thick.
But this—
*****”I haven’t rubbished any scientists.”
Is your dumbest thing yet.
Remember this—
“So I’m good at telling the difference between good science and junk science.”
Do you remember posting this?
Who does the “junk science”?
Did you compare climate scientists to aroma therapists?
You trashed an entire scientific community.
Did you forget this?
Really Will…you post the dumbest things ever.
And you are still avoiding the question. So let me rephrase it.
IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW ENOUGH TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND JUNK SCIENCE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WRITE A PAPER PUBLISHABLE IN ANY MAJOR SCIENCE REVIEW. IF YOU CANNOT YOU ARE SIMPLY ANOTHER FAKER DENIALIST. YOU MADE THE CLAIM, NOW BACK IT UP.
CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE SCIENTISTS YOU RUBBISH?
You’ve done a manly job of defending your little column of other people’s work which you used without their sanction, but the essential issues remain the same.
You misappropriated and misrepresented scientific findings.
Idso may also work for the US Government, but he is suspicious because of his associations with corporate science—you think he’s going to jeopardize his Exxon paychecks? Such accusations are speculation, of course, but this is simply more evidence for the amateurs—you and I and Will—should step out of the picture to let the real scientists read and evaluate the work.
And Google Scholar (only one of numerous databases) simply proves again and again that your little list of pilfered science is statistically insignificant.
Honeycutt kicked your booty.