Burning Down the House

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, you express an opinion. I ask you to provide evidence. Then you ramble on with more weird opinions. Who cares? The internet is full of idiots, you’re one of them. We know that already. What we are interested in on a sceptical website is (a) arguments and (b) evidence.

    What are the opinions of NASA, NOAA and the IPCC regarding Lindzen’s work?

    Please explain (a) how you know what these opinions are and (b) cite credible links backing up your claim.

    I’m hoping you’re not going to cite some amateur blog or do some random google search as proof of who-knows-what?

  • Wacko, also a few things for you to ponder –

    Lindzen like many scientists, has worked as a lead author on the IPCC.

    He had also consulted to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

    Other qualifications:

    * Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards

    * American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden.

    * He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

    * He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    * Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher,[61] and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.

    Therefore I would say that the opinion of the scientific community is that Lindzen is a highly respected scientist. As opposed to, say, your opinion, which is that he a fraud and a crank.

  • Waldo

    We are now at a stage when you simply want to challenge anything I post.

    You are also looking around for things to try and catch me on (such as your ridiculous take on the Wakefield story).

    You are doing this because

    *I’ve proven you cannot perform science and you are afraid to accept that,

    *I’ve posted numerous instances when you contradict yourself or make stupid statements (skeptic, not scientist; “good” vs “junk” science) which you cannot possibly back up with ideas,

    *I’ve repeatedly refuted you with evidence (including your dumb take on the Wakefield story above),

    *I keep referring to things (such as the OPP) which you apparently don’t know about,

    *I write things which are too complicated for you to keep track of,

    *and I have a better sense of humor than you do.

    You will have to find out about Lindzen and Monckton yourself. You will find out that I am correct. But you will need to do it yourself.

    You are not smart enough to play this game, Will.

    But now it’s time for bed. G’nite mate.

  • Waldo

    Pay attention deary. Look overhead:

    I said “the scientific community has not accepted Lindzen’s most recent work on the climate”

    Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.

    And now I must trot along.

  • Waldo

    But, as I said, you exaggerate, mischaracterize, and misquote things I post to build strawmen.

    Perfect example:

    “which is that he a fraud and a crank”

    Never said either of those things. You made an exaggerated inference.

    Ok, really gotta go. Toodles.

  • Wacko, I love this:

    “We are now at a stage when you simply want to challenge anything I post.”

    Every one of your posts has a dozen weird rambling stupid opinions in it. I just grab the first or second claim and deconstruct the foolishness there. That’s all one can really do.

    You are also highly selective in quoting yourself. You actually wrote:

    “Actually, Wakefield’s behavior better mirrors Lindzen’s or Monkton’s behavior.”

    Which means you compared him to a fraud and crank. I provided 3 separate lines of evidence to counter this:

    (1) 30,000+ scientists or those with scientific degrees whose views are likely to be more in line with Lindzen’s.

    (2) I pointed out that Lindzen has actually worked with the IPCC, NASA, etc.

    (3)Pointed out that he has received a high number of awards and honours by the scientific community.

    So are you sticking by your claim that Lindzen is a fraud or crank comparable to Wakefield or were you wrong about this?

    Once we establish whether you still feel you are right about everything or admit that you smeared a respectable scientist, we can then move on to looking at your newer modified claims about Lindzen.

  • I repeat, if you want to get an actual number minus duplicates ect., you will need to do that search yourself.

    Wacko, unlike you I am well aware that there is no way to do any type of search without reviewing each result to remove erroneous content.

    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.

    Lets look at the current issue of Nature,

    3 Editorials
    1 World View
    9 Research Highlights
    1 Seven Days
    5 News In Focus
    2 Features
    2 Comments
    2 Books and Arts
    5 Correspondence
    4 Careers
    1 Futures
    35 Non-Peer-Reviewed Articles

    2 Brief Communications Arising
    7 News & Views * (Questionable if these are papers or not)
    1 Review
    3 Articles
    13 Letters
    26 Peer-Reviewed Papers

    57% of what appears in Nature is not peer-reviewed

    After adding in duplicates which are unknown, Yes your fraudulent numbers are insignificant and worthless.

    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.

    What we have is desperation based on your bogus search terms, especially “CO2”.

    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.

    Incorrect, you have failed to demonstrate this. Your perpetual lie about “corporate connections” has no support. Honeycutt pointed out he was computer illiterate just like you. I’ve already gotten away from it as you cannot even produce results that do not include non-peer-reviewed content without duplicates.

    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.

    I am not furious at him, I believe he is an ignorant propagandist that computer illiterates like yourself latch onto because you cannot make a valid argument. What I have stated about Google Scholar is not up for debate, the fact that you keep ignoring IRREFUTABLE FACTS only demonstrates your ignorance to logic.

    Honeycutt’s argument is convincing

    How many peer-reviewed papers did Honeycutt find?

  • My latest destruction of Wacko’s nonsense is still in moderation…

    Secondly, I actually think I’ve proved my point, which was Honeycutt’s point all along.

    Wacko, you have not proved any point, except that you cannot produce valid numbers that only included peer-reviewed papers, that are not duplicates and are actually on the subject of climate change.

    Thirdly, what questions haven’t I answered? The “1001″ question?

    Among others,

    How many peer-reviewed papers did Honeycutt find?

    Fourthly, do you really think Lindzen and Monkton have been embraced by the scientific community?

    You have no evidence that they have been rejected as you falsely claimed.

  • Wacko thinks he ‘answers’ a question by expressing a new wacky opinion to top up his original opinion.

  • Will, this is very true. He will not answer the questions because he decided to double down on his stupidity by carelessly using Google without comprehending what he was looking at.

    If you ever need credentials for scientists, I have them here,

    Skeptical Science Credentials

    Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

  • Poptech,

    I’ve debated some pretty dumb Warmists and I’ve debated some pretty clever Warmists. But I have to say, I am fascinated by Wacko. He takes stupid to a whole new level. He confuses his opinions with evidence, he makes the most outrageous claims, he makes stuff up on the fly, he lies, he distracts, he rambles, he never admits to the smallest of errors, he contradicts himself not just from one post to the next, but in the same post and sometimes even in the same sentence. It’s how he manages to consistently shoot himself in the foot that is so entertaining. If he was a suicide bomber he would blow himself up before managing to fit the vest.

  • Waldo Has a Question for Will

    I am glad to see that Will is no longer using exclusively “No Frakkin Consensus,” but now he’s citing the Oregon Petition Project. He seems to think the OPP is somehow more reflective of the scientific consensus. And then he charges me to avoid blogs—although he used to cite and “No Frakkin,” is a devotee of Climate Skeptic. Then, rather than actually doing his own research into simple issues easily found on the web, he hammers repeatedly at ideas which it appears he is unable to process and repeats ridiculous statements such as

    “30,000+ scientists or those with scientific degrees whose views are likely to be more in line with Lindzen’s.”

    …likely to be more in line…

    You know, Will, I’m just not having fun with you anymore.

    But I am curious to know what you think a “skeptic” is versus a “scientist.” I know that “skeptics” use “critical thinking,” but I am unclear as to how this counteracts or interacts with the science.

  • Waldo Has a Question for Tartlet

    So you waxed pedantic on G.Scholar and pointed out that Honeycutt’s numbers are not reflective of the actual number of PR papers in a cursory search.

    Fine. I give you that.

    And fine, it is likely the number of hits I pulled up above do not reflect the number of PR papers on the science.

    Good. I give you that too.

    And one cannot verify after 1001 on G.Scholar.

    On this we agree. I concede—1001 is a magic number in G.Scholar.

    But what do you think you’ve gained?

    Even if we halve the number of papers (and this is only an approximate number) you are still left with somewhere around 9K articles on “climate change” from one journal, albeit a major one.

    And let’s just halve the “climate change” numbers from Academic Search Complete, and then halve these again to account for certain overlap, and that alone is over 2K papers with “climate change” in the title.

    So, from only one journal and only one database, using very limited criteria (PR journals; title; “specific key words”) your list still accounts for only about 10% of what I found in 15 minutes worth of searching. And this is only if we accept that what you have listed is at all relevant.

    This is why Honeycutt won the war. He merely pointed out that whatever you’ve found is really insignificant.

    One would suggest that, on some level, you know Honeycutt got you pretty good—otherwise you would not be so concerned with it.

  • Waldo Has a Question for Tartlet

    Sorry, to be clear

    “Even if we halve the number of papers I found while searching G.Scholar for ‘Science’ articles (and this is only an approximate number) you are still left with somewhere around 9K articles on “climate change” from one journal, albeit a major one.”

    I was referring to the
    Search Term:“climate change”
    Publication: “Science”
    20,000 Results”

    My bad.

  • Wacko, who cares what you think? Your opinions are worthless. Do you have any evidence? If you simply express things in terms of “I think this” or “I think that” then that is meaningless and nobody cares what you imagine or wish. But if you attempt to make a statement of fact, then that can at least be debunked.

    The main issue regarding your random googling attempts is that they are fundamentally meaningless. I can google “CO2” and claim 97% of the hits support the sceptical position. You can do the same but argue the opposite. Either claim is idiotic.

  • Waldo Has a Question for Tartlet

    So what does a “skeptic” do, Will?

  • We let fools make fools of themselves. Please continue. But I will correct you if you claim to make a statement of fact which is false. You have a near 100% score on that front. 😉

  • Waldo Has a Question for Tartlet

    Hey! That’s actually kinda funny, Will. Good job. Your first almost funny thing.

    But seriously; I’m actually asking. What makes a “skeptic”?

  • Better Recheck That List

    Better Recheck That List
    UPDATE 11/11/11 By email, Professor Russell Dickerson, University of Maryland has asked that I add his comment to this post:

    After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as “skeptical.” Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

    My attention has just be called to a list of “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming.” A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.
    Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 11/16/2009 05:35:00 PM

  • Pielke dumps (on) the list

    As noted in an update on the original post:

    Pielke pulls 21 papers off the list! 21 papers on the list were authored by Pielke Jr or Sr (both scientists), who said “they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.” Better Recheck That List (Hat Tip to Former Skeptic for the heads up)

    Here is what Poptech (the list’s author) has had to say about Pielke’s comment (emphasis added):

    “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”

    So blog comments by Poptech are substantial, but not Pielke? and who else would post to Pielke’s blog if not Pielke? Let me guess … Al Gore!

    “Pielke’s comments are ridiculous as no one is stating he personally is skeptical of a human influence on climate (many skeptical scientists support the basic premise but are skeptical of the alarmist claims).

    The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position on climate and will not be removed.

    The fact that he used the word “assuming” means he was not even sure himself. “

    Sorry Pielke is wrongas there are still 450,

    1) Pielke is perfectly literate and quite capable of understanding what the list claims to be, but rather than address Pielke’s statements honestly Poptech simply dismisses them.

    2) Apparently (according to Poptech) Pielke is a competent enough scientist as to conduct complex climate research worthy of being on the list, but such a moron that he can’t understand a simple list. Got it.

    3) “The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position” So now we’re shifting the definition of what the list actually is … except I can’t help noticing no amendment or clarification posted to the list.

    I guess everyone’s supposed to understand that “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” doesn’t actually mean “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” since the papers are not necessarily skeptical of either global warming or that it is caused by humans. Got it.

    4) “will not be removed.” Nothing new there cf Inhofe, Heartland etc. Once the Deniers put you on a list nothing can get you off. “means he was not even sure himself” But Poptech is sure, and certainly no need to discuss it with Pielke himself. Denier zealots know the opinions of scientists and the meaning of their work far better than the scientists themselves. Got it.

    He assumed incorrectly that I was listing the papers “refuting” AGW and all the authors and their papers refuted AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Finally some honesty, albeit clearly unintended.

    Word to the wise Poptart … so far Pielke has refrained from saying what he really thinks of the rest of your list, but I’m sure if you piss him off enough he will reconsider … just so you know.

  • Answer the questions Wacko,

    So you waxed pedantic on G.Scholar and pointed out that Honeycutt’s numbers are not reflective of the actual number of PR papers in a cursory search.

    How many peer-reviewed papers did Honeycutt find?

    And fine, it is likely the number of hits I pulled up above do not reflect the number of PR papers on the science.

    The numbers you pulled up were pure bullshit and worthless.

    And one cannot verify after 1001 on G.Scholar. On this we agree. I concede—1001 is a magic number in G.Scholar. But what do you think you’ve gained?

    Can Google Scholar be used to determine the amount of peer-reviewed papers that exist on a subject?

    Even if we halve the number of papers (and this is only an approximate number) you are still left with somewhere around 9K articles on “climate change” from one journal, albeit a major one.

    You have not been able to shows how many peer-reviewed papers on “climate change” are in any of those journals.

    And let’s just halve the “climate change” numbers from Academic Search Complete, and then halve these again to account for certain overlap, and that alone is over 2K papers with “climate change” in the title.
    So, from only one journal and only one database, using very limited criteria (PR journals; title; “specific key words”) your list still accounts for only about 10% of what I found in 15 minutes worth of searching. And this is only if we accept that what you have listed is at all relevant.

    Your numbers are filled with erroneous results and cannot be used to make any claim.

    This is why Honeycutt won the war. He merely pointed out that whatever you’ve found is really insignificant.

    Honeycutt won nothing and demonstrated nothing but his computer illiteracy. How many peer-reviewed papers did Honeycutt find?

    One would suggest that, on some level, you know Honeycutt got you pretty good—otherwise you would not be so concerned with it.

    Not even close, I irrefutably demonstrated he is a computer illiterate and his 950,000 numbers to be fraudulent. Just like I have done with all of yours.

  • Rebuttal to “Better Recheck That List”

    When the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list was first published in 2009 an alarmist notified Roger Pielke Jr. that some of his papers as well as his fathers appeared on it. Contacting him was intentional as Roger Pielke Jr. is an enigma in the climate science debate. He is someone who spends extensive amounts of time arguing against alarmist positions but outright refuses to be labeled a skeptic and will spend just as much time arguing that he is not. He is thus great for alarmists to use for soundbites, in this case against the list. Roger Pielke Jr’s position on ACC/AGW is well known – he “supports it”. Alarmists foolishly believe this will magically mean skeptics will not be allowed to use his papers to support their arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. No attempt was ever made to imply a specific personal position to him or any of the authors. All of this was explained to him in the comments to his blog post. The irony here is every single ACC/AGW proponent using Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments to attack the list would never use his papers in support of their arguments.

    1. He falsely assumed why his papers and his father’s were listed, “Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers…”

    Papers can be listed for two reasons,

    (1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)

    (2) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” (Not defined or mentioned by him)

    All of the Pielke’s papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).

    2. Various clarifications have been made to the list to make this more clear,

    (1) The title was change to make it more scientifically accurate and clear to the intent of the list by adding the words “ACC/AGW” and “Alarm”,

    Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    (2) A disclaimer was added,

    “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. ”

    (3) Various notes were moved or added to the beginning of the list,

    “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 negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

    3. Roger Pielke Jr. has failed to show that his papers cannot be used by a skeptic to argue against an alarmist position relating to ACC/AGW,

    Instead he refuses to answer direct question out of some absurd fear of “endorsing the list” by doing so. He has never been asked to endorse the list and will never be asked to endorse the list. Since he is unable to show this it is quite clear that his papers can be used to support a skeptic argument against an alarmist position relating to ACC/AGW.

    4. Alarmists only bring Roger Pielke Jr. up to use for soundbites against skeptics, they never actually endorse or reference his papers because his papers do not support alarmist positions,

    Nine Fallacies of Floods
    (Climatic Change, Volume 42, Number 2, pp. 413-438, June 1999)
    – Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    “Fallacy 2: Damaging flooding in recent years is unprecedented because of global warming” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    Hurricanes and Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, pp. 1571–1575, November 2005)
    – Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch

    “The paper concludes that with no trend identified in various metrics of hurricane damage over the twentieth century, it is exceedingly unlikely that scientists will identify large changes in historical storm behavior that have significant societal implications” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005
    (Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42, February 2008)
    – Roger A. Pielke Jr., Joel Gratz, Christopher W. Landsea, Douglas Collins, Mark A. Saunders, Rade Musulin

    “Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century.” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    – Are there trends in hurricane destruction?
    (Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. 11, December 2005)
    – Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    “My analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    5. Finally he concedes, “You can of course characterize my papers however you want,” – Roger Pielke Jr.

  • Dickerson’s nonsense was addressed in the same rebuttal,

    Roger Pielke Jr. updated his blog post with an emailed comment from Professor Russell Dickerson,

    After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as “skeptical.” Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

    The paper in question is,

    Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases
    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, pp. 413, November 2009)
    – Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

    It does not include any of the following words,

    man-made (Ironically Roger Pielke Jr. criticized my use of this word as “not scientific”)
    substantial
    danger
    human health

    While Professor Dickerson may believe these things the paper he coauthored does not make those arguments.

    The paper was not listed as “skeptical” but as, “supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm“.

    The email I received from Professor Russell Dickerson included various strawman arguments unrelated to why the paper was listed,

    Please remove this article from your list of ‘skeptics’

    Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases (PDF) (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, pp. 413, November 2009) – Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

    the article contains these lines:

    “our scientific view is that human impacts do play a significant role within the climate system.”

    and as a coauthor of that paper, I object to the contention that it “support(s) skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)”

    Professor Dickerson incorrectly believed the list to be a “list of skeptics”, this is incorrect. As explicitly stated at the top of the list,

    The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.

    Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of 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. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

    He then stated a strawman argument about why that paper was listed, it was not listed because it “support(s) skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)”. Papers can be listed for this reason but they can also be listed if they, “support skeptic arguments against …ACC/AGW Alarm.” In this case this paper was listed because it supports skeptic arguments that CO2 is not the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued.

  • Pielke dumps (on) the list

    I thought I’d answered these. Perhaps I was not direct enough.

    * I do not know how many PR papers Honeycutt found. No one can know, at least at this point.

    * No. G.Scholar cannot be used to determine the number of PR papers in any given search or subject without looking at every single paper, which is impossible after the first thousand.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure I answered these.

    But there’s nothing wrong with the numbers I pulled nor with what they indicate.

    This is perfectly pointless, Andrew.

    Now let me ask you a question or two, mon frere:

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?

    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    Please demonstrate your computer literacy.

  • All the other nonsense is regurgitated garbage from a two year old debunked Greenfyre post,

    Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”

    3. Greenfyre repeats the same lie about Dr. Pielke Jr. “pulling” papers off the list. This is impossible since Roger Pielke Jr. never submitted any papers to the list. The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics. The detailed rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr.’s post is here,

    Rebuttal to “Better Recheck That List”

    4. Greenfyre deceptively takes a comment I made out of context. In a reply I made to a comment in Greenfyre’s blog about Dr. Pielke Jr.’s alleged [blogs.nature.com] comment quoted on Wikipedia about the journal Energy & Environment not being in the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation’s commercial ISI database, “On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”

    …I said, “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”

    I was refering to Dr. Pielke Jr’s comment quoted on Wikipedia. First of all there is no way to verify who a blog comment is from. Second, the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. So his opinion of something being included or not in the ISI is irrelevant to a journal being peer-reviewed. This had nothing to do with what Greenfyre implies my comment was about – that I was talking about Dr. Pielke Jr’s discussion of the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm” list. Greenfyre thus widely distorted what I was saying for propaganda purposes and shows he is so bad at analysis that he cannot even follow comment discussions in his own blog.

  • Waldo Dickerson

    Yeah, I’m sure Prof. Dickerson had no idea what his work means.

    That one you’ve lost, and your attempts at rationalization are lame.

    Now

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?

    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    Please demonstrate your computer literacy.

  • Wacko, are we going to go through every one of these I have debunked ad nauseam? Did you just learn how to use Google? Do you really think I have not responded and completely refuted every single desperate article made against the list?

  • Where’s the original link to the comment?

    Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s
    greenfyre.wordpress.com/…/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
    Nov 18, 2009 – “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.” So blog comments by Poptech are substantial, but not Pielke? and …

    450 more lies from the climate change Deniers « Greenfyre’s
    greenfyre.wordpress.com/…/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-…
    Nov 15, 2009 – I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial. [1]. You haven’t illustrated anything except your desperation to …
    Rebuttal to Greenfyre – Poptart’s 450 Denier Lies (Popular …
    z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/ar/t3650.htm

    Mar 20, 2010 – I said, “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.” I was refering to Dr. Pielke Jr’s comment quoted on …
    Global Warming Science Denial & Scepticism : Pseudoscience …
    http://www.rationalskepticism.org/…/global-warming-science-denial-sceptic...

    May 12, 2010 – I said, “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.” I was refering to Dr. Pielke Jr’s comment quoted on …
    Abbott: “Warmer when Jesus was a boy” – Page 13 – BigFooty
    http://www.bigfooty.com › … › Australian Politics
    12 posts – 5 authors – May 22, 2010
    I said, “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.” I was refering to Dr. Pielke Jr’s comment quoted on …
    Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming – Page 4 …
    boards.straightdope.com › … › Main › Great Debates

    Mar 21, 2010 – I said, “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.” Which was a comment about the quote in Wikipedia about …

  • Waldo

    You just go around cutting and pasting the same responses, don’t you?

    Weird.

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?

    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    Please demonstrate your computer literacy.

  • Waldo

    ****”are we going to go through every one of these I have debunked ad nauseam?”

    Oh. I’m sorry. I thought that was what we did here, go over the same pointless crap ad nauseam even if it proves nothing in particular.

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?

    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    Please demonstrate your computer literacy.

  • * I do not know how many PR papers Honeycutt found. No one can know, at least at this point.

    Does Honeycutt’s numbers accurately represent the amount of peer-reviewed papers on “climate change”?

    No. G.Scholar cannot be used to determine the number of PR papers in any given search or subject without looking at every single paper, which is impossible after the first thousand.

    You just conceded that all of your numbers from Google Scholar are worthless in comparison to my list.

    But there’s nothing wrong with the numbers I pulled nor with what they indicate.

    Yes there is something wrong with your “numbers” – they are meaningless propaganda that indicate nothing but that the person using them is computer illiterate.

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?
    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    I have never looked through all their papers to determine this. What I do know is that the amount of papers that explicitly support, “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is small.

  • Wacko, you computer illiterate stop using Google, it is failing you.

    “I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”

    Pielke Jr.’s comment was in a Nature blog about E&E,

    “On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”

    His comment is irrelevant as E&E is listed in the ISI,

    http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0958-305X

    Your ignorance on all of this is mind blowing. You cannot even comprehend what you are reading! Do you not know who you are talking to?

  • Waldo

    ****”You just conceded that all of your numbers from Google Scholar are worthless in comparison to my list.”

    Usually I follow your reasoning, even if I think it is silly, but how on earth did you come up with this one?

    The extent of my numbers indicates that your list is insignificant in the bigger picture.

    And then there are the scientists who wish you’d leave them alone…

    ****”I have never looked through all their papers to determine this.”

    You just conceded that you have no idea how insignificant your list is.

  • Waldo

    ****”What I do know is that the amount of papers that explicitly support, “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is small.”

    If you don’t know how many papers there are, how do you know the number of AGW supporting papers is small?

  • Waldo

    Do you see how absolutely pointless this is?

  • Waldo

    So I’m going to ask you again. If you don’t answer my questions, you concede that your list is worthless.

    How many combined PR citations from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and NCAR support AGW?

    How many PR papers in Science, Nature, and Journal of Climate support AGW?

    Please demonstrate your computer literacy.

  • Yeah, I’m sure Prof. Dickerson had no idea what his work means.

    Wacko, please quote from his paper where the words, “man-made”, “substantial”, “danger”, “human health” appear.

    I am well aware of what his work means because Roger Pielke Sr. talked about it extensively. It is that the IPCC is only focused on CO2 and not other forcings. Skeptics have always argued that CO2 is not the dominant forcing. No where has Pielke Sr. (lead author) EVER made Dickerson’s bogus claims about this paper arguing that AGW is a substantial danger to human health.

    Please quote and cite where Roger Pielke Sr. (lead author) ever made the claim that the paper, “Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases” is arguing AGW is a substantial danger to human health.

  • “Do you see how absolutely pointless this is?”

    As in Wacko is an idiot and will never learn anything? Yes, that is correct factual statement.

    Wacko it’s not difficult. If you want to claim the scientific community supports your position you need to:

    (1) Cite papers peer reviewed by the scientific community.

    (2) Said cited papers have to support your claim, not oppose your claim or be neutral about your claim.

    To argue that there are 950,000 articles on google that reference “CO2” or whatever is utterly meaningless. To maintain an argument as stupid as this you might as well just wrote “I am an idiot” 50 times in a row. The outcome is the same.

  • The extent of my numbers indicates that your list is insignificant in the bigger picture.

    Your numbers demonstrate nothing but your computer illiteracy. I am glad I could give you a proper education on the limitations of scholarly search engines.

    And then there are the scientists who wish you’d leave them alone…

    I have not bothered any scientist.

    You just conceded that you have no idea how insignificant your list is.

    I cannot concede a stawman argument.

  • If you don’t know how many papers there are, how do you know the number of AGW supporting papers is small?
    Because when you search for the term in scholarly search engines you get only a small amount of results including the erroneous ones. Once those are removed it will be even smaller.

  • Wacko,

    You previously asserted that Lindzen is a crank and fraud by comparing him to Wakefield and also:

    “…Lindzen …have been roundly rejected by the scientific community.”

    Can you dispute any of the multiple lines of evidence that has been provided here proving your claims to be rubbish?

    You seem to have run away from the above nonsense and modified your position as follows:

    “More specifically, the scientific community has not accepted Lindzen’s most recent work on the climate”

    Since Lindzen has been sceptical of alarmist claims for around 20 years, could you define specifically ‘recent work’ ? Do you mean work prior to 20 years ago? How do you consider that ‘recent’ ? What do you mean by ‘recent’ ? What papers are you talking about? What work specifically?

    Also what evidence do you have to support the claim that the scientific community does not accept Lindzen’s published work? Why was it published then? Why has he received so many awards and honours? How do you know what the scientific community is thinking? How do you manage to conclude that your opinions represent what the scientific community is ‘really’ thinking? How do manage to obtain this remarkable understanding that nobody else has? Are you psychic perhaps?

    Thanks.

  • Waldo to Poptech

    Poptech, perhaps I have aggravated you too much by this point to actually ask a question, but I’m going to try asking an honest question anyway simply because I am curious. I am not trying to catch you in anything, I am simply interested. Here goes—

    Obviously your list is important to you, or you would not spend so much time defending its existence—after all, most bloggers simply post their blogs and rhetorically walk away. It is unlikely, from what we know about you, that you have any monetary gain to be made from your blog nor would you have any professional gain.

    * Is your list important to you personally?

    * Why is you list so important to you?

    * What, if anything, did you think would happen once you compiled your list of papers?

    I promise I will not try to skew your words or play ‘gotcha!,’ and we can go back to being rude to each other afterwards, but I am honestly interested.

  • Wacho, the list is important because it refutes idiotic nonsense claims made by imbeciles such as yourself. Which part of the former sentence remains unclear? I can elaborate if required. 🙂

  • Waldo Will Not Do Will’s Homework

    Lindzen’s okay, and I probably overstated the case. But I will give you a key phrase, Will, from which you will need to answer your own questions and make your own conclusions.

    Google with quotes: “Lindzen and Choi Unraveled”

    You can also use Google Scholar, although not all your hits will be peer-review.

    You will immediately dismiss the first link, which is fine, but you can use it to start your search.

    I am not doing your homework for you.

    From here on, however, you will need to do your own research. Decide whatever you will, Will—your actual opinion is unimportant to me, and I seem to be the only one who actually pays any attention to you anyway.

    Let me know if this post is too complicated and I will try again, Will.

  • Waldo Will Not Do Will’s Homework

    ****”Which part of the former sentence remains unclear? I can elaborate if required.”

    What are you talking about?

  • Wacko,

    “Lindzen’s okay, and I probably overstated the case.”

    OK, so a concession were completely wrong. Rather disappointed at this stage that after several hundred postings you wrote something rational. That does take the fun out of the exchange. 😉

    Regarding “Lindzen and Choi Unraveled” are you aware that he wrote a later paper that addressed the criticisms of the first version of the paper? Would you like to cite links to published peer reviewed criticisms of the updated paper? (No, not links to loony blogger opinions, sorry.)

    I expect you to quickly change the topic again, because you have no choice. I will not do your homework for you, though. 😉

  • Waldo

    ****”Would you like to cite links to published peer reviewed criticisms of the updated paper? ”

    No. You can if you want, but I am happy to let the scientists battle it out.

    The point was for you to discover why I Lindzen is running counter to the mainstream climate science opinion.

    You see that, right? You just found out what I was talking about, and I just manipulated you into acknowledging it. Tee-hee. Dope.

    Interestingly, you seem to have developed a sudden faith in the peer-review process. I think I just manipulated you into doing that too, didn’t I?

  • Waldo Questions to Manipulated Will

    You never did tell me what a “skeptic” is.

    What’s a “skeptic,” Will?

    How does one become a “skeptic”?

  • Wacko, Lindzen’s paper is not “running climate science opinion” but it probably does run counter to idealogical and political opinion.

    The paper is right or the paper is wrong on very specific technical grounds. Your “opinion” or the opinions of your friends are (a) irrelevant and (b) idiotic when applied that way.

    If Lindzen’s paper has a flaw it will be rebutted in the literature in due course. It has now been 10 months and no such rebuttal has appeared. If a rebuttal does appear it will be interesting to see if there will be a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

    That’s how science works my wacky friend. It has nothing to do with what your “opinions” or “feelings” are.

  • Willdah Nichtke

    ****”Your “opinion” or the opinions of your friends are (a) irrelevant and (b) idiotic when applied that way.”

    ****”That’s how science works my wacky friend. It has nothing to do with what your “opinions” or “feelings” are.”

    WTF are you talking about?

    Tee-hee-hee…geeze.

    Why are you worrying about science anyway? You’re a skeptic, not a scientist.