|· Forum Posting Rules · Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
Posted: Apr 18 2011, 08:45 AM
Chief of Staff
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04
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". What is falsely implied is that these scientists are corrupt and fossil fuel companies are paying them to be skeptical. This is an easy argument to prove, you simply need to show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from a fossil fuel company. Alarmists never show this because they cannot. These scientists all held a skeptical position prior to receiving any monetary donations. Any monetary donations these scientists received was because the donor agreed with the scientific position that the scientist already held. Alarmists cannot comprehend this irrefutable logic because they emotionally refuse to accept that there are credentialed scientists who do not share their beliefs.
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
The claims of this article have not been shown to be true. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".
- Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.
- Then prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.
- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.
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 resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW alarm. It was created as a resource and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.
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 resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs". 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
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, Canada (1988), M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990), Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996), Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001), Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008), Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University (Canada), Member, Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK), Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute (Canada), Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)
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,
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.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and WorldCat
- Found at 157 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "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
Fact: Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
Update: Scopus now correctly lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
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 Scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represent 14% of the list. There are over 770 papers from 256 other journals on the list.
Update: She changed it to 137 and makes no mention she changed it anywhere on the page.
12. Emma irrelevantly mentions that E&E is not listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge
Update: Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) now lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
13. 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 scholarly journal (ISSN: 0936-577X)
- EBSCO lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- "Manuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 reviewers"
The Climategate emails brought to light that the paper in question was properly peer-reviewed,
Climategate Email 1057944829
Then from the infamous Dr. Jones himself,
14. 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