View Full Version: Rebuttal to DeSmogBlog - Fossil Fools

Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to DeSmogBlog - Fossil Fools


Title: Rebuttal to DeSmogBlog - Fossil Fools


Andrew - April 18, 2011 01:45 PM (GMT)
Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"

In an iconic twist of irony the website funded by a convicted money launderer attempts to smear respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with them as "funded by fossil fuel companies". Intellectually dishonest individuals who are incapable of accepting the existence of scholarly papers contrary to their alarmist ideology have chosen to smear the highly credentialed scientists who authored these papers with libelous ad hominem attacks - falsely implying they are corrupt. No remote evidence has ever been presented that shows a skeptical scientist has changed their position on an issue due to a funding source. While honest investigations have shown these attacks to be baseless: Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? The problem with the corruption argument is that it implies that scientists and researchers who rely primarily on public funding for their climate work are not motivated to tailor their research to the beliefs and policy views of their funding sources. Yet, policy analyses have shown that public funding of science may be susceptible to producing biased results. Regardless, to claim a largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of skeptical scientists are winning the debate against a highly organized climate monopoly that has received over $79 billion in funding because they were granted a paltry $2 million a year from companies like Exxon-Mobil is beyond laughable.


The Truth about DeSmogBlog

"DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money". Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources."


1. Emma falsely implies that the Popular Technology.net list of peer-reviewed papers is funded by fossil fuel companies.

The list is funded by no one and this site has never received a donation from anyone let alone fossil fuel companies.


2. Emma falsely states that The Popular Technology.net list of peer-reviewed papers is a "Petition".

Emma Pullman allegedly has a graduate degree (M.A.) in Political Science yet fails at basic researching skills. The list has nothing do with any "petition" as defined, "a document signed by many people that asks someone in authority to do something". As no one signed anything relating to the list. The list is a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW and Alarmism. It was created to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise.


3. Emma repeats the same lie off of the Carbon Brief blog that, "The "900+ papers" list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. "

The purpose of the list is explicitly stated, "Purpose: To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;". It is also explicitly stated in the disclaimer that no personal position is applied to any of the authors, "Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors". Thus the list has nothing to do with showing any number of scientists holding any position, the list is about showing that peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments.


4. Emma continues to demonstrates her lack of researching abilities by referencing the unreliable and biased SourceWatch website,

The Truth about SourceWatch

"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources."

I wonder if when Emma was studying for her graduate degree they taught her to use such biased and unreliable sources?


5. Emma lies that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is linked to, "right-wing libertarian climate change deniers".

As the good Bishop so eloquently puts it, "This is the organisation which includes a bunch of Labout peers on its board, right? I mean, if you look down their lists of board members Lords Barnett, Donoghue, and Baroness Nicholson are all of the left. Lawson is the only Tory on the board. I guess Ms Pullman forgot to mention left-wing climate change deniers."


6. Emma lies that Benny Peiser works for the Heartland Institute.

In demonstrations of perpetual idiocy, alarmists continue to associate anyone who the Heartland Institute lists as a "Global Warming Expert" as directly affiliated with the same respected nonprofit research and education organization.

As the good Bishop so eloquently puts it, "His presence on the list seems to have been prompted by his appearance at the institute's 2009 conference. These details are apparently enough for Ms Pullman to describe him as the "Heartland Institute's...". I find it simply astonishing that anyone can play so fast and loose with the facts. Do these people have no shame?"

Updated: an update was added at the bottom of the article, "Peiser is listed as one of the global warming 'experts' by the Heartland Institute, but does not work there."


7. Emma attempts to smear the respected and credentialed economist, Dr. Ross Mckitrick,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics (Thesis: "The econometric critique of applied General Equilibrium modeling: a comparative assessment with application to carbon taxes in Canada"), University of British Columbia (1996); Research Assistant, Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University (1988-1989); Research Assistant, University of British Columbia (1989-1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph (2001-2009); Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph (2009-Present); Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University; Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute; Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007); CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph; CME Fellow in Commerce for a Sustainable World, University of Guelph (2012); Adjunct Scholar, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2014-Present)


8. Emma mentions the GWPF and Climategate but fails to mention their scathing report,

The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)


9. Emma references the completely discredited and desperate attack on the Populartechnology.net peer-reviewed paper list by the Carbon Brief,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"


10. Emma lies about the scholarly journal Energy & Environment being a "trade journal".

Apparently using more of her "graduate schooling" she carelessly referenced the worthless Wikipedia. (Update: worthless reference removed but false statement remains)

Energy & Environment is not a trade journal.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 28 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

A detailed analysis irrefutably proving that E&E is not a trade journal is available here,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment


11. Emma lies that E&E is cited 151 times on the list.

Only 129 papers on the list are counted from E&E with an additional 8 supporting or rebuttal papers. So how did she get 151? Using her computer illiterate skills she counted the number of times the word appeared on the page, including the comments! The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from 350 other journals on the list, including over 120 papers from Geophysical Research Letters.

Update: She changed it to 137 and makes no mention she changed it anywhere on the page.


12. Emma lies that Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen are on E&E's editorial board.

None of these scientists sit on E&E's editorial board.


13. Emma lies that E&E is not listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge

Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal


14. Emma attempts to attack the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Climate Research over resignations by some editors due the publication of a paper by Dr. Soon and Baliunas (2003),

Climate Research is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0936-577X)
- Thomson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed science journal
- Scopus lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
- EBSCO lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "Manuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 reviewers" - Climate Research

The Climategate emails brought to light that the paper in question was properly peer-reviewed,

Climategate Email 1057944829

QUOTE
"I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to fuel a public attack. I do not know the source Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who are well known for their support for the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate?

Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I have no pipers to pay. [...]

The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected based on the guidance I received. All are reputable paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans [von Storch] and Clare have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive alterations accordingly. This was done." - Chris de Freitas

Then from the infamous Dr. Jones himself,
QUOTE
"I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was Ray [presumably Bradley, a known hockey team member]. [...]

I believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler [not a skeptic]" - Phil Jones


15. Emma references the bogus PNAS paper (Anderegg et al. 2009) falsely claiming 97% of climate experts agree on global warming based on cherry picking, subjective criteria and Google Scholar illiteracy,

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS




Hosted for free by zIFBoards