|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to The Carbon Brief Part III - E&E|
|Posted by: Andrew Apr 22 2011, 03:47 AM|
| Rebuttal to The Carbon Brief - http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-900-papers"
Christian from the Carbon Brief is back with round three of his nonsense. This time he repeats long debunked propaganda about the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment. Absolutely nothing is true here if he bothered to read the notes on the list,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html (Popular Technology.net)
1. Christian starts off referencing his older refuted articles,
2. Christian lies that Energy and Environment is almost 15% of the total.
Failing to properly count the list is proving fatal for those trying to desperately attack it. When you actually count the full number of papers on the list (900+ not 900) you get 14.1% which is not "almost 15%". Even still 131 is only 14.5% of 900. That is over 769 papers from 256 other journals besides Energy & Environment on the list.
3. Christian attempts to distort the meaning of a quote by editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?" (Origin: The Chronicle of Higher Education)
This is the correct interpretation,
4. Christian dishonestly distorts the context of a Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen to the UK Parliament, "Christiansen noted in evidence submitted to the UK Parliament that E&E has been characterised as " a journal of choice for climate skeptics," also stating: "If this [is] so, it happened by default as other publication opportunities were closed to them…"
The actual paragraph reads,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we28.htm (House of Commons, UK)
5. Christian lies that, "It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed"
To make this false claim he references the ever useless Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org,
Energy & Environment is now indexed in the ISI,
As for Gavin... http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
The evidence that E&E is peer-reviewed is irrefutable,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf (PDF)
- "http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=314&filename=1053461261.txt" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/comment-page-3/#comment-201582" - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "http://multi-science.metapress.com/home/about.mpx" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html" - E&E Mission Statement
6. Christian fails to understand that "Impact Factor" is a subjectively devised determination of popularity not scientific validity. The metric is widely abused and disputed,
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Number-That-s-Devouring/26481 (http://www.nd.edu/~pkamat/citations/chronicle.pdf) (The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2005)
http://www.ease.org.uk/statements/index.shtml (http://www.ease.org.uk/artman2/uploads/1/EASE_statement_IFs_final.pdf) (European Association of Science Editors, November 2007)
http://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/press_releases/2010/pressemitteilung_nr_07/index.html (German Research Foundation, February 2010)
(British Medical Journal, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997)
- Per O. Seglen
(PLoS Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2006)
- The PLoS Medicine Editors
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
(arXiv:1010.0278, October 2010)
- Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler
7. Christian fails to understand that citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Regardless, various papers from E&E are widely cited; "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" is cited over http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17029211257778921912&as_sdt=5,31&sciodt=0,31&hl=en, "The IPCC emission scenarios: An economic-statistical critique" over http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7919060102643879792&as_sdt=5,31&sciodt=0,31&hl=en and "Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal" over http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5057281428395650600&as_sdt=5,31&sciodt=0,31&hl=en.
Christian concludes by summarizing his lies.
|Posted by: Andrew Apr 25 2011, 08:20 AM|
| Update: I will add my comments posted at the Carbon Brief here in case they are censored or get deleted in the future,
- It is a significant distinction if you care about accuracy. Get your numbers right or don't post misleading percentages. As it also demonstrates he does not actually fact check his information. If he had just stated that E&E was the most represented journal on the list this would be true but still irrelevant as there are over 769 papers from 256 other journals besides Energy & Environment on the list. But he did not and thus this misleading statistic is refuted.
- Sonya Boehmer-Christiansen's comments need to be shown in their full context and if insinuations are made then the effort needs to be made to get her actual interpretation. Otherwise you have no interest in the truth and instead wish to simply spread propaganda. Her actual interpretation paints a very different picture then what is being presented in this article and thus the false insinuations made here are refuted.
- No Christian explicitly states, "It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed". That is not questioning the quality of E&E's peer-review process but whether it is peer-reviewed at all. Thus my sources showing that it is peer-reviewed is directly responsive. You're confusing Gavin's vague comment with what Christian explicitly stated. My sources also demonstrate that the quality is good enough for the scholarly peer-reviewed journal to be cited multiple times in the IPCC reports.
- I provide eight sources substantially criticizing the validity of using "impact factor" to determine a journal's quality (I can get many more). Four of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. No claim has ever been made that E&E was cited as frequently as more popular journals, which is irrelevant as citations merely represent popularity not scientific validity. Regardless, it is shown in the rebuttal that various papers from E&E are widely cited.
This piece needs to be refuted because it is full of misinformation and flawed arguments. I welcome actual criticisms and have made various corrections based on these. Any paper which does not support a skeptic argument has been removed. Why would I remove a journal based on criticisms that are not valid? How "impressive" the list is, is purely subjective and irrelevant to the fact that E&E is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal and is not being removed.
I do concentrate on expanding it but will refute every false criticism like those that have been made here. It originally stated out as 450+ papers and has since grown to 900+ papers. I also call things how I see them and do not pull any punches. The fact that I am the only website to even attempt such a skeptic list (one other exists but it is a copy of an older version off my site) demonstrates I am clearly interested in supporting the scientific debate.
The rebuttals section is not for any discussions but a reference section. The debate of this post should be in the most relevant place, right here. If I was not trying to participate in the discussion I would not be replying here.
- 15% is refuted because it is inaccurate, misleading and wrong. The statistic is absolutely bogus, either get it right or don't post statistics at all. There is nothing silly about stating that the list has 900+ as that is completely accurate. As explained in the notes the list is dynamic and frequently changes,
"This is a dynamic list that is routinely updated. When a significant new number of peer-reviewed papers is added the list title will be updated with the new larger number. The list intentionally includes an additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates. Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated."
Your number of "973" is not correct as explicitly stated,
"Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers."
- Her quotes are either without full context or any sort of explanation. Someone reading these as opposed to the full explanation I provided will get a very different picture of what she meant. The insinuation is that Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen made this claim, when she was really stating what the CRU believed about her journal.
- My responses about E&E's peer-reviewed status provide extensive evidence that it is peer-reviewed, including that it is cited multiple times by the IPCC. I also provide eight sources substantially criticizing the validity of using "impact factor" to determine a journal's quality (I can get many more). Four of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. That is all new since Christian didn't provide any of it.
If I "eliminated" every source of objection to the list there would be no papers on it! E&E is not being removed and will never be removed.
Again, why should I remove a scholarly peer-reviewed journal off the list because some people have stated misinformation about it?
I have taken the time to categorize the papers as much as possible but many do not fit into one category and instead support multiple arguments.
The CVs of many of the authors is linked in the Notes following the list, under "Scientist Credentials".
No claim is made anywhere on the list that all the papers are "new scientific research", only that they are peer-reviewed. Policy papers can be peer-reviewed and are very appropriate to for the list since these types of papers are included in the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report.
Please provide the objective method for determining who is and who is not a climate scientist. Then support your claim that "most of whom" consider AGW "dangerous" and requiring government action.
The only "theme" demonstrated is a distrust of those prone to exaggeration and scare tactics to push a politically motivated agenda.
Sourcewatch is a left-wing smear site that is edited by ordinary web users. Why is it necessary for her to defend herself against such a site? Can you find a single reputable news source to support the claims made on such as site?