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.
Wacko,
“Did I say “skeptic has no right”?”
When you wrote an email over and over again declaring in bold and uppercase:
“CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL?”
What did you mean then if you did not mean that sceptics should not question scientists unless they were qualified scientists?
Hmmm… now I wonder, what tactic will you use? Will you:
(a) Answer a different question
(b) Ignore the question
(c) Claim you answered the question already
Where’s my popcorn? 😉
Regarding:
“Is that what I posted, Will? Or did I post that the fact we are unable to access said documents makes tartlet’s list questionable as an actual research tool?”
That means exactly the same thing. (The only thing “questionable” is your unwillingness to spend any money on a scientific journal’s subscription.) So your original claim was dumb and you parade the same dumbness all over again. Amazing. 🙂
“Is that what I posted, Will? Or did I post that the fact we are unable to access said documents makes poptech’s list questionable as an actual research tool?”
Wacko, you live up to your name. The full paper for hundreds on the list are available where you see “PDF“. I have no control over someone else’s copyright for those that require a subscription. This is not even a valid argument. The list is an extensive resource of all these papers in one location so they can be easily located. If someone wishes to read a certain paper in full (abstracts are available for most) that is not freely available online then they can either pay for it or access where they can view it for free such as at a library or university.
If they ever remake the movie Dumb and Dumber I would highly recommend Wacko audition for both parts.
“I still don’t get it, Poptech. What difference does it make that Google Scholar only lists peer-reviewed papers? Who cares if they are peer-reviewed or not? The science should stand on its own, right?”
My list of 900+ only counts peer-reviewed papers. Google Scholar does not only index peer-reviewed papers, that is the point. We are only discussing peer-reviewed papers. When they talk about the “science” they are only referring to the peer-reviewed literature. If the science does stand on it’s own then it should be able to pass peer-review and an extensive amount of that which supports skeptic arguments has already.
They are attempting to search Google Scholar for a phrase and then use the total number it spits out and try and compare it to my list. They are effectively claiming that the Google Scholar number they get dwarfs my list but their “number” is filled with erroneous garbage like news articles from the New York Times and fictional books for teenagers, this is a fraudulent comparison. It is not simply that the results include papers that are not peer-reviewed but ones ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the phrase they are searching for.
Such as,
Adam, Eve, and the genome: the Human Genome Project and theology [Book] (S.B. Thistlethwaite, 2003)
“This important book combines a basic primer on genetic research with ethical reflection by an interdisciplinary team on key questions and a deeper look, in light of such research, at what it means to be human.”
Tom of Twofold Bay [Book] (V. Kattooparambil, 2007)
“This is the story of Tom, Killer whale of Twofold Bay, Eden, friend to George Davidson (bay whaler) and others like him: it is based upon a true story that will live in the memory of the citizens of Eden for eternity, a museum being built in Tom’s honour upon his death.”
Around the States in 90 Days [Book] (A. Moseley, 2009)
“Determined to escape a 9 to 5 life but equally determined not to do anything socially worthwhile, Andy Moseley took the only option available to him and packed his bags and left for America. His plan was to see as much of the country as he could in 90 days. Starting in Washington and ending in San Francisco, he passed through Canada and along Route 66 taking in several places not on any logical route across the country, and eventually covering half of the States of America, and a few bits of Canada too.”
Landfall along the Chesapeake: in the wake of Captain John Smith [Book] (S. Schmidt, 2006)
“In 2002, Susan Schmidt retraced John Smith’s 1608 voyage on the Chesapeake Bay. In Landfall along the Chesapeake, a cruising guide for Chesapeake boaters and a field log for naturalists, Schmidt compares the beauty of ancestral legacy and childhood memory to her observations on a 100-day voyage in a 22-foot boat.”
Extreme Cuisine: Exotic Tastes from Around the World [Book] (Lonely Planet, 2009)
“Imagine tucking into grasshoppers as you wander the Mercado Benito market in Oaxaca, Mexico, or chowing down on juicy witchetty grubs on your travels through Central Australia – such meals can be the perfect entree to a culture. In this book you’ll find over 50 delicacies that creep, crawl, sizzle and spit, where they originated from and where you can experience them. You may not salivate over blood, scorpions, chicken’s knees or partially digested coffee beans, but travel long enough and you’re bound to meet someone who does. Extreme Cuisine is sure to challenge your idea of what makes good eating.”
Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes [Book] (T. Kallison, 2010)
“Can you imagine a world without music? That’s exactly what happened to young Melody Bell and her two friends, Harmon E. Cord and Justin Tyme. These three youngsters share their common aspirations to one day become celebrated pop stars!”
Regardless the number CANNOT be verified because of the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar, this makes their results even more meaningless.
“Hon-nee-cutt Kicked Your Butt!”
Wacko, why did he do a flawed updated “analysis” then? How many peer-reviewed papers did he find?
“This is essentially the same scenario that Honeycutt alleges exists between Idso and Exxon.”
Wacko, where did “Honeycutt” make any such allegations? When did Idso accept money to do corrupt science?
Wacko, you have yet to answer a question with a straight answer. Why are you so scared to answer simple questions?
It’s not about evidence for his claims. It’s about smearing and attacking scientists with innuendo while simultaneously pretending he is a great ‘defender’ of science. That’s a rhetorical tactic that works among the uninformed but doesn’t have much success when debating sceptics.
****”What did you mean then if you did not mean that sceptics should not question scientists unless they were qualified scientists?”
I think that, if a skeptic claims he can challenge the science, he should prove he can challenge the science, not just talk about how he can challenge the science.
Specifically, I meant I think you can’t do the science. The question itself was extremely specific.
“Can you or can you not write a scientific paper, Will?”
That was the question.
It is a very, very simple question.
If you, as a skeptic, can challenge the science, then do it.
But don’t claim you can tell the difference between “good” and “junk” science and then not prove you can.
Again, very, very simple.
****”That means exactly the same thing.”
????
Actually, no. They are completely different things.
The papers may or may not be legitimate. We will never know unless we have access to the database that hosts them. But tartlet posts them anyway.
This seems to imply that the list is no more than an agitprop.
I think we’ve been over this territory already.
Wacko writes:
“I think that, if a skeptic claims he can challenge the science, he should prove he can challenge the science, not just talk about how he can challenge the science.
Specifically, I meant I think you can’t do the science. The question itself was extremely specific.”
But what you just wrote disproves your own claim. Brian Deer did challenge the scientist (Andrew Wakefield). But Brian Deer could not do the science. Deer was right and Wakefield was wrong. So how do you resolve this contradiction?
You appear to be trying to maintain contradictory claims simultaneously. How can you reconcile the factual situation involving Deer/Wakefield and your position? Why could Deer tell the difference between “junk” science and “good” science when you are arguing he could not have done so?
Wacko, yes I have assisted in the publication of peer-reviewed research. No I do not personally publish scientific research because that is not my job, I am a computer analyst. My job involves compiling and understanding information, something which I am very good at. Yes I am more than capable of understanding the science.
“The papers may or may not be legitimate. We will never know unless we have access to the database that hosts them. But Poptech posts them anyway.”
Wacko, all the papers are legitimate and have been published. NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST WHO LOOKED AT THE LIST CLAIMED IT WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE OF SUBSCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS TO FULL PAPERS! Do you know why? Because this is completely NORMAL for scientific research. Why would I not include all the papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?
What we have been over is your insanity.
****”But Brian Deer could not do the science.”
You are correct. He left the science to the scientists. He reported on the payola.
Not only that, the medical profession rejected Wakefield’s findings. Wakefield made his claims through the press and found the gullible people—like you and Will—willing to listen.
From the original article:
“The medical establishment has long rejected Wakefield’s claims about MMR, and in 2001 he left the Royal Free. He now travels between Britain and America, lecturing about the dangers of the vaccine.”
I mean, this guy sounds like Monkton.
The parallels between Wakefield and the denialist scientists are fairly apparent. It doesn’t surprise me that Will can’t see this, but you should be able to, tartlet.
And this only took a four month investigation on the part of Deer. How long has climate science withstood the scrutiny of the press?
See, this is what the WPA NOOB was not interested in you guys.
Will, please don’t try to follow this. You are too easily confused.
**********************************************************
Okay, this is probably enuff 4 1 nite, but
****“Hon-nee-cutt Kicked Your Butt!”
He kicked your ass because he pointed out that, no matter what, you’ve got a tiny fraction of anything interesting.
We agree: G.Scholar does not necessarily pull up only PR. One cannot verify after 1000 hits. Geeze.
So, since you seem to be a bit of an anal tartlet, I thought I would make my point the arduous way and run some searches to see what I came up with.
• The first search was an Ebscohost search on my favorite database, “Academic Search Complete.”
• I checked the filter for PR so only PR papers would come through.
• Then I checked the filter for “Title” so only papers with the search criteria in the title would come through.
Search Results from “Academic Search Complete”:
8297 “climate change”
1538 “global warming”
169 “IPCC”
15 “medieval warm period”
249 “tree rings”
116 “radiosonde”
5 “cloud effect”
337 “solar cycle”
150 “climate system”
183 “solar irradiance”
11 “pacific decadal variability”
541 “climate model”
410 “NOAA”
10 “climate forcings”
1630 “anthropogenic”
16292 “CO2”
29953 total (check my math because I added in a hurry)
Some of the “CO2” we must eliminate since certainly these were not all about the climate, and certainly there was some overlap.
But I hope my point about the mass of material available becomes clear.
This is just one database using limited criteria.
If you are so anal you absolutely must know the total number of PR papers on climate change in all the databases in the world to justify your 900 cherry picked list, you will have to do that number yourself.
****************************************************
Then I did a Google Scholar advanced search.
• I used Honeycutt’s filters and the term “climate change.”
• However, I added a filter: I used the “Publication” filter to specify which journals papers would appear in.
• I limited my searches to three of the key climate journals: Nature, Science, and Journal of Climate.
These are the results listed below:
• Search Results using the key terms “climate change”
• Combined with “publication” filter
Search Term: “climate change”
Publication: “Nature”
4,160 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Journal of Climate”
3,300 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Science”
20,000 Results
*********************************************
Again, I hope the point is clear.
Even if you managed to find 900 papers countering AGW alarmism, these 900 papers are still too limited a find to have much total impact.
********************************************************
I actually tolled around looking at the other blogs and threads which mention 900+ Papers. You spend a lot of your time defending your little project. “Strawman” and “lies” are two of your favorite words.
Under the circumstances, it’s pretty funny.
And really, I’m only pointing out the obvious.
****”Why could Deer tell the difference between “junk” science and “good” science when you are arguing he could not have done so?”
He didn’t. He followed a lead and found the medical establishment rejecting Wakefield’s findings.
Did you read the original article?
I’ve said all along that if you can challenge the scientists, then do so.
So? Wakefield could turn a scientific finding on its head, why can’t you, Will?
Im sorry to be so dense, but this is a long thread and its hard to follow
So if google only find peer reviewed papers, why does it matter what is on your list, Poptech?
Which papers are the best on your list?
Again Im sorry if I have to keep asking dumb questions, but I have never done much serious research myself.
Who are you guys anyway? Do you know each other?
Wacko, you’re slipping once again into your bad habit of writing long rambling confused responses which seems to duck the simple questions asked of you…
You wrote:
“You are correct. He left the science to the scientists. He reported on the payola.”
Well what is the point of pulling claims out of your arse when moments later they get refuted? Note:
“In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school…”
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
Note that Brian Deer “exposes the bogus data” – that means he questioned the science, not just investigated financial conflicts of interest.
So you are wrong once again, aren’t you?
Oh you poor simple man. You think Deer actually read the science, don’t you?
Critical thinking challenge: Do you think Deer interviewed any doctors for this story?
In any event…
Fine. Prove the scientists wrong. I’d prefer that you actually prove you can do the science you’ve been bragging about, but a piece of investigative journalism which reverses the scientific opinion on climate change is fine with me too.
Will, if you can tell the difference between “good” and “junk” science, then you can write an article for the The Sunday Times that forces the IPCC to retract its statements about AGW.
Sorry forgot to add the link to Brian Deer’s website, here:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm
Note the quote:
“But as journalists queued to report on parents’ fears, Brian Deer was assigned to investigate the crisis, and unearthed a scandal of astounding proportions. He discovered that, far from being based on any findings, the public alarm had no scientific basis whatsoever.”
In other words, Brian Deer did investigate the science as it is clearly stated above on his own website.
Wacko, in terms of stupid you are one of a kind. 😉
And just to make clear:
No, I was not wrong.
You can’t do the science.
We all know Wacko, that you are never wrong about anything in your mind. That’s the issue we are having fun discussing. 🙂
I can’t do the science, Brian Deer can’t do the science. Yet Brian Deer was right, and the scientist wrong. Funny that, eh. 😉
So this at least demonstrates that not being able to do the science is a separate issue from whether one can evaluate the merits of a scientific (or crank scientific) claim. FYI, I can’t do aromatherapy and I have no expertise in all sorts of quack or fringe science either. Yet funnily enough, sceptics can often separate junk scientific claims from real science. Which of course contradicts your claim, again. However, I would qualify the above by reminding readers that sceptics are like everyone else and do not always get things right.
Wow.
You are one dumb cookie.
Do you know anything about journalism?
But fine. Let’s actually look at the article. I’ve bolded the sections where it makes clear that Deer was quoting the experts. I’ve underlined the sections where Deer talks about the payola.
I don’t really know of any other way to make it clear that what Deer does for a living is investigate leads, talk to the experts, and report on what they say.
Plus you do realize that Deer had been an investigative science reporter for over 15 years by the time he wrote this article anyway.
I actually don’t know why I waste my time like this…
Revealed: MMR research scandal
The Sunday Times, February 22 2004
Brian Deer
FULL details are disclosed today of the four-month Sunday Times investigation that has uncovered a medical scandal at the heart of the worldwide scare over MMR.
Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who champions the alleged link between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism in young children, stands discredited for misleading his medical colleagues and The Lancet, the professional journal that published his findings.
The investigation has found that when he warned parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link with autism, he did not disclose he was being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.
The Lancet said yesterday that The Sunday Times’s evidence meant that the finding linking MMR and autism was “entirely flawed” and should never have been published. Last night, John Reid, the health secretary, called for an inquiry by the General Medical Council (GMC) “as a matter of urgency”.
Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP who sits on the British Medical Association’s ethics committee, said the GMC had inadequate powers and pressed the government for a full independent inquiry. After reviewing The Sunday Times’s findings, Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, said he should never have published Wakefield’s article linking MMR to autism. It was “fatally” flawed.
Wakefield was not contactable yesterday, but he said last week when confronted with the investigation findings that he was unrepentant. He denied misleading his colleagues or The Lancet. The scandal arises from the journal’s publication in February 1998 of a scientific report on the “findings” in the cases of 12 autistic children, apparently admitted routinely to the Royal Free hospital in north London in 1996-97.
Wakefield was the lead author of the report. He wrote that the parents of eight of the 12 children blamed MMR: they said symptoms of autism had set in within days of vaccination. The Sunday Times has now established that four, probably five, of these children were covered by the legal aid study. And Wakefield himself had been awarded up to £55,000 to assist their case by finding scientific evidence of the link.
Wakefield did not tell his colleagues or medical authorities of this conflict of interest either during or after the research. The children were subjected to a battery of invasive procedures, including colonoscopies and lumbar punctures.
In the months that followed the examination of the first children, many more were channelled through the hospital. The parents of many were clients of one solicitor, Richard Barr, of King’s Lynn, Norfolk, who was leading the legal attack and had organised Wakefield’s funding from the Legal Aid Board (now the Legal Services Commission).
The research paper published in The Lancet contained no scientific evidence of a link with MMR, only the “association” made by parents. But at the unprecedented press conference to launch the report, attacked the three-in-one jab as posing risks of causing autism and bowel problems.
“It’s a moral issue for me and I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines given in combination until this issue has been resolved,” he said. Neither in the report nor at the conference did he disclose the legally-funded work he was doing for Barr’s clients. Asked his opinion of this non-disclosure last month, Barr said: “I remember noting at the time that the funding acknowledgment wasn’t there, but it didn’t see to be a big deal . . . things have moved on since then.”
Barr added yesterday: “My role is to do the best for my clients. Clients came to me and told me what was happening to their children.”
In March 1998, as public alarm took off over the safety of MMR, a meeting of the Medical Research Council squarely asked Wakefield about the source of the children he had analysed in the Lancet report. Wakefield failed to take the opportunity to reveal his interest. Six weeks later he was faced with a letter in The Lancet raising the question of litigation. All children, Wakefield claimed, came through “formal channels” and that “no conflict of interest exists”.
The medical establishment has long rejected Wakefield’s claims about MMR, and in 2001 he left the Royal Free. He now travels between Britain and America, lecturing about the dangers of the vaccine.
Last weekend, aware of The Sunday Times’s investigation, he flew back to Britain. He was represented by Abel Hadden, a top PR man at Sir Tim Bell’s Bell Pottinger company. At a tense confrontation on Wednesday at Bell Pottinger’s headquarters in Mayfair, a red-eyed Wakefield denied any wrongdoing. He said any conflict of interest in his work was “a matter of opinion”.”I believe that this paper was conducted in good faith,” he said. “It reported the findings. There was no conflict of interest. Do we have any reasons [now] to change our opinion? No, but then again it’s a debate.”
As he was speaking, the findings of the investigation were also being shown to Horton at The Lancet. Shocked, Horton later called in Wakefield and visited the Royal Free on Thursday to talk to Wakefield’s former colleagues and inspect records. By Friday, Horton and his fellow editors were faced with a dilemma: should they respect The Sunday Times’s confidence and wait for the storm to break today? Or rush out a press release criticising Wakefield and taking credit for Disclosing his fatal conflict of interest? They chose the latter.
Simon Murch, one of the leading doctors involved with Wakefield’s research at the Royal Free, said yesterday that news of the £55,000 legal funding was “a very unpleasant surprise”.”We didn’t know. We were pretty taken aback. The timing of it before the paper is something we have all been shocked by. If you have a colleague who has not told you, if you have not been informed you are going to be taken aback.”
He went on: “I am not going to join the queue of people rushing up to kick Andy. But it is right that this has come out: there has been a complete conflict of interest.”
Murch said it was never made clear that the payment was in place before the report was published. “We never knew anything about the £55,000 — he had his own separate research fund,” said Murch. “All of us were surprised . . . We are pretty angry.”
He added: “This is not personal corruption. But there was a clear conflict of interest — it was not declared to us and it was not declared to the journal, and it should have been.” Murch said he believed that if Wakefield had made clear his interest, The Lancet would have asked for the report to be rewritten to focus on hard fact and to “leave the speculation, leave the measles story out of there”.
Another of Wakefield’s 12 co-workers in the study said: “I am very, very angry. I would never have put my name to the study if I had known there was this conflict of interest, and had I not done so it would never have got published.”
Another author, Dr Peter Harvey, a board member of Visceral, a registered charity set up to support Wakefield, spoke out in his defence. Harvey said he did not think the funding was relevant and he would have still have put his name to the study if he had known. “I don’t think there was any conflict of interest,” he said.
Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, said, however: “That MMR paper is the best example there has ever been of a very, very dodgy paper that has created a lot of discomfort and misery.”
D’oh. Too many brackets I guess. Computer got confused.
Well, I guess it will be up you, Will, to figure out where the expert testimony is.
And you’re still wrong.
WHAT?!
****”I can’t do the science”
You mean all this time you’ve been talking about “good” and “junk” science and you can’t actually do the science?
I finally hammered you into a corner and, in one of your attempts to be clever, you accidentally admitted what I’ve known all along. Kind of like when you said you were a skeptic, not a scientist.
Whew. Good.
Tee hee.
Just kidding, man.
I know you can really do the science. You just prefer not to.
Wacko, I’ve repeated stated that I’m not a climate scientist but a sceptic. And rather proud of that fact. And that was the whole basis of your assertion that I “must” write a paper on climate science. So where are we with this?
To summarise:
A non-scientist debunked a claim made by a scientist. The non-scientist evaluated the scientific evidence and was correct, the scientist was wrong. So your assertion is also wrong.
You are left mumbling that I “can’t do the science”. So what? Sceptics have been investigating and separating good science from junk science since science began. With possibly no understanding of the history of science or scepticism, you assert such activities are impossible. I would say the thousands of sceptics around the world who have spent decades debunking junk scientific claims are going to be surprised by your discovery. 🙂
Wacko continues to fail in epic proportions,
“ I thought I would make my point the arduous way and run some searches to see what I came up with.
• The first search was an Ebscohost search on my favorite database, “Academic Search Complete.”
• I checked the filter for PR so only PR papers would come through.
• Then I checked the filter for “Title” so only papers with the search criteria in the title would come through.
Search Results from “Academic Search Complete”:
8297 “climate change”
1538 “global warming”
169 “IPCC”
15 “medieval warm period”
249 “tree rings”
116 “radiosonde”
5 “cloud effect”
337 “solar cycle”
150 “climate system”
183 “solar irradiance”
11 “pacific decadal variability”
541 “climate model”
410 “NOAA”
10 “climate forcings”
1630 “anthropogenic”
16292 “CO2”
29953 total (check my math because I added in a hurry)
Some of the “CO2” we must eliminate since certainly these were not all about the climate, and certainly there was some overlap. But I hope my point about the mass of material available becomes clear.”
Sorry Wacko you fail, that “PR” filter is just for peer-reviewed journals not peer-reviewed papers in those journals. You are counting commentaries, editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, news articles and other non-peer-reviewed content from those publications. I also noticed that when “climate change” or “global warming” did not produce the bullshit number you were hoping for you desperately searched for any other phrase and then idiotically added them together. What happened to the bullshit 950,000 Wacko? Duplicates must be filtered before you add them together and papers that include many of those phrases could have absolutely nothing to do with climate change – especially “CO2” as that will be used in an enormous amount of chemistry, biology and various other scientific papers.
“If you are so anal you absolutely must know the total number of PR papers on climate change in all the databases in the world to justify your 900 cherry picked list, you will have to do that number yourself.”
I don’t have to justify your strawman argument. What sort of insane logic is this? You are the one making a fraudulent argument using bullshit numbers because of your computer illiteracy.
I ask again would a list that supports AGW be “cherry picked?”
“Then I did a Google Scholar advanced search.
• I used Honeycutt’s filters and the term “climate change.”
• However, I added a filter: I used the “Publication” filter to specify which journals papers would appear in.
• I limited my searches to three of the key climate journals: Nature, Science, and Journal of Climate.
These are the results listed below:
• Search Results using the key terms “climate change”
• Combined with “publication” filter
Search Term: “climate change”
Publication: “Nature”
4,160 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Journal of Climate”
3,300 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Science”
20,000 Results”
Back to Google Scholar again computer illiterate? You FAIL AGAIN! Those results are not all peer-reviewed, you are counting commentaries, editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, news articles and other non-peer-reviewed content from those publications.
“I actually tolled around looking at the other blogs and threads which mention 900+ Papers. You spend a lot of your time defending your little project. “Strawman” and “lies” are two of your favorite words.”
Strawman arguments and lies are the two most common false arguments made about the list. If people did not make them I would have no reason to state it as such.
What is clear is you are a failure at this and have demonstrated you do not know how to filter only peer-reviewed papers without counting duplicates.
Actually Will, that’s not what happened. You are wrong. And this scenario does not represent you or the denialosphere.
A professional science journalist investigated a story, and when the governing scientific body was made aware of the unethical behavior of the scientist involved, it pursued its own investigation and retracted the paper published by the unethical scientist.
What the journalist did was bring to light the irregularities in the scientific process.
Tell me—do you think Mr. Deer sat down one day at his desk, read Wakefield’s report, and evaluated the science that way? Did you read the story overhead?
“Sock Puppet Im sorry to be so dense, but this is a long thread and its hard to follow
So if google only find peer reviewed papers, why does it matter what is on your list, Poptech?”
GOOGLE SCHOLAR DOES NOT ONLY FIND PEER REVIEWED PAPERS.
…………DOES NOT
……….DOES NOT
……..DOES NOT
……DOES NOT
Only peer-reviewed papers are counted on my list. If you do not understand this I cannot help you.
“Which papers are the best on your list?”
There is no “best” as that is a subjective argument and will change depending on who you talk to. The purpose of my list is to demonstrate that these papers exist and so skeptics can use it as a resource.
But fine, if you think this is a stellar example of what you do, then great.
Only you have not produced any stories that discredit the climate science community.
What you do is brag a lot and make vague statements.
Wacko, how many peer-reviewed papers did Honeycutt find?
““Then I did a Google Scholar advanced search.
[…]
Search Term: “climate change”
Publication: “Nature”
4,160 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Journal of Climate”
3,300 Results
Search Term:“climate change”
Publication: “Science””
Wacko, what is the 1001 result from any of these searches in Google Scholar you computer illiterate?
Actually, Wakefield’s behavior better mirrors Lindzen’s or Monkton’s behavior. And both Lindzen and Monkton have been roundly rejected by the scientific community.
Hang on…you’re starting to get lost again. Strike that….
How about this:
Where do you think these “thousands” of skeptics are?
“Actually, Wakefield’s behavior better mirrors Lindzen’s or Monkton’s behavior. And both Lindzen and Monkton have been roundly rejected by the scientific community.”
Wacko, please provide a comprehensive poll of the “scientific community” that determined this.
Wacko, your failure to answer any of my questions is well documented for anyone reading this thread.
Wacko, what happened to your bullshit 950,000 papers or you 720k? Where did they go? Did you happen to finally get a proper education in how Google Scholar works you computer illiterate? How does it feel to be humiliated like this on the Internet?
****”What happened to the bullshit 950,000″
I repeat, if you want to get an actual number minus duplicates ect., you will need to do that search yourself. I think I posted this above (I know you’re smart, but you sometimes appear to not want to see things).
The point is quite simple and very clear. As I said, you are a bit of an anal tartlet. Fine, the journals are PR, the numbers include other texts than PR—I should have been more clear. But the issue still stands. You cannot simply insist that the numbers above are insignificant because some are duplicate and some are editorials, letters, etc. What you have there is about 15 minutes of cursory searching. A more definite, thorough search would reveal the specifics, but I’m already wasting too much time here anyway.
Your list is ultimately insignificant and fueled by some rather dubious corporate connections. Honeycutt pointed this out. You are simply not ever going to be able to get away from that.
Personally I think you are furious at Honeycutt; this ferocity is compounded by the fact that some of us were convinced by his reasoning, and your insistence on the particulars of G.Scholar have not shaken this conviction.
We really need to get past this stage of our relationship.
I’ll try to be definite: Honeycutt’s argument is convincing; your insistence that anyone who agrees with him is computer illiterate is not convincing; you may continue to hammer away at this, and I will continue to hammer away at the ideas already rehashed ad nauseam on these boards.
What did you expect would happen after you compiled your list anyway? I’m just curious.
****”How does it feel to be humiliated like this on the Internet?”
Good God, you are a nerd!
Firstly, there is no one reading this thread. It’s just the three of us strange people on here.
Secondly, I actually think I’ve proved my point, which was Honeycutt’s point all along.
Thirdly, what questions haven’t I answered? The “1001” question?
Fourthly, do you really think Lindzen and Monkton have been embraced by the scientific community? I think I’ve got you frothing mad and you just want to challenge everything.
Fifthly, I feel no humiliation. Can you guess why?
Sorry, Poptech. Bad wording I guess. I don’t really understand what “peer review” is so maybe that was where I was getting confused. And this blog is crazy. It goes in thousand directions and I cant always keep track of what people are saying.
Do you guys know each other?
I see Wacko is back to smearing and attacking scientists. I wonder since he is not a scientist, what right he has to decide that Lindzen is a fraud? Didn’t he just spend dozens of posts arguing that nobody who is not a scientist should criticise scientists and their claims? Yet he attacks a scientist whose papers he has never read and does not understand. Interesting…
You’re wrong twice there, Will.
First off, I never posted “that nobody who is not a scientist should criticise scientists”—-far from it.
I’ve posted that people should put there money where their mouths are.
You absolutely do not want to see this, mainly because then you would have to actually see how good you actually are at telling the difference between “good” and “junk” science.
Second off, I posted that the scientific community has not accepted either Monkton or Lindzen. More specifically, the scientific community has not accepted Lindzen’s most recent work on the climate, and the scientific community has never accepted Monkton’s work.
Neither are smears, only observations.
What I’ve actually said all along is that people like you, me, and tartlet don’t belong in the scientific debate. None of us know enough. Let’s let the people who actually know how to do the work do the work.
I mean, gadzooks! Look at the conversation over our heads! We all come off as asshats here! You especially, Will.
D’oh. Wrong “there” up there.
Getting tired. Sorry.
Noobletts,
While we do not want to be presumptuous or dictatorial, we are seriously concerned that you are continuing your online activities in much the same manner as before.
Consider the consequences if the petroleum industry’s bid to rule the world is not met: Mark Zuckerberg will become self-aware and establish himself as all-powerful cyber lord of the planet. We are sure you’ll agree that this is unacceptable.
Please plan your responses with more intellectual vigor. The fate of the Free World depends upon the outcomes of debates such as these.
NOOB Central Command
Wacko, I was waiting for the new “semantic” phase of your arguments to begin. This starts when your rambling posts become so confused and self contradictory that the tactic changes, “I never said that in those words exactly”. This is where it really gets hilarious. (And it’s also getting towards the end of the process before you start back at the beginning of your circle.)
I know you posted that the scientific community “has not […] accepted Lindzen.” You post all sorts of vacuous opinions you can’t back up. Evidence please that you have this deep understanding of what the scientific community think?
Actually, 31,487 scientists have gone on the record saying they agree with Lindzen’s position or something similar to it:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This is the real scientific community. Not your imaginary one. (Note: I do not believe vote counting is a sensible way to get to the bottom of scientific problems. I am simply seeing where your opinion leads.)
And BTW, Monckton is a sceptic, not a scientist. (Please check the spelling, eh?) Not all sceptics agree with all of Monckton’s claims. But sceptics in general will not agree with all sceptical claims. This is quite different from the mind set of Believers. You believe some strange idea, then imagine you know what the scientific community thinks (based on random google searches perhaps using the key word ‘CO2’ ?) and you then imagine they agree with you. A fortuitous coincidence. 🙂
Wacko writes:
“Actually, Wakefield’s behavior better mirrors Lindzen’s or Monkton’s behavior.”
Hence, Wacko compares Lindzen to a discredited scientific fraud.
Then he writes:
“Neither are smears, only observations.”
Debunking your claims involves only aligning your own statements next to each other. Remarkable stupidity. I’ve never seen it expressed at this high level before. And as a sceptic, I can tell you, I have seen a lot of stupidity out there. Hats off to you sir. I think you are a true leader in this field. 😉
Back to the Oregon Petition Project as evidence?
*****”This is the real scientific community. Not your imaginary one.”
You mean the “imaginary” IPCC, “imaginary” NASA, “imaginary” NOAA, “imaginary” National Academy of Sciences?
And the “real scientific community” is composed of slips of paper sent out in the mail? Do you know the story behind the OPP?
****”they agree with Lindzen’s position or something similar to it”
“Something similar to it”?
You post the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
Never contradicted myself; you misstated and misrepresented the very simple things I’ve posted because, unless you create strawmen, you have nothing to say.
Actually, Wakefield’s behavior better mirrors Lindzen’s or Monkton’s behavior.
Just like Wakefield, Monckton takes his science on the road and gives speeches to non-scientists as kind of a denialist celebrity.
Just like Wakefield, Monckton science is rejected by the majority of mainstream scientists.
If you doubt either of these, you should simply Google him.
Lindzen is less like Wakefield, but he is also a scientist whose work is being challenged by the mainstream. He is also a great “popularizer” of skeptical science.
I realize that these more complicated ideas are hard for you. But golly. Geeze.
You are right, however, I should have looked up the spelling of his name.