Anti-Vaccination vs. AGW denial

It’s really only since I began voicing my opinion (based on the best available scientific evidence, of course) on all things climate related that I again found an interest in the various wars on reason. A long time ago I had given up the nonsensical evolution debate and now can see that in this way I was in part accommodating irrationality. It might seem harmless, but it assists to devalue science, scientists and the relevant advances (pretty much everything) that we now enjoy.

I finally understand why Richard Dawkins takes the matter very seriously.

Closer to home I have experienced one of the other wars on reason that appeared when my partner and I discussed the possibility of having children – vaccination.

She has all but bought into the fear surrounding vaccination and my numerous attempts to explain the science, provide the evidence and even explain it as a civil act (being that it benefits not just the individual, but the whole community) all but fell on deaf ears. She did concede as far as to say that if it meant so much to me, then it will be my own responsibility to go through with it. Of course this is a hollow victory and has remained a burr in my side since.

Last night, however, SBS aired the documentary The Vaccination War (available for online viewing here under Watch Full Programs – Documentary, at least for the time being) and I simply had to watch it – mainly in the hope that it would assist our debate on the subject.

What surprised me most about this program was just how parallel the war on reason was with vaccination to both evolution and climate change. In every case, the internet has been seen to be the most effective tool for the spread of misinformation. A place where lies seem invulnerable to evidence fuelled debate. That or the argument provided by anti-vaccination  (creationist, climate change denier etc) is so slippery that is avoids the debate entirely. As Diethelm and McKee (2009) put it;

The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules.

Or as Dr. Paul Offit puts it in The Vaccination War, “…now, and this is classic for pseudo-science, you just keep moving the goal posts.”

Likewise, many of the leading bodies / authorities have stated that widespread vaccination is in everyone’s best interest (hell, where’s Smallpox today?), yet anti-vaccination groups prefer to listen to an ex-playboy model and comedian. The same level of confidence as has been witnessed within the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) where journalists, retired weathermen (not meteorologists) and geologists are held in greater regard than the established scientific community. A phenomenon noted by Diethelm and McKee (2009);

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.

Later in  The Vaccine War, Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine information Centre, said, “… People are taking control of their own health. They want to be more in charge of the way that they live and not simply rely on a doctor.”

When I heard this, I couldn’t help but retort pointlessly at the TV, “Well get a bloody degree on the subject then.”

As with climate change denial and creationism, there is a confusion as to what valid scepticism is. It’s not remaining unconvinced, which is simply a personal belief that goes beyond reason and analytical judgement.

Valid scepticism, or more correctly, scientific scepticism, results from training and is not a native behaviour (in fact, it seems we’re inherently programmed to designate purpose, potentially as a side effect of our large brains and our modern world – see here, nearly 2mins in).

To be sceptical of vaccination, evolution, AGW or any other scientific conclusion is to have developed an understanding of that subject and to be able to analyse the evidence critically – as occurs within scientific community.

As Dr. Paul Nurse states, previously quoted in the post, Evolution Deniers vs. AGW deniers;

Consensus can be used like a dirty word. Consensus is actually the position of the experts at the time and if it’s working well – it doesn’t always work well – but if it’s working well, they evaluate the evidence. You make your reputation in science by actually overturning that, so there’s a lot of pressure to do it. But if over the years the consensus doesn’t move you have to wonder is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough.

There simply fails to be valid reason to claim to be sceptical of many of these conclusions not because of a consensus but simply because highly trained sceptical scientists have failed time and time again to disprove these conclusions. This goes for the relationship between autism and vaccination as well as the other noted wars on reason. Hence why I stress the need for training before presumed scepticism.

Barbara’s statement is an obvious one (look at any private health insurer advertisement now including all sorts of New Age therapies on their list of covered items), but it is clearly a conclusion as devastating and as pre-enlightenment as that we some times hear of when a parent denies medical assistance for their child – preferring to leave the child’s health in God’s hands. If people made the same choice elsewhere, the results would be just as absurd;

“People are taking control of their vehicle servicing. They want to be more in charge of the way that they commute and not simply rely on a mechanic.” (I can already imagine the freeway littered with dead cars)

“People are taking control of their appliances and home wiring. They want to be more in charge of the way that they power their homes and not simply rely on a electricians.” (Fires… electrocutions..?)

“People are taking control of their safety. They want to be more in charge of the way that they live and not simply rely on a police and the fire brigade.” (Too horrible to contemplate)

It’s not, as previous generations have had to endure, a rebellion against fascism or orthodoxy, but simply the denial of the most important treasures of the modern age; demystification; the ever increasing understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. Our lives are almost immeasurably improved by the efforts of scientific methodology, probably so much so that we take much of it for granted, ultimately leading to the accommodating of irrationality.

There are many reasons for such denial, but most seem to boil down to a fear of the ramifications. They don’t really address the reality that seems most likely with our current understanding, but rather what it could mean if applied – thus leaving deniers willingly with their heads in the sand instead of addressing the true debate; how best should we apply this new understanding to our societies.

In The Vaccine War, it’s noticeable that the experts are under no illusions – they’ve witnessed the worst of what these now preventable diseases can do. They were no doubt concerned by the potential harm vaccination could have been inflicting, hence the many independent studies – all of which found absolutely no relationship to vaccination are autism. Yet, as we see in other wars on reason, mounting evidence does nothing to take the wind from the sails of those who simply don’t want it to be so – they just are not concerned by evidence as the rest of us are.

Such groups / individuals who are quick to attack those who rely on the scientific methodology as being adherent to a ‘dogma’ are blind to their own ideology and in entertaining them, we all pay. For me, Dr. Cynthia Cristofani, rounds it up beautifully,

“It’s a tragedy that there are kids who are unprotected because their parents are choosing not to vaccinate, out of fears the are unfounded. The other tragedy is that the kids who have autism who desperately need better research into why and more important what to do about it now; that research isn’t being done, at least to the degree that it should’ve been, because most of the would be research – those dollars and hours have been lost.”

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Anti-Vaccination vs. AGW denial

  1. I do hope your partner sees sense on vaccination.

    I had a similar worry recently when my daughter produced my first grandchild: what would I do if she leaned toward her newagery side and declined to get the kid his MMR? Hop a plane to the UK, kidnap him, take him to a secret hiding place for illicit vaccination? I needn’t have worried: no dope she, she’s making sure he gets all his shots.

    Oh, drat: Prior’s out.

    Like

    1. My partner won’t stop me, she just won’t be involved. She was only (if at all) mildly altered by the documentary, which is a little upsetting. Still, I found it a wonderful example of what we scientists and scientifically minded are facing nowadays. I really feel for the GP’s having to deal with the endless battle with parents though. Must be so frustrating after studying so the better part of a decade to be belittled by parents.

      Like

  2. I really feel for the GP’s having to deal with the endless battle with parents though.

    Me too. Back when I lived in the UK I had a GP who happily told me (always rightly) when I was being stupid. Here in the US, though, my GP is obviously worried he might lose a paying customer. I assume all US GPs face this problem when they have to tell the antivaxers that, whatever sage “University of Google” medical adviser Jenny McCarthy might say, their medical training actually counts for more.

    Like

    1. It is just a valid as any other field of science currently under attack by the unreasonable.
      In the documentary The Vaccination War, it’s staggering to see the attitude of parents. Of course you can relate with the idea of personal choice, something voiced also in Dawkins’ Faith School Menace? where the parents feel it’s their right to educate their children how they see fit. But there must be a limit to this – especially when it leads them to reject science to places them (and those around them) at needless, preventable risk.
      What struck me as amazing is the selfishness of many of the parents who felt that it didn’t matter because others were immunised – their children didn’t need to bother. Yet, if enough people were immunised at the same time, we could eliminate polio, the measles and more – as what was done in the 70’s with smallpox – thus allowing us to stop vaccinating! It seems such madness.
      And as you say – that scientists have to fight against people such as Jenny McCarthy, Anthony Watts, Mad Monckton… it beggars belief…

      Like

  3. This article is disgraceful.

    Mothincarnate for you to say that skepticism of AGW is comparable to anti-vaccinations pretty much tells me the sort of person you really are, and what you believe.

    AGW is just a simple scientific theory.
    Vaccinations have been genuinely shown to reduce different diseases.

    It is two entirely different things, and don’t relate to each other in even the slightest way.

    Comparing skeptics to people like that, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU is astonishing.

    What gives you right to right extraordinarily offensive articles like this one?

    Mothincarnate, you never hear skeptics bringing up stuff like the evolution creation debate; only alarmists do that; say stuff like
    “oh I suppose you only think the Earth’s 6000 years old then?”

    Skeptics always stick to the facts, but all you alarmists simply do is write idiotic articles like this one, and call them names like “denier”.

    Like

    1. Firstly Adam, I must that you for providing an excellent example of what I’m discussing in this post and the two that it followed (re: young Earthers and creationists). Secondly I offer a word of warning – I will not be entertaining much of what I have no doubt you wish to foam at the mouth about and as soon as you begin to repeat yourself, turn to pointless personal attacks or irrelevant arguments and demonstrate an unwillingness to look at the evidence, you will find your efforts going to waste as I simply will not keep your comments live.

      “AGW is just a simple scientific theory.”
      And why should we want it to be anything more? In science, “theory” is about the highest point of confidence that almost anything can acquire. This is the same note the creationist have been using since Darwin and it never ceases to amazing me that people remain so naive of “scientific theory” that they state with all the confidence of the world that, “X is just a theory!”
      Read up on scientific theory here.

      “Comparing skeptics to people like that, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU is astonishing.”
      But I’m not comparing scientifically minded ‘sceptics to people like that’, I’m comparing two forms of reason deniers to one another.

      “Skeptics always stick to the facts”
      Exactly. As I state in the article;

      As with climate change denial and creationism, there is a confusion as to what valid scepticism is. It’s not remaining unconvinced, which is simply a personal belief that goes beyond reason and analytical judgement.
      Valid scepticism, or more correctly, scientific scepticism, results from training and is not a native behaviour… To be sceptical of vaccination, evolution, AGW or any other scientific conclusion is to have developed an understanding of that subject and to be able to analyse the evidence critically – as occurs within scientific community.

      You’re not sceptical of AGW – at least not from a scientific point of view. You are unconvinced of AGW which is demonstratively the result of ignorance of the science (ie. obvious from your comments). You do not stick to the facts – or we wouldn’t be having this conversation – but merely avoid them. Instead of learning about the subject which you’re unconvinced about you jump around at the indignation of someone actually writing an article of this nature, which points out that most of those who claim themselves to be sceptics are in fact too unaware of the science to make such critical analyses.

      If you wish to learn a little about AGW, I suggest you check out NASA, NOAA, the UK Met office, or Aust BOM.

      It’s not about people disagreeing with me, but rather about people flatly rejecting the available scientific evidence to maintain a personal belief.

      Like

      1. “You’re not sceptical of AGW – at least not from a scientific point of view. You are unconvinced of AGW which is demonstratively the result of ignorance of the science (ie. obvious from your comments). You do not stick to the facts – or we wouldn’t be having this conversation – but merely avoid them.”

        Mothincarnate, it’s funny how you think that I avoid the facts. Might I remind you that on that Global Warming Superheroes website I gave you 800 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW/AGW alarm.
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

        And you just dismissed all of them for absolutely no reason at all.

        Mothincarnate if you really cared about science, then you would welcome debate. You would acknowledge that skeptical papers do indeed exist, and that there is indeed a valid case against AGW.

        All you do is simple name calling and ad hominem attacks.

        Mothincarnate you can’t claim that I have avoided the facts after I have given hundreds of peer reviewed papers. I think that statement would best apply to you.

        Mothincarnate, you think want to think. That’s why you wrote all of these idiotic articles saying skeptics are like creationist and people who are against vaccinations and all that.

        Like

      2. “And you just dismissed all of them for absolutely no reason at all.”
        No I didn’t – it was a silly list. “I gave you 800 peer reviewed scientific papers” >>> Monckton??? That list is full of crap! I work within the scientific community and I read all kinds of papers. The overwhelming evidence supports the reality of AGW. As the GWSH post said, bringing up any paper that’s every questioned AGW alarm is not evidence for how uncertain the theory is.
        I don’t simply name call and I almost never resort to ad hom – if I call someone a name, it’s devoid of their argument.
        Again, you didn’t give “hundreds of peer reviewed papers” but merely submitted a lit you yourself had failed to critically assess – of course, why would you? It supports your faith.
        Now, when I saw your name pop up, I figured it was the Adam from gwsh and I’ve read your comments on that site – in fact it’s partly the reason I don’t go there anymore. I’m not wasting my time on this stupid backwards and forth paper hurling. In these posts when I’ve compared climate change denial with the other forms of reason denial, I’ve made it clear that the evidence is strong. Experts in the field have no question about the basics of AGW – but do express uncertainty about where it will take us. I’m in no mood to entertain endless individuals who share your delusions of grandeur in judging a science they now little about and certainly don’t apply a great amount of critical analysis (and that list demonstrates you don’t). I won’t have you graffitiing my site – the gwsh team seem happy with it, I for one, am not.

        Like

      3. Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that ‘silly’ and ‘full of crap’ why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list.

        Mothincarnate what you are saying about the list, and how it’s supposedly unreliable, is just simple faith.

        You have not read any of the papers on the list mothincarnate, you’re just simply repeating what you want to believe.

        Mothincarnate, when there are over 850 scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW, surrely to any same person, that would at least provide some reason to question the theory.

        But all you do is repeat mindless insults and attacks on the list, simply because you can’t bear to think that there might indeed be a good scientific case against AGW.

        Like

      4. “Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that ‘silly’ and ‘full of crap’ why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list.”
        Because I witnessed how pointless GWSH’s efforts where for you comprehension. Why waste my time repeating their efforts?
        “simply because you can’t bear to think that there might indeed be a good scientific case against AGW.”
        Get over yourself.

        Like

      5. “It supports your faith.”

        Mothincarnate you can’t seriously be saying that skeptisicm of AGW is ‘faith’.

        Mothincarnate AGW believers see AGW as a religion, not as a scienttific theory.

        If you and all the other warmists did think of it as a scientific theory, then you would welcome debate.

        But you don’t. All you do is dismiss anything or anyone that simply disagrees with you.

        Like

      6. Yes, AGW denial is faith – very much like the anti-vax faith and creation/new world faith. No amount of evidence will be enough to convince you that you’ve fallen for unreasonable doubt.
        “All you do is dismiss anything or anyone that simply disagrees with you.”
        No I don’t. I read the science as it comes in. You hold on to a list with a Monckton article, the largest proportion of the papers coming from the journal Energy and Environment which has open contempt for peer-review and papers going back to the 1940’S! It’s you who do no look at the evidence critically.

        Like

      7. “Because I witnessed how pointless GWSH’s efforts where for you comprehension. Why waste my time repeating their efforts?”

        Mothincarnate, you can’t be serious?

        GWSH’s attempt at refuting the list, was no doubt one of the worst and stupidest rebuttals of all time.

        Both me and Andrew(Poptech) completely debunked the article in the comments section
        http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/poptechs-800-papers-and-urine-soaked-shoes-part-1/

        “You hold on to a list with a Monckton article, the largest proportion of the papers coming from the journal Energy and Environment which has open contempt for peer-review and papers going back to the 1940′S! It’s you who do no look at the evidence critically.”

        M0thincarnate, once again, you just think what you want to think. Could you please explain, how the validity of ONE paper on the list could possibly effect the validity of the other 850 papers?

        Like

    1. You have a point that “climate change” is slightly ambiguous, however, deniers of the scientific evidence tend to refer to themselves as “climate change sceptics” (as previously mentioned – ‘sceptics’ is inappropriately used in this case) so why should I make such a correction?

      Like

      1. Isn’t it fun that the deniers are now saying climate changes when a few years back they were saying that, essentially, it didn’t.

        Like

      2. More frightening is that they insist that their sceptical when it’s overwhelming demonstrative that they don’t know the science involved (and in many cases even what science is – ie. Adam/creationists, “it’s only a theory.”)

        The Vaccination War was a brilliant documentary and like finally starting to read Dawkins last year, a valuable resource for keeping up the effort against ignorance (it’s good to know you’re not alone and remember why you spend the effort).

        But you’re right and as much as Adam is upset about it, he again demonstrates a point that I mentioned in a small quote from Dr. Paul Offit, “…now, and this is classic for pseudo-science, you just keep moving the goal posts.” The whole quote demonstrated Offit’s frustration – regardless how often the doctors answer the concerns of the anti-vax group, they continue to move their argument to maintain the same point. They clearly don’t care about the evidence only their mantra, “vaccination made my kid sick”, “where’s the physical evidence of evolution (or, you can’t physically observe evolution – which is of course wrong)”, “climate hasn’t changed / has changed but it natural / only changed by a fraction of a degree…”

        As I often say, if they really understood the scientific evidence and where truly scientifically sceptical, we wouldn’t be having the discussion that we are.

        Like

      3. “deniers of the scientific evidence” ??????

        Mothincarnate, the only ‘scientific evidence’ that the IPCC has been able to provide is just simple computer models.

        They’ve not been able to provide anything else.

        However when skeptics provide scientific evidence, all alarmists do is call names and use ad homs.

        Like

      4. And there’s also the guy at the begiining of the comments “Watching the Deniers”

        I mean who in their right mind, who actually cared about scientific debate; would call their blog “Watching the Deniers”

        It is trying to simply make out that some people (skeptics) simply with ALTERNATE VIEWS are some kind of criminals and have to be ‘watched’.

        Mothincarnate and all the others, do you honestly think that it is perfectly acceptable to call people who just disagree with you, disgraceful names like “denier”?

        Like

      5. “some people (skeptics) simply with ALTERNATE VIEWS”
        Thank you – you’ve proven my point. You do have a different point of view – but this is merely personal opinion. A sceptic on the other hand tries to leave personal opinion out as much as possible to assess the data available. You don’t do this.
        And get over the indignation of the word “denier”, you don’t see me giving two hoots that you label me an “alarmist” when I don’t give doomsday prediction at all (thus is hardly accurate).

        Like

    2. Adam,
      At the heart of your post you make a good point that Moth always avoids. He likes to class people who have any doubt about his “scientific” climate theory with people who doubt the virtues of vaccination and people who believe the world was built in 7 days 6,000 years ago. The difference is that we can test the vaccination theory and we can test the creation theory. For 99% or more of vaccinations there is a huge benefit to be derived by humanity, although it is not always the case. For creation we can e.g. demonstrate that the world is considerably more than 6,000 years old so the theory is testable but wrong. More bluntly it is just rubbish.
      Moth then makes a huge, and completely incorrect, leap of logic. He thinks that because he shares the scientific view on these subjects his views on climate must also be scientific. The problem is we cannot rerun the climate and test it. In addition it behaves in perverse ways so that the temperature has fallen on occasions for quite protracted periods of time, even though CO2 levels rose and there are a large number of variables that influence climate, so it is impossible to be specific about how much each one contributes, if at all, to temperature change. The better educated and more reasonable warmists do at least have the honesty to admit this. For example James Lovelock recently stated “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

      Like

      1. We can test the AGW theory also – several people have attempted to demonstrate this to you, that I’m aware of and like the truly faithful, you continue to repeat your mantra regardless.

        I’ve avoided nothing – you’re simply blind and will not be entertained here any longer.

        Like

      2. Moth then makes a huge, and completely incorrect, leap of logic. He thinks that because he shares the scientific view on these subjects his views on climate must also be scientific.

        I don’t follow this argument. From my own reading, Moth simply follows the science in all three cases: there’s no assumption by him that his evident rightness in two of them means he’s right about the third.

        My own researches on science denialism show that, behaviorally speaking, there’s far less difference between the antivax, Creationist and AGW-denying crowds than you might think. As Moth observes, there’s the constant iteration of arguments that have already been comprehensively debunked. There are the hate mail and death threats addressed to those who stand up for the scientific consensus. And so on.

        Like

  4. “As Moth observes, there’s the constant iteration of arguments that have already been comprehensively debunked. ”

    Oh really JG, usually the warmist’s version of an argument being ‘comprehensively debunked’ is something like; it was found at that the uncle of a person who made the argument, accepted money from some obscure oil industry 20 years ago. So therefore the argument must have been debunked, in their views.

    Or usually it’s just simple criticism of a paper, which warmist’s think mean it’s been debunked, of course they ignore any replies.

    Like

    1. “usually the warmist’s version of an argument being ‘comprehensively debunked’ is something like; it was found at that the uncle of a person who made the argument, accepted money from some obscure oil industry 20 years ago. So therefore the argument must have been debunked, in their views.”

      Typical denial nonsense – where’s the evidence of all this? The Dr. Paul Nurse quote about explains that science is all about turning over the currently held ideas and indeed attempt to debunk, but why then does the theory still persist – seemingly with the support of most of the scientific community and scientific organisations when it’s in such bad shape? You’re hoodwinked Adam. And I can’t believe you’d write, “…the uncle of a person who made the…” to support your argument. What is this? Backyard gossip?

      You fail to understand that “warmists” within the scientific community don’t really exist – it’s just a bunch of highly trained individuals trying to make sense of the world and out-do each other and be the next Einstein. Working in that community, I’ve heard nothing that would leave me less certain about the theory of AGW, hence why I won’t be entertaining your ideology here.

      Like

      1. Mothincarnate I didn’t mean literally that argument. I was just trying to show the sometimes ridiculous claims made by warmists to try and dismiss scientific evidence.

        Like

  5. “There are the hate mail and death threats addressed to those who stand up for the scientific consensus. And so on.”

    JG you can’t be serious?

    Skeptic’s have been receiving threatening letters and death threats for decades. The amount of hatred and bitterness that skeptical scientists have have had to endure, merely because they have reached a different conclusion, is unimaginable. It’s all the scientists who support AGW that get all the praise and worship. Skeptics hardly ever get anything.

    JG Your statement is very hypocritical.

    Like

    1. Again a statement without substance.
      “It’s all the scientists who support AGW that get all the praise and worship.”
      Well, following that stupidity of climategate, Mann et al released a lot of hate mail for public viewing. That exists and can be found. Which “sceptics” have been receiving death threats of decades? From whom?

      Like

  6. Oh really JG, usually the warmist’s version of an argument being ‘comprehensively debunked’ is something like; it was found at that the uncle of a person who made the argument, accepted money from some obscure oil industry 20 years ago.

    What bollocks you do talk, Adam. I have never heard anything remotely like this argument put forward.

    Skeptic’s have been receiving threatening letters and death threats for decades.

    Name one.

    Like

    1. “I didn’t mean that EXACT literal argument. I was trying to show that it was something along those lines.”
      Yep, I think you’re don’t here – this is exactly the slippery nonsense I’ve been discussing. You hurl crap around and hope it’ll stick – I’m not wasting my time on such pathetic, baseless assertions!

      Like

      1. “You hurl crap around and hope it’ll stick”

        Mothincarnate if I gave you strong evidence to question AGW, then would you change your mind?

        Lets see shall we.

        The following is a 900 page scientific report, which completely debunks AGW through thousands of peer reviewed studies

        http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html

        So Mothincarnate, will you embrace new science or just dismiss it.

        Like

    2. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

      LOL! This is James Inhofe’s site. If this is the best support you can find for the claim you might as well give up — I’d trust Inhofe far less far than I could throw him. If you really are so poor at discriminating between worthwhile and garbage sources . . .

      Incidentally, here’s a further parallel between AGW-deniers and other deniers. The Creationists are constantly whining about all the people who’ve been discriminated against for vindictive reasons. So far, no good case has ever been produced.

      Like

      1. Anderegg (2010) explores some of what is discussed in Adam’s link, which I included in Evolution Deniers Vs. AGW Deniers.
        Basically, he through out there that if there was an attempt to stop legitimate anti-AGW papers in the peer-review process, you would more likely find little differences in experience and credentials between mainstream scientists and contrarian scientists. If a large difference were present, it would be more likely that the sceptics are less frequently published due to less data or relevant expertise.

        “…these researchers without clear natural science qualifications comprised 30% of the skeptical community, as opposed to an estimated 5% of the mainstream community in R10 (45 researchers out of 929 investigated) (Fig. 1). Of these dropped researchers, 80% had no documented doctoral degree. Examining the remaining skeptical researchers shows stark contrasts with that of the mainstream scientific community. Atmospheric scientists comprise only 20% of skeptical researchers, compared to 43% of the mainstream community, and ecologists comprise 0% of the selected subsample, compared to 11% in R10 (Fig. 2). Geologists, not counted explicitly in R10 but tallied here, comprise a much larger percentage of the skeptical community (25.7%), surpassing atmospheric scientists. These estimates are in line with other more thorough examinations of the credentials, background, and expertise of skeptical researchers (Anderegg and Harold 2009).”

        and

        “Climate change skeptics/contrarians tend to be an even more homogenous group. Men comprise 98.7% (465 of 471) of climate change skeptics and, based on the data available for ∼60% of the community, skeptics received their PhD’s an average of 10 years earlier (1977 versus 1987) than mainstream scientists. Thus, if one assumes a minimum age of receiving a PhD of 27, the average age of skeptics is around 60, and that of mainstream is around 50, which aligns with the mean age of 48 documented by R10. Others have indirectly documented the political leanings of leading climate contrarians. Jacques and colleagues found that over 92% (130 of the 141) of English language books espousing environmental skepticism were published by conservative think tanks, or written by authors affiliated with those think tanks (Jacques et al. 2008).”

        It hardly seems an effort to stop valid anti-AGW papers to be published, rather an adamant effort to ensure high quality papers are published.

        Like

  7. Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that ‘silly’ and ‘full of crap’ why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list.

    Have you no idea how funny that line is, Adam?

    Like

    1. The global warming superheroes looked at Adam’s link. Funny thing is that it avoids debunking AGW by adding ‘alarm’ to the end – so it’s papers that apparently are critical of alarm and by peer-review it includes anything that has been reviewed by like-minded people (hense Monckton’s article). Adam is still certain it’s 800+ science articles that debunk the AGW theory which demonstrates his faculaties for critical analysis. I won’t post any more of his comment here on that note 🙂

      Like

    2. “Funny thing is that it avoids debunking AGW by adding ‘alarm’ to the end – so it’s papers that apparently are critical of alarm and by peer-review it includes anything that has been reviewed by like-minded people”

      Mothincarnate the list clearly says this, and has always said this

      “The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW.”

      Andrew NEVER claimed that every single paper on the popular technology list supported direct skepticism of AGW. And he never added the word ‘alarm’ so he could avoid that. He just chose AGW alarm just because that’s best for what it clearly says at the beginning of the list
      “skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW.”
      You can’t just pretend that Andrew has said something like your saying, because he clearly hasn’t. He has made the definition of the list quite clear.

      Like

    3. JG Mothincarnate has simply made baseless accusations at the list, without providing any scrap of evidence.

      He hasn’t shown ANYTHING wrong with the list, so if he wants to be taken seriously, then he should actually attack the argument, rather than making baseless assertions.

      Like

      1. Adam, if I produced a list of 850 scientific papers on climate change and demanded you went through all of them, rebutting them point by point, what would your reaction be?

        Precisely.

        That’s why your suggestion was so dimwitted.

        Like

      2. JG, once again, I wasn’t asking to exactly that; just something along those lines.

        I didn’t mean for him to actually go through the list and show where every single paper is wrong. I was just trying to show him, that he should actually try and have a credible argument against it, rather than just his usual faith claims about it.

        Like

      3. Compare and contrast:

        Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that ‘silly’ and ‘full of crap’ why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list.
        ===
        I didn’t mean for him to actually go through the list and show where every single paper is wrong.

        Like

      4. Cheers for the effort JG, but if you had a look at this character’s general attitude on gwsh, like Elsa (another name worth remembering) absolutely nothing alters their mantra. It matters not to Adam that there are many more papers that have lead to our increasing understanding of AGW, Adam here has a list of 800+ papers that highlight scepticism of AGW scare and no-one’s willing to waste their time debunking the papers one by one. He can’t even handle that gwsh separated the wheat from the chaff. Just to satisfy one character like Adam is not enough motivation.

        Like

      5. JG don’t you understand the difference between literal arguments and figurative arguments.

        I didn’t mean for mothincarnate to do exactly what I was saying.
        I was just trying to say that he should actually provide evidence for his claims and actually try and have a valid argument against the list. He has not shown anything wrong with it at all.

        Like

      6. This is just silly;
        “…figurative argument; …he should actually provide evidence for his claims and actually try and have a valid argument against the list”

        You’ve got a laughable list. Why waste my time? I’ve read hundreds of papers over the years (I’ve probably even read a number of these). The general scientific evidence that’s up-to-date supports the likelihood of AGW. As they said at GWSH – pulling up every paper that’s ever questioned the alarm of AGW is nothing more than an act of desperation. The list holds no relevant context – it’s just a random assortment of papers with little indication of where they currently stand in the scientific community. You’re bitching about my picking on a few papers included. There isn’t the level of uncertainty or conflict in the science community that you would like there to be, so pulling up economic papers, Energy and Environment papers (NOT on the SCI list – I don’t care what you have to say about this, it isn’t recognised on the SCI list), Monckton papers, Lindzen’s flawed paper, duplicate listings and a bunch of conflicting papers (ie. “it’s the sun… no wait, it’s cosmic rays.. hang on it might be…”): if anything, it exposes just how desperate the list is.
        There, I’ve shown a few things wrongs with your list – look at it more critically!

        Like

      7. “It matters not to Adam that there are many more papers that have lead to our increasing understanding of AGW, Adam here has a list of 800+ papers that highlight scepticism of AGW scare and no-one’s willing to waste their time debunking the papers one by one. ”

        Mothincarnate might I remind you that I gave you a 900 page report debunking AGW through thousands of peer reviewed studies and you just completely ignored it.

        Like

      8. You and Andrew completely debunked the gwsh post? lol
        You two where something else – especially Poptech (who seems to have a very unusual understanding of science, from my own experience within a scientific community). No, the random venom and selective deafness you portrayed earlier led me to keep away until I commented on that Gaia post and stupidly looked again over your replies to my comments. You’re not interested in evidence or trying to understand the sciences involved – you simply want an unrealistic conspiracy so badly you’ll ignore reason.

        Like

      9. “You’re not interested in evidence or trying to understand the sciences involved – you simply want an unrealistic conspiracy so badly you’ll ignore reason.”

        Sigh …… Just like the GWSH, you don’t provide any arguments of your own, or you do is just call us very stupid and conspiracy theorists and all that.

        Mothincarnate, the climate always changes. Simple as that.

        It has always changed and always will change.
        Mothincarnate the warming that occurred throughout the past 100 years was indeed a natural event, and not unprecedented in the natural climate systems of the Earth.

        Like

      10. Yeah, I remember you claiming it a natural event, falling back on Nicola Scafetta. It doesn’t matter that he uses a data set that can’t be correlated with any other matching data set and achieves results that cannot be replicated. I referred you to Lockwood who demonstrated how it impossible Scafetta’s results are.

        “If the analysis of Scafetta (2009) were correct and 65 per cent of the observed warming were due to solar effects, then the first term on the right-hand side of equation (10.1) plus the feedback would need to supply 0.65 × 5.15=3.35Wm−2. In this case, the feedback must supply 3.35 − 0.23= 3.12Wm−2, which means that they need to explain an amplification of the solar input by a factor of 13.5. These feedbacks are prescribed in the fit weightings of energy balance models, whereas it is simulated as an emergent property in global coupled ocean–atmosphere models. Although these can reproduce an amplification factor of 3, no credible model has generated a factor of over 13. Furthermore, the remaining 35 per cent (1.80Wm−2) is 0.65Wm−2 smaller than the known effect of observed rises in GHG concentrations. Thus advocates of the huge solar amplification (positive feedback) factor must also explain why the feedback to greenhouse forcing is at the same time negative.”

        “Just how poor and ill-informed some of the debate appearing on the Internet can become is illustrated by recurrent reports that global temperature rise is associated with changes in the corpuscular emissions of the Sun.”

        But like the Poptech list, you refuse to look at the evidence critically simply to maintain this bizarre notion that the majority of science is wrong.

        Honestly do read what other people write? I seriously doubt it if you think I’ve not responded to you “argument”, but instead simply write you off (FYI I do the former to lead to the latter). For the last time – look critically at the evidence!

        Like

      11. Mothincarnate, maybe you should actually read Scafetta’s paper and see the scientific evidence that he present
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

        Like most pro AGW papers which talk about the sun and the climate, they think the sun can ONLY effect climate directly thorough TSI forcing. That is only what the computer models are told. Whereas there is strong observational evidence that solar activity effects cosmic ray flux, which affects cloud cover, which in turn affects climate.

        When solar activity increases, there is also a decrease in cosmic rays and cloud cover, which would add further to the warming. The cosmic ray theory can indeed be the amplifier of a sun climate connection. Most AGW papers simply ignore Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory.

        So, there is a lot of empirical and theoretical evidence that computer models used in pro-AGW papers underestimate the solar contribution to climate change.

        Like

      12. Mothincarnate, didn’t I post several other comments which you seemed to have got rid of?

        You have only posted the first one.

        In the other comments I provided peer reviewed studies, and explained why all of the evidence was against AGW, and strongly supported the cosmic ray theory.

        I clearly answered Lockwood’s question about how sun-climate amplification can be positive and co2 feedbacks can be negative.

        It is supported by 600 million years of data.

        Mothincarnate could you please post my other comments.

        If you don’t, that will prove without a doubt, that you cannot answer them, and therefore I would have won the debate.

        Like

      13. Just like the 800+ articles I’m also suppose to debunk? You bombard other’s with papers, expect them to have the expertise to critically analysis them and rejoice if they can’t be bothered or don’t have experience. Firstly, I don’t have a strong background in solar physics, but I do know enough and have read enough to know that this is fringe science – it has been read by the more mainstream science community with relevant experience and didn’t make much of a ripple. Now, such a community loves things to be turn on it’s head; to learn something knew and fascinating about the universe and selfishly, they want to know about it before everyone else – so when something overturns an old consensus, it spreads like wildfire, is talked and debated about enthusiastically..
        You provided the following links;
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
        https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf
        http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Veizer-Shaviv,%20Celestial%20Drive.pdf
        http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
        http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3813
        None of which respond to the Lockwood article I provided to you, which discusses numerous problems with Scafetta’s methodology (which I feel you’re likely to be even less experienced to provide a critical assessment of). So no, they haven’t “clearly answered Lockwood’s question about how sun-climate amplification can be positive and co2 feedbacks can be negative”.
        They start from 2003 and really, over the intervening years, made no real impact. If a GSA Today article from 2003 has unimpressed the experts in solar physics why the hell should I go about backing it down? We can’t be a Jack-of-all-trades!
        This is the problem with access to science journals and a lack of higher education – it’s nothing but a links wars: between someone who really doesn’t like what mainstream science has to say (and with little background on related fields) and someone who just doesn’t care about this stupid “debate” and relies on the scientific papers that have stood up to the rigour of scientific peer-review in other fields.
        It comes back to the point of the post above – you’ve not had the training required to be as critical of mainstream science as you think that you are. Your not a sceptic because you unconvinced! Scientists are sceptical. We try no to jump to conclusions so readily. As I quoted Dr. Nurse in the post, “You make your reputation in science by actually overturning [the consensus], so there’s a lot of pressure to do it. But if over the years the consensus doesn’t move you have to wonder is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough.”
        As a scientist in another field, this is where I stand on solar physics. Yet it’s your prerogative to go with fringe science which remains on the sidelines, as Diethelm and McKee (2009) put it, “Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.”
        I personally find it pigheaded that you’ve got a few papers that support your opinion and you go about shoving them into the face of anyone willing to pay you any attention, demanding that they debunk you papers or shut up – while hypocritically ignoring the evidence and replies (or lack of interest) within the wider community of your fringe papers (much of which you have no training in relation to, so really cannot argue that their methodology is good to begin with). If you truly cared about the available scientific evidence (as I’ve said to you before) we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
        As I’ve wrote in numerous posts, it’s not up to me to convince you – for the evidence is already supplied by many respected outlets – it is rather your responsibility to overturn the scientific consensus that is in current existence and you do that (like your heroes have tried and failed) through peer-view. All this paper hurling on blogs is little more than pissing in the wind and is tediously pointless. This is why you’re not a sceptic and why I am under no obligation to post your comments or answer your demands (I only posted this because you used the magic word “please”).

        Like

      14. [ Repetitious: As has been explained, I have read the linked papers, however, none reference Lockwood (2010) (which refutes your first claim) and as both Soon and Lindzen’s names appear prolific throughout (two men who have previously caught out using sloppy research methodology) and Scafetta (whose work cannot be replicated), I am very sceptical of the quality of research carried out. As it is not a focus of my training, I refrain from more in-depth criticism and for the sake of time, I refuse to look up where such work has been cited to read further into what the relevant solar experts have to say on such work (and clearly, it would be pointless to do so, seeing as you seem committed to these studies regardless). You are, of course, welcome to put your faith in these few isolated and unrepeatable studies, but from a scientific point of view, the strength of the conclusions come from repeatedly coming to the same conclusion, regardless of how you test the hypothesis (in this case, it seems to rely on one data set which does not match any other similar data set, as also discussed by Lockwood 2010).
        “The Internet has played a useful role in conveying some of the understanding, images and data that lead climate scientists to their conclusions. However, it has also become a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference. It has served to give the false impression that there is a serious, widespread academic debate on the basic nature of climate change. The most popular argument runs like this: ‘The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system’. The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study.” – Lockwood (2010)
        It’s funny that you can here, offended at being compared to the anti-vax crowd, yet demonstrate so many similarities for my readers. The most recent being similar to the anti-vax groups obsession with the retracted Wakefield (1998) paper or AGW deniers obsession with the ridiculous “climategate” saga that, in both cases has been tested repeatedly, proven to be without merit (or is unrepeatable) but yet the “scandal” persists. You demonstrate that you stance is not scientific by completely avoiding what up-to-date research continues to support, and instead favouring work that continues, after many years, to remain an outlier. ]

        Like

      15. “As it is not a focus of my training, I refrain from more in-depth criticism and for the sake of time, I refuse to look up where such work has been cited to read further into what the relevant solar experts have to say on such work (and clearly, it would be pointless to do so, seeing as you seem committed to these studies regardless).”

        Mothincarnate, Shaviv and Zeizer reconstructed temperature over the past 600 million years and found it showed much better correlation with cosmic ray flux than co2.

        Simple as that.
        You don’t need to be a genius to understand it.
        Mothincarnate you have not answered any of the points I brought up. Either show where Shaviv and Veizer’s paper is wrong, or provide a peer reviewed study refuting it.

        You haven’t done any of that, all you’ve done is make silly cliaims, like saying it doesn’t count, because in your eyes, it’s “fringe science”. Mothincarnate all of the available datasupports the theory that solar effect on climate is amplified by cosmic rays. Likewise, the lack of any correlation between co2 and the whole of past climate change, also strongly supports he thoery that co2 feedbacks are negative. Mothincarnate, this has clearly answered Lockwood’s question, and once again you have not shown anything wrong with it.

        Like

      16. See, now this is why I quoted Lockwood (2010) previously, “understanding why… requires scientific training and study.”

        You remind me here of another bloke I bumped into on the web who claimed the greenhouse effect was debunked by data from Venus. My response was, why ignore all the evidence available on our own planet that suggests otherwise and instead focus on another planet that, in reality, we really know little about? Of course – it’s to make his point and nothing more (ie. “I have this data so all else can be ignored!”). I think in his case, he was making such noise mainly to promote his self-published spiritual book (apparently, he had unlocked ancient wisdom! Great to know, huh?)

        You’re not comparing apples here, Adam (btw, don’t feel the need to refer to me by name in every paragraph – it’s a little disconcerting). Of course solar / cosmic rays have played a role in the changing climate over the millennia. As far as I’m aware, we’ve so not not discovered fossilised SUV’s and factories built and used by dinosaurs or mega fauna. Something had to initiate previous climate change events and the doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for it to have previously been CO2. We know that the solar cycles, volcanic activity and massive meteorite impacts have started climate change events and we also know that the addition or subtraction of CO2 from/in the atmosphere has amplified the effects. We know this as best we can from analysing it indirectly (so, if you’re confident that 600 million year old activity is understood with some confidence, it’ll be hypocritical to then attack paleo-climate studies you don’t like, ie. Mann etc).

        What we’re experiencing over the industrial era is something that our planet has not seen before – one species is within a couple centuries returned millions of years of collected carbon back into the cycle. Previously carbon movement was in flux, but really at the whim of other activity. Nothing as ever found massive deposits of it and combusted it to change the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, before. Where solar activity may have lead the world out of an ice age, releasing CO2 which then amplified the warming, we’ve successfully let CO2 take the limelight for probably the first time in the history of Earth.

        So again, you’re not comparing apples with apples by saying, long term trends show a better correlation with solar activity (which includes comic rays as they influence our planet pending solar winds) so solar activity always changes climate. It’s a logical fallacy and simply does not refute Lockwood (2010)! Solar can change climate, but we know that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas which has played a role in these changes as well. The industrial era is a completely different situation, where one species has lead to the release of massive amounts of trapped carbon, letting CO2 to be the leading influence for the first time of climate change. If you’d actually read Lockwood (2010) you would have known that the equations he uses for his argument come from the direct observations which leave no other option but that CO2 is currently changing our climate and since the 1970’s has been the dominating forcing of climate change.

        To repeat you, “You don’t need to be a genius to understand it.”

        Shaviv and Veizer don’t need to be proven wrong (in fact they’re probably as correct as we can understand previous events to be), the industrial era is like nothing before and by holding onto previous climate events (largely ignoring that CO2 did also previously play a role) you’re simply fishing. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that our activities have released massive amounts of CO2, changing it’s concentrations in the atmosphere and we know that our climate is changing / our world is warming (with patterns, such as night warming trends being greater than day warming trends, that signify more heating being trapped rather than more energy coming in). What more do you want?

        Like

      17. “What we’re experiencing over the industrial era is something that our planet has not seen before”

        Mothincarnate, over the past 100 years temperatures rose about 0.7 degrees Celsius. The planet most certainly seen that type of climate change before. In fact the warming over the past century is actually quite modest, once you look back millions of years.

        “one species is within a couple centuries returned millions of years of collected carbon back into the cycle. Previously carbon movement was in flux, but really at the whim of other activity. Nothing as ever found massive deposits of it and combusted it to change the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, before. ”

        Mothincarnate a simple question:

        Over the past 200 years how much has carbon dioxide concentration increased? (And I want the answer in total percentage of atmospheric volume)

        “We know that the solar cycles, volcanic activity and massive meteorite impacts have started climate change events and we also know that the addition or subtraction of CO2 from/in the atmosphere has amplified the effects. ….. Where solar activity may have lead the world out of an ice age, releasing CO2 which then amplified the warming, we’ve successfully let CO2 take the limelight for probably the first time in the history of Earth.”

        Mothincarnate why on Earth do you think that co2 AMPLIFIED the temperature change. Why can’t you just accept the 800 year lag, and see that co2 is not playing any major role. Look when the world warms co2 is released from the oceans and soil (agreed?) which is why co2 follow the temperature change. Now if co2 was a significant amplifier, could you please explain why there was no change in the rate of warming? The temperature rise should have accelerated on the co2 increase, but it didn’t. Temp went up. Co2 went up. Temp just kept going up at the same rate. CO2 may weakly amplify it, although any amplification caused by co2 is so slight that it’s undetectable. Read this paper
        courses.washington.edu/pcc589/2009/readings/Roe.pdf

        “We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that our activities have released massive amounts of CO2, changing it’s concentrations in the atmosphere and we know that our climate is changing / our world is warming ”

        Mothincarnate simply saying that co2 is changing and climate is changing, so therefore AGW is real, is HARDLY a scientific argument. That is CORRELATION not CAUSATION.

        Like

      18. Now this is an example of what drew me to revising my comment policy and why I keep quoting Lockwood (2010) – you make silly mistakes which you then use to make terrible rhetorical argument which I’m then drawn into wasting my time responding to, or else face you smug illogical triumph when all I want to do is get on with something actually productive!

        “Mothincarnate, over the past 100 years temperatures rose about 0.7 degrees Celsius…”
        Please re-read what I wrote! Of course the temperature anomaly has changed previously and I have no doubt that in most previous climate change events, solar activity played an important role! What is “something that our planet has not seen before” is a situation were CO2 is released into the atmosphere without temperature first warming (ie. causing ocean and permafrost release etc) and thus able to initiate climate change! Drawing on paleo-studies doesn’t disprove ACC and if you’d read Lockwood (2010) where he clearly explains the basic formula, drawn on observations, you would know that the sun cannot be held responsible for current climate change!!!! I’m tired of repeating myself and having you distort or ignore what doesn’t suit – all of this I explained previously, in greater detail… Geez…

        “Over the past 200 years how much has carbon dioxide concentration increased? (And I want the answer in total percentage of atmospheric volume)”
        Logical fallacy – not unlike those idiots who warp graphs to exaggerate or disguise trends. It’s a value judgement to say, “oh, it’s only tiny percent of the atmosphere, therefore (here’s the personal judgement) it can’t be responsible,” just as it would be for me to say the opposite, “the is currently X billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, spewing out at Y million tonnes a year, (here comes the personal judgement) so of course it responsible.”
        Science has no time for such nonsense. Again, I refer you to Lockwood who clearly outlines the mathematical equations, based on direct observations that explains the role of CO2 in our current climate change! It’s not, “look how big / look how small,” personal opinion crap that circulates this stupid public debate over climate change, it’s simply emotionless conclusions based solely on the evidence!!

        “Mothincarnate why on Earth do you think that co2 AMPLIFIED the temperature change. Why can’t you just accept the 800 year lag, and see that co2 is not playing any major role.”
        Bloody hell – stop repeating yourself!!! I’ve explained that of course in previous climate events, CO2 was likely to lag because no other species has ever built colonies run on fossil fuels before!!! There’s been NO REASON for CO2 to be emitted in massive quantities BEFORE the climate changed!!! When warming took place and CO2 was released, it added to the warming – there’s no secret to this, it’s just as well understood as is our current situation! HENCE WHY I’VE STATED THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HAS NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE!!!

        “That is CORRELATION not CAUSATION.”
        This will be the last lingering line of nonsense held onto by people who refuse to understand the mathematics, based on the observations, that underlies climate science. Of course, when you don’t understand the science, and warp what others try to explain to you, all your left with is a CO2 trend that goes up and a temperature anomaly trend that pretty well matches it. Of course it’s not enough – but you demonstrate time and time again that you’re unwilling to understand the subject better.

        I’m not posting any more of your silly repetitive comments. I’ve got better things to do than waste my time on someone, holding a couple papers who thinks he understands what’s going on but is unwilling to look at the entire subject.

        Like

      19. Mothincarnate you keep saying that I just ‘desperately to a few papers’, but might I remind you that the only paper you have presented in this debate is Lockwood 2010, who you keep referring to in every single one of your comments.

        Like

      20. Really? Are you that blind?
        My work here on this blog is thoroughly referenced where required. Why the hell should I dredge up every last paper? You act like this is a snow fight, with whoever able to produce the most papers and bombard the other the “winner”. What a joke! I keep bringing up that paper only because it’s enough to answer your arguments, but clearly its beyond you.

        Like

      21. “He can’t even handle that gwsh separated the wheat from the chaff. ”

        This is a blatant lie. GWSH created a strawman argument and then fabricated new criteria for the papers “counted”. GWSH failures are summarized,

        Failure 1 – GWSH failed to demonstrate that any of the counted papers were not peer-reviewed.

        Failure 2 – GWSH failed to prove that any of the counted papers do not support skeptic’s arguments against AGW Alarm.

        Prove me wrong.

        Like

      22. Really? So every last article was reviewed and deemed credible within the larger scientific community? So Monckton wrote a paper, reviewed and published in a SCI listed journal and was well received by the scientific community? How about the various economic articles? I never heard about that, cheers for letting me know.

        Failure 2 is just silly. There used to be a character I wasted my time on known as Pete Ridley, who demanded that I proved “catastrophic” climate change, which of course, I couldn’t. No-one can. “Catastrophic” is judgement call and we certainly cannot predict the next century well enough to say the worst case scenario is “catastrophic”. But GWSH failed to prove that any of your listed papers didn’t support scepticism of AGW alarm.. What a joke! It’s a fairly redundant statement.

        As I recently wrote: Of course, for instance, there will be many studies that question the results of previous studies. That’s the heart of sceptical scientific methodology; how we manage to chip away at ignorance and test the validity of the standing ideas. Another way to put it is that a bloke kicks one of the tyres of his car to test how inflated it is. Does this act by itself demonstrate that the tyre must be flat? No, the results of this simply test may or may not add clarity to the question. Not only should we test the data available but also; test the methodology that were used to test that data; try to replicate the work elsewhere; try to collect comparable data independently; and test, retest, and test again!

        This is why I think the GWSH guys refer to your list as an act of desperation – because you’ve cherry picked articles that favour an anti-AGW stance instead of the whole weight of evidence available. To the public, this may sound like a fairly legitimate argument against the scientific confidence; ie. if the scientists are so sure, why then are there all these articles that say otherwise (it would be worth while looking at all the authors to see how many actually have scientific qualifications). You’ve basically concluded that the tyre is flat because someone kicked it, without looking into the entire situation (as was happens in the scientific community, leading to their high level of confidence).

        I’ll do you a deal – you don’t bother with my site and move on, as I’ve had to force Adam after his recent nastiness, and I’ll likewise do the same with yours (which will be easier for me to do than you think).. I’ve seen the comment thread on GWSH and I really don’t want that repeated here. Thanks!

        Like

      23. The “personal attack” that you felt I made against you has been corrected with the appropriate amount of apology implied.

        That aside, my other points stand; that there are many studies that test the conclusions of other studies is not a sign of weakness for the AGW theory, if anything they improve our certainty. A list of articles that questions AGW Alarm just doesn’t weaken the scientific confidence, but provides a misleading message to the wider community. Also, I’d like to know how many of your listed papers were 1) actual scientific studies 2) authored by scientists within relevant fields 3) were critically reviewed by other scientists within relevant fields 4) have produced a serious flaw in the AWG theory that remain unchallenged and highly cited within the wider scientific community. It’s not the approach taken by GWSH, but I suspect the resulting list would be even smaller. Of course so much time would be required, who would want to waste it?

        “But since you continue to focus on the SCI (Science Citation Index) which is a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 3,700 peer-reviewed journals…”
        I find it somewhat hypocritical that you make such a statement, yet on GWSH you asked the heroes not to use sourcewatch because you clearly know that many of scientists on your list have questionable connections to Exxonmobil, The Heartland institute etc. I fail to see how a for-profit corporation is any way as questionable as a scientist who, paper after paper, questions the reality of AGW yet personally makes an income from fossil fuel industries. The Heartland institute also did some wonderful work in promoting education about cigarette related illness as well, didn’t they?

        Like

  8. I’m afraid I’ve abandoned GWSH for much the same reasons. (Though I’ve not deleted them from my list like a couple of appalling others.) I think they could be fun if they didn’t have their resident contrarians reciting mantras and turning up the volume every time there’s a new post.

    I know banning comments or commenters is unpopular with many people. Dunce’s Corner and the Bore Hole are good solutions at Greenfyre’s and RC.

    That pop tech list seems to be like the chickenheart that ate Chicago or Day of the Triffids. An apparently harmless object that will swallow everything in its path if you give it half a chance.

    Like

    1. Exactly – characters like Elsa (and a few other “people” that I’m sure she also uses to follow her and support her statements – looking at their emails, it’s all a little to weird), Adam, Pete Ridley and Rogerthesurf really dirty up the place, without ever improving and I don’t want to detract other reads, nor do I want to waste my time repeating myself (it was a combination of Pete and Roger that lead my to write the Innovation is Key series so I could move beyond much of that – but that didn’t work!). Banning is a difficult one and I don’t like censoring either, but I had to agree with Graham Wayne.

      I’ve not heard of the Dunce’s Corner and the Bore Hole. I’m really not interested in Adam polluting this site, but seeing as people commented on him over night, I may as well keep the new posts now.

      Like

    2. I found Greenfrye’s dunce corner. It’s a good idea. It still strikes me as a lot of work. I’m not so sure I’m keep on such effort (I got half way through it and so far it seemed dedicated almost entirely to rogerthesurf).

      Like

  9. I’m then drawn into wasting my time responding to

    Moth, why bother? You’ve said several times you’re going to ignore this guy. Why not do just that? Spend your time writing new entries instead.

    Like

    1. I hear you. Adam goes on to bitch about it on my recent post on changes to my comment policy. But if anything, haven’t my effort demonstrated that I genuinely do try to engage with everyone – even if time and time again they repeat their mantra rather than listen? I don’t want to censor, but damn – you write this long post explaining the science and some bozo writes it off as personal opinion and repeats their nonsense, only to rip on you when you say your sick of repeating yourself! It’s a no-win situation for me because in the eye’s of people like Adam, you must be wrong unless you agree with them and you must be stupid if you won’t entertain them. It’s partly why The Human Island is taking longer than it otherwise would (and why the posts have slowed) and why I’m becoming a real grouch.

      I’ve noticed this “correlation” mantra is picking up pace recently. It seems to be the new unreasonable doubt festering amongst the denial crowd…

      But cheers JG, sometimes you need someone to hold you up and tell you that you’ve tried your best; this one’s a lost cause. 😉

      Like

  10. Just for the record, I support vaccinations, evolution theory and am religiously agnostic. I reject creationism and idiot conspiracy theories such as 911 and JFK.

    This whole new guilt by association tactic of trying to shame people from becoming skeptical of AGW Alarmism is pathetic and only works on the weak minded.

    Like

    1. Roy Spencer, who is a working climate related scientist (but I question his ability to interoperate data), also feels that the scientific evidence for divine creation is more compelling than evolution. What someone understand about one thing does not necessarily correlate with how well they understand another subject.

      This was not an act of ‘guilt by association’, but just to point out some of the interesting points where such groups seem to use matching methodology against where a certain scientific consensus currently stands which they are not convinced by. In fact, I’m nowhere near the first to compare such things; Diethelm and McKee (2009) for instance,

      “HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media…”

      Seeing as you’re a great defender of Energy and Environment;

      The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal’s editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.
      Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.
      Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.
      The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that “the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive”[3] She also states elsewhere I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” … “But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

      What works on the weak-minded is collecting any paper that has ever challenged other work regarding AGW alarm while trying to portray it as reason to remain “sceptical” of the AGW theory itself. But I’ve seen that you’ve had this discussion on GWSH and I don’t wish to repeat it. Please, I’ve corrected the “personal attack” move on to greener fields. Cheers.

      Like

      1. The lengths you go to, to protect Energy and Environment! For someone who claims to not be fooled by more hair-brained notions, you seem insistent that this is a legitimate scientifically peer-reviewed journal which is the largest supply (on your list) of contrarian articles. Again, I might remind you of the four points I previously put forth that you’ve ignored – if GWSH had taken that approach I’m sure you list would be much smaller without referring to peer-review listings. Anyway,

        “Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, a statistician in the mining industry and an economist, respectively. In their paper, “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series,” published in a social science (rather than climate science) journal titled Energy & Environment…
        “Energy & Environment never gave Mann and his colleagues that chance, and it was not clear whether any of the reviewers who did look over the paper were well-known climatologists or other natural scientists qualified to judge the validity of such a paper (nor have I seen any evidence that McIntyre and McKitrick have any training in climatology or natural science!). In fact, it is well known that the editor of Energy & Environment, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, has sometimes allowed her political agenda, rather than the high standards of scientific peer review, to dominate the content of the journal. In 2003, Boehmer-Christiansen also allowed the publication of another Soon and Baliunas paper nearly identical to the one published in Climate Research (discussed above), and she is known to be against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and supportive of the work of Bjørn Lomborg, another contrarian (discussed below). Though Energy & Environment is geared toward social scientists, she told the Chronicle of Higher Education that she published scientific papers that refute the notion that global warming is a problem because there are very few outlets for such work. This practice fits nicely with her political stance (see, e.g., Parsons, 1995 — comment on page two) and calls the objectivity of Energy & Environment into question.”

        from here.
        And,

        “[S]cientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists…
        ““I’m definitely a political scientist,” says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer- Christiansen. A reader in geography at the University of Hull (U.K.), Boehmer-Christiansen describes her doctoral work as covering international relations, but says she consults others before publishing any studies in her journal. “My science is A-level chemistry, physics, one year of geography at university, and a bit of math.” She adds that her husband has a Ph.D. in physics. She says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming. Citing her upbringing in what was then East Germany, she states, “I was born in the Nazi era with one set of consensus, then brought up by the communists where there was also
        strong consensus. So just by nature, I’m very suspicious.”

        from here.

        Like

      2. Energy & Environment is a legitimate scholarly peer-reviewed journal,

        Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
        – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
        – Found at 149 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)
        – “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
        – “E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

        You have provide misinformation about the journal from sites with vested interests to smear it – Sourcwatch, the late Dr. Schneider’s personal site and RealClimate.org. That is not being objective, that is attempting to attack the journal for ideological reasons.

        Not allowing the author who’s paper you are criticizing to review your paper is how peer-review should be done.

        I provide you with a rebuttal to all this and you fail to read it. Here is regarding her political agenda,

        “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

        She is a credentialed scientist,

        Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), University of Adelaide (1962), M.A. International Relations, University of Sussex (1971), D.Phil. (Ph.D.) International Relations (Thesis: Limits to the International Control of Marine Pollution) (1981), Lecturer in Geography, Flinders University, Australia (1963-68), Research Assistant, Institute for Public International Law, Ludwig-Maximillian University, Germany (1982-1985), Consultant, Acid Rain Project, Chatham House, UK (1986-1987), Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1985-1987), Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1987-1993), Member, Working Group on Global Environmental Change, International Political Science Association (1991-1994), Referee, Environmental Research Programme, European Commission (1992), Member, Working Group on Environment and Society, International Sociological Association (1992-Present), Reader of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (1993-2007), Consultant, Climatic Impacts Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (1994), Member, International Geographical Union (1998-Present), Editor, Energy & Environment Journal (1998-Present), Reader Emeritus of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (2007-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001)

        Energy & Environment only makes up 14% of the list there are over 700 paper from 236 different journals on the list.

        Like

      3. I had followed your link, but okay, fine, you’re right and working scientists aren’t. You’re adamant that E&E is peer-reviewed ISI Web of Knowledge must be corrupt it’s owned by Thomson Reuters (which as far as I can tell, has no reason to be considered to be compromising the ISI’s integrity). In fact, the only criticism I can find is aimed at E&E.
        E&E say themselves; “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 organisations in the debate. Particular attention is given to ways of resolving conflict in the energy and environment field.”
        Seems they want cross discipline debate rather than peer relevant scientific debate, which could be why it’s seems to listed under more engineering subjects – even “Environmental Science: Environmental Engineering”? The journal analyser is interesting also – seems outside of 2003 and 2004 most of it’s work isn’t cited. 94% in 2010! Smear campaign I guess?
        There’s no point pointing out that E&E only provide 14% of your list – it’s by far the biggest provider of of papers, which says enough in itself.
        It doesn’t answer the 4 points I’ve already brought up nor does it change the fact that, as I’ve said before, the act of testing the air pressure of a tyre doesn’t in itself suggest the tyre is flat.
        Do you see how fruitless this change is? I’m repeating myself. You’re doing everything you can to defend E&E… what’s the point?

        Like

      4. I have addressed all your points and all your false criticisms of E&E were addressed in my link, which you ignored and then twisted what was claimed in an attempt to falsely imply positions I did not take.

        A handful of alarmists scientists is not all “working scientists”.

        I made no claim that ISI was corrupt, what I stated was factual,

        The multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation is not an altruistic final arbitrator of scientific “truth”. A journal indexed by one of their for-profit, commercial products is no more scientifically relevant than one indexed by EBSCO or Scopus.

        ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers for-profit, commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

        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 135 times, “The IPCC emission scenarios: An economic-statistical critique” 100 times and “Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal” 70 times.

        Like I said I answered all your points despite a lack of objectivity on your part.

        Like

      5. “A handful of alarmists scientists is not all “working scientists”.”
        Nor is a handful of contrarian scientists.

        As I said, Scopus doesn’t seem to put E&E as a true science journal as far as I can tell. It seems more an engineering journal. Again, I find little, except for you and E&E itself praising that journal.

        “Like I said I answered all your points despite a lack of objectivity on your part.”
        You not answered these points: How many of your listed papers were 1) actual scientific studies 2) authored by scientists within relevant fields 3) were critically reviewed by other scientists within relevant fields 4) have produced a serious flaw in the AWG theory that remain unchallenged and highly cited within the wider scientific community?
        This is the four points I continue to refer to.

        Like

      6. “Nor is a handful of contrarian scientists.”

        I never made this claim.

        As I have demonstrated in my link, E&E is incorrectly listed in Scopus as it does not meet their trade journal criteria. I have contacted Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) who have it listed correctly on their internal master list as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, they do not know when the Scopus listing will be updated.

        There is nothing about E&E that would classify it as either a trade or engineering journal. It is an interdisciplinary scholarly journal that covers both natural and social sciences relating to the topics of energy and the environment.

        1. There are many research papers on the list as well as review papers. I do not have a hard number.

        2. I am very much interested in knowing how do I objectively determine a scientist is in a relevant field?

        3. There is no way to determine reviewers without violating journal policies.

        4. Every flaw has been “challenged”that does not mean the challenge is correct nor does the number of citations mean the science is valid.

        Like

      7. Incidentally, all I could find was “Annual Review of Energy & the Environment” in EBSCO’s academic listing – is this it?

        “incorrectly listed in Scopus as it does not meet their trade journal criteria.”
        lol, okay – let me know when it’s fixed.

        1. weak reply
        2. Get your authors listed and try to nut it out – hell, you made the list if you want to be taken seriously, back it up. It’s not fair to bombard a reader and expect them to accept or do all the hard work you’ve created. If you believe it’s a legitimate list, you should be happy to find out who of your authors are scientists and what kind of qualifications they have.
        3. I’ll admit the best that can be done here would be to know the journal’s peer-review standard. I’m sure a sure of your economic articles would at least fall out on this however.
        4. exactly – but what’s the point of the list then? As I’ve said, kicking the tyre doesn’t prove it’s flat, only that you’ve tested it. People take your list as an argument that the tyre is flat, I reply, no – only that it’s been tested, in others, the list does nothing. I wonder if any of the papers truly breakdown the theory and if so, why does most academic groups and indeed most relevantly trained scientists concur that the evidence is compelling – or as Dr Nurse puts it (quoted above), “[I]f over the years the consensus doesn’t move you have to wonder is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough.”

        Like

      8. 1. What reply would you like if I do not have a hard number? Everyone who criticizes the list asks something different. All I can tell you is that they are all peer-reviewed. Thus the extensive notes following the page and the write up on E&E.

        2. I am well aware of many of the scientists qualifications. But you wanted “relevant” fields. I asked how I determine if a field is relevant or not.

        3. In relation to the social science journals not necessarily as it is common practice to get a reviewer to cover the subject matter outside the journal’s area of expertise.

        4. The purpose of the list is stated on the page,

        Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.

        “why does most academic groups and indeed most relevantly trained scientists concur that the evidence is compelling”

        This statement is very misleading. The policy statements of scientific organizations was never voted on by the membership bodies but simply reflects the opinions of the organization’s council members.

        I have seen no evidence that most “relevantly trained” scientists concur that the evidence is compelling.

        Like

      9. So you would consider Monckton’s article one of the “peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs”?

        What about 50yr old papers? You see, this is my problem; people like Adam troll around the net, with your post in mind, firing off every last article on that list demanding that people like me critically analyse it (or the whole bloody list).

        Adam: “Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that ‘silly’ and ‘full of crap’ why don’t you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list…”
        Adam (later to another commenter): “I didn’t mean for him to actually go through the list and show where every single paper is wrong. I was just trying to show him, that he should actually try and have a credible argument against it, rather than just his usual faith claims about it.”

        That’s not sensible and gives no respect to the debates that occur within the scientific community. You’ve added some of the following discussions over certain papers, but it seems only those that support the original article and not the actual criticism. It gives a highly bias perception that undermines the actual science behind the scenes and only encourages people like Adam to develop on this warped perception and waste the time of people like me with silly demands.

        The mainstream scientific community are largely saying one thing, people like you and Adam say that real working climate scientists and wiki sites provide “vested interests to smear it [in this case, a largely contrarian journal] – Sourcwatch, the late Dr. Schneider’s personal site and RealClimate.org.”, while others deem the UN a secret organisation out to produce a communist One World Government.

        It’s also slippery to avoid “relevant fields”, which of course would be those surrounding environmental sciences and physical chemistry – do you honestly think an arts degree holding journalist/board game creator/inventor of a wonder elixir is qualified? I’ve already referred you to Anderegg 2010, who explores this idea, but also Lockwood (2010) begins with an excellent discussion about how science seems to be perceived in the wider community and in quoting Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, he sums up what I feel your list provides, ‘the most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted’. You don’t show the full picture, but provide any paper “that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.” – regardless of where it currently stands in our awareness of climate and the wider environment.

        You do your fellows a great injustice by providing half (I’m being liberal in saying ‘half’) the story to your readers – it gives a distorted view of the scientific evidence and wastes the time of people like me who already take AGW as largely a given (in fact, in my case, I think it’s irrelevant as energy insecurity is only likely to increase over the coming decades, ocean acidification is obvious and relies on even more basic chemical understanding that the greenhouse effect, and it is clear that for whatever reason, the climate is changing; what the papers conclude and I hear in endless meetings from other work groups within my job all seem a little redundant now).

        Clearly, you think the list is proper, E&E is worth a read and anything that says otherwise is only a smear campaign. For the last time, neither of us are budging so why not simply move on and enjoy our lives with those who actually like our company? I wish you well enough and really just don’t have the heart to engage in this public debate over all this AGW BS any longer – it’s all too nasty and depressing.

        Like

      10. Yes Monckton’s article relates to one of the most important socio-economic aspects of the debate, free speech.

        Yes those handful of older papers provide support for alternate theories relating to climate change such as solar activity as the principle driver of the climate.

        Adam has a very good point as many people do not take the time or simply ignore the scientific arguments being made by those they are criticizing. But instead of doing that they usually look to cherry pick whatever they consider the most extreme example on the list, what they pick changes from person to person. It usually involves a socio-economic paper. These are included because the IPCC report has a WGII and WGIII.

        Yes I have intentionally only added the defense of the papers because I was never provided them when I first started researching this. Those criticizing the papers will never bring up the author’s defense. It is very sensible when you realize the list is a resource for skeptics. Anyone reading any of the defenses of the papers will immediately realize that they are replying to a criticism and the source of that criticism is cited in those rebuttals so they can look them up if they wish.

        The sites you listed are either environmental activist sites or alarmist scientists which do not represent the mainstream scientific community. They represent an insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism.

        I have never considered the UN to be communist organization in any sort of conspiracy.

        For the record I am religiously agnostic, support evolution theory, do not support any conspiracy theories (911, JFK) and politically am a libertarian.

        I bring up “relevant fields” because I have extensively researched many of these scientist’s credentials and you have just stated one of the most common myths in this debate. So if I include only those in the environmental sciences and physical chemistry that leaves out many prominent alarmists,

        Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
        James Annan, D.Phil. Mathematics
        James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
        James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
        Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
        John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
        Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
        Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
        Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
        Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
        Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
        Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
        Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics (Died: July 19, 2010)
        Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

        So I ask again what is the objective procedure to determine someone is in a relevant field?

        Mentioning Monckton is a strawman argument as he is never seriously brought up by anyone credible as a climate scientist. I have never and would never claim him as such. I respect him as a passionate and skilled communicator of many of the skeptic’s arguments.

        I have completely discredited Anderegg et al. 2010 as meaningless since the results are unverifiable,

        Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

        I do not understand your statement, “regardless of where it currently stands in our awareness of climate and the wider environment.”

        Who determines where they stand? Who’s awareness?

        The list is very specific as to it’s purpose so I do understand your complaint as to it not showing anything but what it states to show.

        I would argue that the IPCC report gives a distorted view to it’s readers by not providing many of these papers on my list. The IPCC report claims to be a summary of the “science”. My list makes no such false claims.

        I only believe energy insecurity will be a problem with continued government intervention in energy markets, I do not believe ocean acidification is currently a cause for concern and I believe the climate always changes.

        After extensive research I believe E&E is a legitimate scholarly peer-reviewed journal. It is not a very popular journal like Nature or Science but there have been some very significant papers published in it relating to the debate. I have a problem not with criticisms of a papers published in it but smears against the journal designed to persuade people from reading any of the papers. For the record, the editor is a social-democrat who is agnostic on this issue.

        I agree we will probably not change each others minds, however I highly recommend you read two books regarding some of the most controversial issues in this debate. Neither deny or reject AGW,

        1. The Hockey Stick Illusion (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry, 2010)

        2. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, 2001)

        I can guarantee you will not waste your time with either and will gain a better understanding of where some of the skeptics are coming from. If you do nothing else with this issue please read these books.

        Like

      11. Of course free speech is important, but it does not constitute evidence in itself! Monckton, you or I or anyone else is entitled to believe and say what they want – but it’s little more than a personal belief without evidence (hence this post and those before it).

        I don’t get why people persistent to protect Monckton. Before you moan about a smear campaign against “a passionate and skilled communicator of many of the skeptic’s arguments” (who seems to rejoice in using these “skills” to scream “Hitler Youth” against any young person who is convinced by the evidence behind AGW), just get his “reconstruction” of the IPCC predictions and test them against the real deal. One can only suggest that instead of using the real graphs (which don’t match his conclusions) he “reconstructed” some (which do match his conclusions) to mislead. And that’s just one flaw by this snake oil salesman.

        I never accused you of believing the communistic One World Government (although Monckton does by the way) – I was merely comparing a gradient of “understanding”.

        “Yes I have intentionally only added the defense of the papers because I was never provided them when I first started researching this. Those criticizing the papers will never bring up the author’s defense. It is very sensible when you realize the list is a resource for skeptics.”

        So basically you’re doing what you criticise others for doing.

        You should honest stop jumping to conclusions and in this case, check the link. I wasn’t referring to Anderegg et al. (2010), but Anderegg (2010) – an editorial which broadly compares the two groups which explores what I was suggesting – contrarians are an obviously different group.

        It seems any scientist or academic body who disagrees with you is an “alarmist” – gee, that puts me, the different work groups I’m associated with, the various government dept. I’ve been associated with and every last stakeholder in a bad light, because I don’t here such lack of confidence within these groups regarding AGW.

        “I would argue that the IPCC report gives a distorted view to it’s readers by not providing many of these papers on my list. The IPCC report claims to be a summary of the “science”. My list makes no such false claims.”

        What? Like 50yr old papers? Social papers about free speech? Papers from the Journal of Scientific Exploration (who also indulge in such topics as ufology)? You have a problem that they’ve tried to summarise the standing science that has resulted from over a century of investigation and debate? Again Dr. Nurse’s quote above should be repeated.

        “I do not believe ocean acidification is currently a cause for concern and I believe the climate always changes.”

        That’s a personal opinion – and one that is clearly contrary to a basic understanding of chemistry. I’m tired of that meme. Climate changes for a reason – that’s a fact and solar activity cannot match the past 30yrs of warming.

        Please – I have no interest in paleo-climate so why would I care about another “oh the hockey stick is broken” grey literature? And Lomborg – geez; the trailer of his exercise in self-glorification “Cool it” was enough to set off my gag reflexes.

        No, I’ll stick to getting my information from (obviously alarmist) journals such as The Royal Society, PNAS, Nature, Science etc and leave you to E&E, the crazy rants of Monckton, cherry picking of favourable papers (I suspect AWG Observer, who does the opposite to you is yet another alarmist site?) and fans (I suspect Adam let you know I mentioned you? That would explain your appearance here out of the blue) willing to ignore genuine scientific training in their “research”, which leads them to absurdly demand others debunk the whole list or deem the theory of AGW weak and themselves an unsceptical alarmist. This is such a joke.

        Like

      12. “I do not believe ocean acidification is currently a cause for concern and I believe the climate always changes.”
        and later;
        “So if I do not agree with you that means I do not understand ocean acidification or CO2′s greenhouse properties? My opinion is I do not believe ocean acidification to be a problem. My opinion is based on researching the science not personal beliefs.”

        It is personal belief, you’re not a scientist and clearly have a weak understanding of chemistry. I’ve got a number of excellent papers on ocean acidification on my 400+ list and here is an excellent recent post from Climate Shifts, one of the main authors of which is OveHG who is a leading expert on ocean acidification who would laugh at you Poptech for such comments (and he, like me, needs no reason to hide our ID, unlike PT, because we aspire to be honest), which shows first hand evidence what CO2 does to coral reefs (in this case not industrial sources, but again, the evidence is transferable and anyone with half a brain knows that we’re increasing CO2 concentrations and the oceans are taking a lot of it up – again, refer to my papers).

        You attitude towards the simple chemistry behind ocean acidification and biological response has to be one of the most obvious indications of you lack of understanding and relevance in addressing how we face a changing future.

        Like

      13. I don’t get your obsession and many others with Monckton. Regardless of your disagreement with his position, I do not see your or anyone else who criticizes him actually presenting his actual position. Which is that he does not believe in high climate sensitivity. I protect any skeptic who is misrepresented simply because people don’t like them. While you are quick to criticise his choice of words “Hitler Youth, I do not see you providing the context that it was used against those who wished to silence him using the same tactics of the Hitler Youth or do you support such behavior? It is very disturbing to see you make the false claim that he used that phrase against anyone and not only in response to those trying to shout him down from speaking.

        I am not doing what I criticize others for, I am doing the exact opposite, providing what they did not and not falsely claiming that those papers were never criticized.

        “What? Like 50yr old papers? Social papers about free speech? Papers from the Journal of Scientific Exploration (who also indulge in such topics as ufology)?”

        Your cherry picking here demonstrates your lack of intent on being reasonable to what I stated. What you are doing is cherry picking whatever you find that you consider extreme as a way to dismiss the list wholesale. That is not objective.

        You have a problem that they’ve tried to summarise the standing science that has resulted from over a century of investigation and debate?

        I have many problems with the IPCC report though I doubt you will read any of the supporting material I have on it.

        I have more than a basic understanding of chemistry and still do not believe it to be cause for concern.

        Your outright refusal to read the books I suggested only shows that you have no intention on objectively evaluating the skeptics position. I’ve read many books recommended to me on this subject with those I have debated.

        I found this site on my own from your original disparaging comment about me.

        Since you are interested in the PNAS,

        Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
        (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
        – Richard S. Lindzen

        I would not be so afraid to read the books I suggested.

        Like

      14. Really? I told you to do your own research, as many have, which demonstrates his misrepresented to data available (I again ask you to compare his reconstructed IPCC projections to the real thing. Equally, others have made the point recently that he cannot argue climate sensitivity is small and the MWP existed – both statements contradict!). I’ve seen the footage – looks to me he does all the talking over everyone as usual.

        “I have more than a basic understanding of chemistry and still do not believe it to be cause for concern.”
        That’s pathetic and at best a personal belief. It just shows your true colours.

        You ignored my point on Monckton’s graphs. You’ve ignored that you pointed out the wrong Anderegg paper (and not replied to the original paper) continued to state the same personal beliefs and refer me to the only PNAS paper you’ve got – a 14yr old paper by Lindzen. I won’t bother – no doubt it’s not relied upon much nowadays.

        I’m not afraid to read those books (what are you, 12? “Go on – are you chicken?”) I simply not dumb enough to read alarmist crap, preferring to rely on the science.

        Like

      15. Yes I am ignoring debating about Monckton’s graphs because I never brought them up nor did I bring him up. He is more than capable of defending himself on these issues. I cannot tell you how many times he is brought up to ME when I am discussing things that have NOTHING to do with him.

        So you are referring to an editorial by Anderegg? That reads like the same false argument Al Gore was making about the science being settled or the fraudulent study by Oreskes. All these studies include confirmation bias and subjective criteria. They do not represent evidence of any consensus. I would need a full copy of the paper but everyone I have looked at has similar flaws.

        You appear as if you will not bother to read anything but what agrees with you. The Hockey Stick Illusion and the Climate Gate emails expose significant problems within the climate science community. In the end I cannot make you do it, you have to be willing to take the risk.

        Like

      16. lol – what a joke!

        – You rip on any scientist that disagrees with you, yet won’t defend a non-scientist loon that you refer to as “a passionate and skilled communicator of many of the skeptic’s arguments”, which clearly, I brought up some fraudulent claims.
        – You get upset that I won’t read some grey lit and take an under-handed disregard of Anderegg’s editorial and ignore other papers.
        – Just like the anti-vax groups (who “know” vaccination caused problems to their kids regardless what the “washwash” studies that say otherwise) you persist with “Climategate” regardless of how many “whitewash” investigation say otherwise.
        – You continue to validate an inappropriate interpretation of your list, yet call all scientists and summaries of the science as “insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism” – because, of course, there’s no truth behind AGW
        – You claim to have “more than a basic understanding of chemistry” yet don’t seem to understand ocean acidification or that CO2’s greenhouse properties are well understood and easily demonstrated – or simply disregard them on personal beliefs

        I could go on and on, but why – you’re simply a hypocrite.

        As previously stated: you and I will not see eye-to-eye. Just write-me off as an alarmist and move on. We’re not debating on the same field. I’m quite frankly over this nonsense.

        Like

      17. That’s pathetic and hypocritical also. The youths don’t understand free speech? I thought demonstrations where an act of free speech!
        It’s pretty horrible (not to mention inaccurate) to refer to them as Hitler youth and only furthers my point about the man. I could say a bit about “Americans for Prosperity” also – but of course, that the result of a smear campaign and not reality, isn’t it? Please – the effort you go to to defend (and then not defend) questionable characters is quite phenomenal! It’s no different to the other ideological groups who desperately what the science to be wrong! LMAO

        Yeah – an excellent, “passionate and skilled communicator of many of the skeptic’s arguments” not to mention accurate also! Oh and his “peer-reviewed” work gets a mention too.. You might get sick of people mentioning Monckton to you (still, I can’t work out why people like you defend this bloke so enthusiastically – it only demonstrates your willingness to ignore evidence), but I get sick of “citizen scientists” telling me that they’ve “done their own research and have revealed this or that or some broken hockey stick” and that I’m obviously an “unsceptical scientist devoted to the AGW faith” – it’s disgraceful at best.
        Science builds on itself. Over time, the studies that are proven to be sturdy (through retesting and independent correlation) stand like bricks, in a wall of our understanding of the universe. Each “brick” supports the other bricks and it only remains due to the rigorous process of scientific methodology. All your list is, is an accumulation of bricks scattered around the place – some of which do stand in our wall of understanding (even if because they are flawed and that understanding betters our knowledge) and many don’t (ie. Monckton’s article about the right to free speech on AGW). It’s not a wall, it provides no support – it’s just a random mess of bricks at various stages of collapse scattered around the place (some of which contradict the others). It’s not scientific and while you might support people like Adam throwing this kind of crap in the face of people like me, it’s nothing but ignorance of science. Your “independent research” has led you to confusing a junk heap of rejected or irrelevant bricks for a wall of understanding – to know the difference takes proper training.

        Like

  11. Hi, I just finished reading Seth Mnookin’s “The Panic Virus”. I’ve been a political and online advocate for the teaching of real science and evolution for several years. And you are absolutely correct in the parallels between the anti-vax people and creationists. Both groups ignore the weight of evidence and cherry pick the occasional fact that they can spin to their case (polonium halos, formaldehyde in vaccines). They both seem to ignore the wrongdoings of criminals in their midst (Kent Hovind, Andrew Wakefield). Both groups collapse utterly and spectacularly in any evidence-based court (Kitzmiller v Dover, Cedillo vs. Health and Human Services). They both have large money-collecting machines that profit at the expense of our children (creationism destroys young minds, preventable diseases destroy young bodies).

    Thinking rationally and clearly, and weighing evidence to come to counter-intuitive conclusions does NOT come naturally to humans. It takes hard work. But living in a peaceful society, supporting free speech, rejecting witchcraft and eating with good table manners don’t come naturally either. But they are necessary components of a safe, civilized society.

    I strongly recommend that your partner read the “Panic Virus”. And she should read it sometime when you’re not around, when she can absorb the message without feeling any pressure from you. It is very difficult process when when a person’s mind overrules her heart. Eventually, if the case is good and she let’s herself reflect, her heart will make the shift as well, and the result will be a brave defender of young lives – your children’s and others. She will come to recognize the amazing and horrible scam perpetrated by the anti-vax crowd, and she will recognize that Andrew Wakefield is more fundamentally evil than the guys who flew planes into my old office building. Yes, many people involved in the movement believe they’re doing the right thing, but it is not the first time that the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. And it is not the first time good people were misled by charismatic jerks motivated by profit and fame.

    But your partner’s heart won’t make the change if she feels pressure from you, or feels that she’s too invested in countering your arguments. It was very hard for me to admit that I’d been wrong about some of my daughter’s medical decisions, that I’d made mistakes based on the overwhelming hype. What helped me was reading the right books, reading the court transcripts, and seeing the intellectual and factual bankruptcy of the Wakefield/McCarthy/Kirby crowd.

    Read “The Panic Virus”, especially the last couple chapters on the Autism Omnibus proceedings and the judge’s compassionate opinion in the Cedillo case. Those poor parents live daily torture with their daughter while lawyers and charlatans get rich and famous exploiting that family’s suffering.

    Refer to clear, documented, science based resources like this:
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/?p=1

    And understand that every idea a person holds should be open to challenge, and that admitting you were wrong is noble while clinging to a wrong or irrational idea just erodes your soul.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s