|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to Greenfyre - Poptart's 450 Denier Lies|
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 20 2010, 12:26 AM|
| Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/"
Greenfyre's rambling blog post of lies is something alarmists find when they desperately Google for anything to discredit the list. They ignorantly believe that because a criticism is posted online it must be true. As demonstrated below, absolutely nothing in his post is factually accurate. Many of these corrections to his nonsense were made in the comment section to his blog post but Greenfyre dishonestly refused to make any corrections. Instead he hopes people will reject the list based on his propaganda.
1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics "deniers". It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers,
http://220.127.116.11/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=155 (FrontPage Magazine)
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ (Spiked, UK)
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22221/Global_Warming_Ad_Hominem_Attacks_Show_Alarmist_Believers_Desperation.html (The Heartland Institute)
2. Greenfyre starts off repeating the same lies that I have already http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595,
Lie - not peer reviewed, and/or.
Truth - He fails to support this statement. Every counted paper and journal is peer-reviewed.
Lie - known to be false, and/or.
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are known to be false.
Lie - irrelevant, and/or.
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are irrelevant.
Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or.
Truth - He fails to support this statement. The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant.
Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial.
Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack . All papers support either skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.
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. This is not a list of skeptics. The detailed rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr.'s post is here, http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019
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, "http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/should_hurricanes_be_part_of_t.html"
...I said, "http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/#comment-5787"
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.
5. Greenfyre lies that I did not address Dr. Pielke Jr's statements.
I directly addressed his statements on his own blog and corrected the misinterpretation he had of the list.
6. Greenfyre lies that I shifted the definition of the list.
I did no such thing, the list has always stated - "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW". This has since been further clarified to be more scientifically accurate, "The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm."
7. Greenfyre lies that I will not remove papers off the list that do not belong.
Actually I have removed papers off the list before reaching 450 during a quality control check and since. I have no problem making corrections to the list but first it has to be demonstrated that the paper does not support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm or were not peer-reviewed. Something Greenfyre has failed to do.
8. Greenfyre lies that the journal Energy & Environment is not peer-reviewed or in the ISI.
EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by colleges, universities, hospitals, medical institutions, government institutions and public libraries.
Even Dr. Tom Wigley, an AGW alarm proponent acknowledged that E&E is peer-reviewed as disclosed in the Climategate emails,
"http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=314&filename=1053461261.txt" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The publishing company Multi-Science states this explicitly on their website,
"http://multi-science.metapress.com/home/about.mpx" - Multi-Science Publishing
Finally it is explicitly stated in their mission statement that E&E is peer-reviewed,
"http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html" - E&E Mission Statement
9. Greenfyre attempts to smear the process by which EBSCO identifies a journal as peer-reviewed.
EBSCO clearly mentions ALL the methods they use to determine if a journal is peer-reviewed. Greenfyre implies that they just take the word of the journal itself, which is a lie. Ironically he criticizes the very process that journals appear on the multi-billion dollar Thompson Reuters corporation's commercial Master Journal List - internal editors.
10. Greenfyre lies that the Scopus listing implies that E&E is not peer-reviewed.
Scopus incorrectly listed E&E as a "trade journal" while EBSCO correctly lists it as a scholarly journal. E&E is not associated with any specific "trade" such as "chemical engineering" and it http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html to match their criteria for defining a "trade journal",
1. "Trade Journal: a serial publication covering and intended to reach a specific industry, trade or type of business."
Fail - E&E is not targeted at any specific industry, trade or business. It is explicitly stated that it is an http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm journal,
interdisciplinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interdisciplinary) - "involving two or more academic, scientific, or artistic disciplines."
2."Characteristics: usually a glossy magazine type of periodical with articles on topical subjects,"
Fail - E&E is not a glossy magazine type of periodical.
3. "many news items and advertisements that will appeal to those in the field."
Fail - E&E has no advertisements and does not appeal to any field.
4. "Trade Journals are seldom refereed"
Fail - E&E is http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf. The word "seldom" implies some are, thus a trade journal listing does not mean it cannot be peer-reviewed.
5. "...and do not always have an editorial board."
Fail - E&E has an http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm.
6. "Abstracts are usually short or non-existent, and few or no references are given."
Fail - E&E abstracts are average length and extensive references are given. Examples,
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
7. Finally it is stated, "Trade journals are included in Scopus because users and librarians consider selected articles to be scientifically relevant." Clearly Scopus editors choose to include E&E due to the scientific relevance of some of it's articles, this is contrary to the claims made by it's critics.
Update: Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed Journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
Update: Scopus now correctly lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed Journal.
11. Greenfyre lies that because the peer-review process is not mentioned on E&E's website it is not peer-reviewed.
This is absurd as I have personally spoken to the publishing director Bill Hughes, editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and various authors of papers to confirm that E&E is peer-reviewed and challenged Greenfyre to do the same, something he has never done.
12. Greenfyre attempts to smear Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen by distorting the meaning of quotes from her.
Firstly, Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen has simply admitted to allowing papers a chance to undergo E&E's peer-review process where they may have been arbitrarily rejected from this chance by the editors of other journals. This in no way means that they are published without review.
This is the correct http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html of her quote,
"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.
I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.
The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.
I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.
In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."
- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
Then of course she admits E&E is not a natural science journal, which it never claimed to be but rather an interdisciplinary scholarly journal that allows debate on topics that cross the natural and social sciences and have policy implications. Thus papers published will include both pure science, social science and a mix of both. This is effectively stated on their http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm,
"Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate."
13. Greenfyre further attempts to smear E&E by using HuangFeng's so called "analysis".
While I agreed that the online labeling of some of E&E's papers is inconsistent, this does not prove a paper was not subject to the peer-review process. I pointed out to Huang multiple times that most journals including the popular journals Nature and Science do not designate which articles are peer-reviewed or not. Using Huang's standards Nature and Science should be removed as peer-reviewed journals for failure to disclose which articles are peer-reviewed or not.
14. Oliver Manuel's papers have been removed off the list,
http://mominer.mst.edu/2006/08/30/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple-counts-of-rape-and-sodomy-of-his-children/ (The Missouri Miner, August 20, 2006)
http://mominer.mst.edu/2007/03/07/trial-begins-for-retired-professor-manuel/ (The Missouri Miner, March 7, 2007)
15. Greenfyre lies that there are duplicate papers on the list counted twice.
He dishonestly quotes a commenter (J. Smith) from his previously discredited post while conveniently ignoring my http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/#comment-5847,
[Poptech, November 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm] - "That was a typo and corrected but irrelevant as none of the responses were counted in the peer-reviewed paper count and there are many more listings than the 450 papers (actually there are more than 450 papers, this is intentional)."
At anytime he or anyone else could have counted the list to see this is not true but this was never done. I even pointed this lie out to him http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-5886 and he still has not corrected it.
16. Greenfyre lies that corrections to papers are counted.
He dishonestly quotes a commenter (Marco) from his previously discredited post while again conveniently ignoring my http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/#comment-5763,
[Poptech, November 16, 2009 at 1:57 pm] - "Marco, try reading the note:
Notes – The papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There is no double counting! There are many more listings then the 450 papers."
At anytime he or anyone else could have counted the list to see this is not true but this was never done. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-5886 I pointed this lie out to him and he still has not corrected it.
17. Greenfyre lies that he was able to show even a single paper on the list as invalid.
He has done no such thing. Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos cannot "refute" peer-reviewed papers. That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. Any paper on the list that was officially challenged has a paper listed in it's defense directly following the original paper.
18. Greenfyre pretends he would be able to get his lies published in a peer-reviewed journal.
This would be impossible as nothing he has stated was factually true.
19. Greenfyre creates various strawman arguments about me which I never made in defense of the list.
He conveniently failed to provide quotes for any of these lies. It would be impossible for him to do so as I never made any of his strawman arguments.
20. Greenfyre lies that a valid source was never cited to defend the list.
Valid sources were extensively presented in defense of the list and they can all be found in the Notes following the list or from the list itself. As new challenges were presented the Notes section expanded. His denial of these facts only demonstrates his dishonesty.
21. Greenfyre lies that I ignore "substantive criticisms".
The problem is he failed to make any but I have never ignored legitimate criticisms and minor corrections are made to the list to any legitimate ones.
22. Greenfyre lies that the list is bogus when he has failed to demonstrate this.
His belligerence on this issue is his pathetic attempt to discredit the list through propaganda and lies.
23. Greenfyre repeats the lie that many of the papers on the list are not peer-reviewed when he has failed to demonstrate this.
All the papers counted on the list are peer-reviewed. As demonstrated above he failed to read anything on the page and falsely implied that the addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers were included in the peer-reviewed paper count. When it is explicitly stated otherwise.
24. Greenfyre repeats the lie that the papers are "not skeptical of global warming, nor supportive of it, not skeptical of anthropogenic causation of climate change, not actually papers, and not actually skepticism".
Again failing to support any of his claims.
Conclusion = Greenfyre is Completely Refuted