Climate Change!

[Poptech]

I'll take that as a provisional "yes."

If I do not answer a question, that means I did not answer nor will I as you are attempting unsuccessfully to divert the argument. We so far have epic failures with my challenge,

1. Link to any comment of mine on Skeptical Science that I posted that still exists.

2. Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed and provide evidence it was not peer-reviewed.

3. Name the counted paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If I do not answer a question, that means I did not answer nor will I as you are attempting unsuccessfully to divert the argument. We so far have epic failures with my challenge,

1. Link to any comment of mine on Skeptical Science that I posted that still exists.

2. Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed and provide evidence it was not peer-reviewed.

3. Name the counted paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Nah, this sounds boring. Do it yourself.

Do you think humans have contributed to GW?

 

[Greatcloud]

Co2 Global Warming Debunked - Interplanetary Climate Change - YouTube

Three part video showing how AGW is untrue. Furthermore it is the Sun that is at an 8,000 year high and causing climate change.






CO2

 

[RickG]

<staff edit>

The paper has nothing to do with your AGW/ACC Alarm. You are also on record at other sites for admitting that you have read all the papers but only the Abstracts for some. I believe that paper was one when you were called on it. That's one reason no one takes you seriously.

That paper is not on the list.

Used to be.

<staff edit>

That's why I keep referring back to it. I was a major contributor to that discussion. For those unfamilar with Skeptical Science.com, it is a climate science site hosted by scientists of which many of the posts are by scientists. Anyone wishing to see that discussion there with poptech can find it here:

Meet The Denominator

The discussion begins at the bottom of the page. Each page contains 50 comments with a total of 11 pages.

Did you forgot to read the list again?

The Cato Journal (2 papers on list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- ProQuest lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

Waste Management (1 paper on list) is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0956-053X)
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal
- EBSCO lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal

<staff edit>.

Do you really want me to comment on the criteria for those listings. Under some of that criteria Dr. Suess eligible for peer review.

 

[Greatcloud]

Rambot don't you see that the suns output is at an 8,000 year high and that is what is causing GW and not AGW as the cause. We can see all the planets are affected by this same phenomenon.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You also failed on finding any counted papers that were not peer-reviewed, so you skip over hundreds of papers to get to the ones in the Cosmic Ray and Solar sections which both support skeptic arguments for a CR/Solar theory of climate change.

Poptech, the main problem I have with your list is that you call it "900+ Peer-reviewed papers..."

Then you state that within this same list there are articles that are not peer reviewed (comments, corrections, addenda, etc.) and literally the second and third on the list are these very things. And you clearly state that these are not to be counted among the "peer reviewed" , which is right and just, but I'm curious why you mixed the non-peer reviewed in with the peer reviewed and then ask people to find the ones you counted.

Wouldn't you get less push-back form people if you had organized the list to separate out the "peer reviewed" from the non-peer reviewed?

So you challenge people to find a non-peer reviewed paper in your list among the "Counted". But you mix them all together, counted and uncounted.

<starf edit>

That seems rather derivative. There are a lot of articles about natural forcings. Are they all considered to "support a skeptic argument" if they fail to explicitly say that they are not debating against agw?

<staff edit>

Poptech, you are playing a rather convoluted game of words here. You produce a list that is enormous which is littered with both non-peer reviewed and peer reviewed literature and you label it as "900+ Peer Reviewed papers...." and several paragraphs down you state what you mean by "counted" but you keep the non-counted ones in the list (hence the "+" I assume).

It seems you have set up a list that is bound to be argued over rather than focused on.

My suggestion is: Split the List.

Put the "peer reviewed" ones in one list and eliminate the non-peer reviewed articles.

As has been pointed out there are some on there that will raise huge red flags in the scientific community (Energy and Environment being one, remember, just because something is peer reviewed if there's a significant amount of question among the scientists that it has very low standards and, it may be inflammatory).

Perhaps if you spent more time organizing the list rather than continuously defending it in harsh terms you might have better luck with it?

 

[rambot]

Rambot don't you see that the suns output is at an 8,000 year high and that is what is causing GW and not AGW as the cause. We can see all the planets are affected by this same phenomenon.

1) What do you mean when you say "sun's output"
2) Do you HONESTLY believe climatologists have not considered this?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Rambot don't you see that the suns output is at an 8,000 year high and that is what is causing GW and not AGW as the cause. We can see all the planets are affected by this same phenomenon.

It's interesting because apparently the people who did the study that gives you this data (it's sunspot activity that is at an 8000 year high) don't think you can use this information to explain recent warming. But what would they know, eh?

From Space.com: (Emphasis added)

Sunspots have been more common in the past seven decades than at any time in the last 8,000 years, according to a new historic reconstruction of solar activity.

Many researchers have tried to link sunspot activity to climate change, but the new results cannot be used to explain global warming, according to the scientists who did the study.

Sunspots are areas of intense magnetic energy. They act like temporary caps on upwelling matter, and they are the sites of occasional ferocious eruptions of light and electrified gas. More sunspots generally means increased solar activity.

Sunspots have been studied directly for about four centuries, and these direct observations provide the most reliable historic record of solar activity. Previous studies have suggested cooler periods on Earth were related to long stretches with low sunspot counts. From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots. (SOURCE)

Maybe you should take it up with the folks who did the study, Greatcloud. I'm sure they will be happy to be alerted to their gross error by a random anonymous poster on an intarwebs forum!

Most scientists are!

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, the main problem I have with your list is that you call it "900+ Peer-reviewed papers..."

Then you state that within this same list there are articles that are not peer reviewed (comments, corrections, addenda, etc.) and literally the second and third on the list are these very things. And you clearly state that these are not to be counted among the "peer reviewed" , which is right and just, but I'm curious why you mixed the non-peer reviewed in with the peer reviewed and then ask people to find the ones you counted.

Wouldn't you get less push-back form people if you had organized the list to separate out the "peer reviewed" from the non-peer reviewed?

So you challenge people to find a non-peer reviewed paper in your list among the "Counted". But you mix them all together, counted and uncounted.

There are articles that may not be peer-reviewed in the list as supporting documents to the counted papers. These are very important and included because those who challenge the papers may post a criticism of a paper but never the rebuttal from the author. So these are included on the list in defense of the counted papers where needed. They are also formatted differently. In the formatting section this is explained,

"All "addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" are preceded by a " - " and italicized."

All of the supporting documents immediately follow the original paper on the list.

That seems rather derivative. There are a lot of articles about natural forcings. Are they all considered to "support a skeptic argument" if they fail to explicitly say that they are not debating against agw?

That depends on the argument. Alarmists make new ones all the time so I cannot say what will or will not be included in the future. If you look at the table of contents you can see the papers broken up into clear sections which makes those more clear.

Poptech, you are playing a rather convoluted game of words here. You produce a list that is enormous which is littered with both non-peer reviewed and peer reviewed literature and you label it as "900+ Peer Reviewed papers...." and several paragraphs down you state what you mean by "counted" but you keep the non-counted ones in the list (hence the "+" I assume).

No, I produced a list of only peer-reviewed papers that includes supporting documents for the peer-reviewed papers clearly formatted differently. "Several" paragraphs, it used to be one of the first but alarmists would lie about something else so I moved other paragraphs up. It doesn't matter whatever paragraph is first, alarmists will not read the rest and be intentionally dishonest.

The + is because there are over 900 peer-reviewed papers, the 900 is not exact and the number changes all the time as new papers are added to the list. The 90+ supporting documents are not included in the count.

It seems you have set up a list that is bound to be argued over rather than focused on.

You are joking right? It does not matter how the list is setup it will be argued about because it debunks a long held myth that skeptics cannot support their arguments with the peer-reviewed literature.

My suggestion is: Split the List.

Put the "peer reviewed" ones in one list and eliminate the non-peer reviewed articles.

Never going to happen. The supporting documents are too important without them there I know exactly what is going to happen. People will have to learn how to read.

As has been pointed out there are some on there that will raise huge red flags in the scientific community (Energy and Environment being one, remember, just because something is peer reviewed if there's a significant amount of question among the scientists that it has very low standards and, it may be inflammatory).

No they do not raise huge red flags in the "scientific community". Alarmists complain about everything, they do not represent the "scientific community". E&E is listed in the ISI and has been cited by the IPCC multiple times.

Perhaps if you spent more time organizing the list rather than continuously defending it in harsh terms you might have better luck with it?

That is a joke right?

 

[RickG]

Just some interesting information concerning the lack of peer review for the Journal Energy & Enviornment (E&E).

From [FONT=&quot]Greenfyre: dissecting a list of supposedly ‘peer-reviewed’ papers from E&E found that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A given paper in E&E may have been peer reviewed (but unlikely). If it was, the review process might have been up to the normal standards for science (but unlikely). Hence E&E’s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Further, even the editor states that it is not a science journal and that it is politically motivated/influenced. Finally, at least some of what it publishes is just plain loony.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Posted at Real Climate:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John Hunter: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 Jan 2005 at 10:33 PM [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You may be interested in my recent experience with the social science journal, Energy & Environment (E&E). In 2004 (Vol. 15, No. 3) E&E published a paper on sea level rise at Tuvalu by Willis Eschenbach, an amateur scientist and “Construction Manager” for the Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji. The paper was entitled “Tuvalu not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise” which gives a general idea of the content. While most readers would assume that the paper had been peer-reviewed, on closer inspection it appears that the paper is what the Journal calls a “Viewpoint Piece”. The Editorial at the beginning of the Journal, also notes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, Eschenbach offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And what John Lynch, an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett the Honors College at Arizona State University, says about E&E. Follow the link.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Roger Pielke Jr, said “…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And then we find a letter from Bill Huges, Director of Multi-Science Publishing, threatening to sue Gavin Schmidt, of Realclimate.org and a lead climatologist at NASA/GISS for questioning E&E's peer review process. Here's the letter: Oh BTW: Gavin Schmidt, the recipient of the letter posted it on Realclimate.org.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From: Bill Hughes
Cc: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Subject:: E&E libel
Date: 02/18/11 10:48:01[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gavin, your comment about Energy & Environment which you made on RealClimate has been brought to my attention:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The evidence for this is in precisely what happens in venues like E&E that have effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line. ”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To assert, without knowing, as you cannot possibly know, not being connected with the journal yourself, that an academic journal does not bother with peer review, is a terribly damaging charge, and one I’m really quite surprised that you’re prepared to make. And to further assert that peer review is abandoned precisely in order to let the editor publish papers which support her political position, is even more damaging, not to mention being completely ridiculous. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate. I’m quite happy to work with you to find a mutually satisfactory form of words: I appreciate you might find it difficult. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I look forward to hearing from you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With best wishes
Bill Hughes
Director
Multi-Science Publsihing [sic] Co Ltd [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then the Guardian publishes the story.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Despite E&E's threats, Schmidt has refused to retract his comments and maintains that the majority of papers published in the journal are "dross".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"I would personally not credit any article that was published there with any useful contribution to the science," he told the Guardian. "Saying a paper was published in E&E has become akin to immediately discrediting it." He also describes the journal as a "backwater" of poorly presented and incoherent contributions that "anyone who has done any science can see are fundamentally flawed from the get-go."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BTW, Gavin Schmidt has never retracted what he said about E&E and Hughes wrote another letter saying he would not sue.[/FONT]

Oh! And what does Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of E&E have to say about her journal?

"When asked about the publication of skeptical papers Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

Source: There are many, for simplicity - Wiki - Energy & Environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RickG]

For anyone interested here is the link to Poptech's 900+ list:

Popular Technology.net: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

You know, it is just amazing where some of the articles come from. Here are a few examples:

The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming
(Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992)
A law Journal, Really?

Benefits of global warming
(Society, Volume 29, Number 3, pp. 33-40, March 1992)

Society? Oh my! What should I wear while reading that article.

Global Warming: Failed Forecasts and Politicized Science
(Waste Management, Volume 14, Number 2, pp. 89-95, 1994)

Like i said in a previous post, I used to get Waste Management in a former position I held. It is not peer review, I don't care whose list it is on.

The Precautionary Principle: A High-Risk Principle
(Economic Affairs, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 60–62, September 2005)

Whoooo! Wonder who the reviewers were for that one.

Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change? (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 283-288, 2006)

A Political Journal. Sounds like a comment article.

The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)

Yeah! You folks know what I"m thinking, you are too aren't you?

Comment on "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" (PDF)
(Pielke Research Group, 2004)

Hey Poptech, besides that article not being peer review, I thought the Pielke's in a rather angered tone told you to remove their articles from your list.

Well, that's enough for now. Oh! almost forgot, be sure to look at the category titled "An Inconvenient Truth". Peer review papers supposedly debunking Al Gore. Wow, the pinicale of peer review.

 

[RickG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JIFKASIgd0&feature=relatedThree part video showing how AGW is untrue. Furthermore it is the Sun that is at an 8,000 year high and causing climate change.

Hi Greatcloud, I'll look at the video when I get a chance and make some comments. Before firstt I want to address your comment about it being the sun.

Most of the current warming trend has occurred over the past 40 years. Look at the graph below and explain how the sun is doing this.

Data source: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD). Graph source: SkS.

I guess, I'll have to look at the video to see what you mean by an 8,000 year high.

 

[RickG]

<staff edit>

Ha ha! Take a look at the list, I only gave an extremely small sample. It speaks for itself. And as for E&E, it is known as the pseudoscience journal around the physical science community.

<staff edit>

 

[Poptech]

Just some interesting information concerning the lack of peer review for the Journal Energy & Enviornment (E&E).

Greenfyre: dissecting a list of supposedly &#8216;peer-reviewed&#8217; papers from E&E found that:
[FONT=&quot]A given paper in E&E may have been peer reviewed (but unlikely). If it was, the review process might have been up to the normal standards for science (but unlikely). Hence E&E&#8217;s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all.[/FONT]

All of Greenfyre's lies are completely refuted, try reading -Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

Why are you lying Rick? E&E is not excluded from the ISI it is in the Journal Master list and it is in Scopus, liar.

[FONT=&quot]Further, even the editor states that it is not a science journal and that it is politically motivated/influenced. Finally, at least some of what it publishes is just plain loony.[/FONT]

It is a strawman argument that it is not a science journal,

E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

"Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate."

E&E is not politically motivated or influenced.

Energy & Environment (E&E). In 2004 (Vol. 15, No. 3) E&E published a paper on sea level rise at Tuvalu by Willis Eschenbach

Not on the list.

John Lynch, an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett the Honors College at Arizona State University, says about E&E. Follow the link.

All refuted nonsense.

1. E&E is Found at 174 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form (Worldcat) not 25.

2. Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has impeccable credentials,

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)

Roger Pielke Jr, said &#8220;&#8230;had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn&#8217;t have published there.

Evolved to be cited by the IPCC multiple times and indexed in the ISI?

And then we find a letter from Bill Huges, Director of Multi-Science Publishing, threatening to sue Gavin Schmidt, of Realclimate.org and a lead climatologist at NASA/GISS for questioning E&E's peer review process. Here's the letter: Oh BTW: Gavin Schmidt, the recipient of the letter posted it on Realclimate.org.

That nonsense is refuted at WUWT? in the post titled "RealClimate&#8217;s over-the-top response".

It is well known Gavin does not like E&E, no alarmist does, none of which changes the irrefutable fact that E&E is peer-reviewed.

paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.

It was published as a viewpoint and not a peer-reviewed paper.

And what does Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of E&E have to say about her journal?

"When asked about the publication of skeptical papers Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

This is the correct interpretation,

"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

Source: Email Correspondence

All of this is available in "Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment"

Wikipedia is worthless.

 

[RickG]

To be quite frank, the way you dismissed Kent Hovind in that ice core video I showed was a wake-up call to me about your style of debating.

Handwaving -- and now giggling -- seem to be your bottom-line style.

I care as much about your samples as I do your style.

Kent Hovind has no science background, much less in paleoclimatology or glaciology. Yeah I know he has claimed to have taught science for 15 years. The thing is he won't say were, nor can anyone find in support to the claim. Maybe when he gets out of prison for his dishonest deeds, he'll have reformed enough to tell us where he got his teacher certification in science and where he taught. Think maybe, just maybe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Kent Hovind has no science background,

You dismissed that professor (?) his daughter was talking to as well; so it doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[RickG]

You dismissed that professor (?) his daughter was talking to as well; so it doesn't really matter, does it?

Bottom line AV, I have a real issue with people who violate God's 9th Commandment, especially when it involves misrepresenting a science I have been academically educationally educated in and basic scientific principles I have utilized professionally. Dog-gone right it riles me.

But don't take my word for it, after all, I'm not only illiterate, but scientifically illiterate. Just ask Poptech.

 

[Poptech]

Liar Rick, have you been able to find any comments that I posted at Skeptical Science?

You know, it is just amazing where some of the articles come from. Here are a few examples:

I see that after failing at an epic level you now resort to cherry picking,

Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report the list includes peer-reviewed papers from socio-economic journals.

Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (1 paper on list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0743-6963)
- EBSCO lists the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

Society (6 papers on the list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0147-2011)
- EBSCO lists Society as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Society as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

Waste Management (1 paper on the list) is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0956-053X)
- EBSCO lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal
- "All manuscripts are sent to at least two independent referees to ensure both accuracy and relevance to the journal." - Waste Management

Like i said in a previous post, I used to get Waste Management in a former position I held. It is not peer review, I don't care whose list it is on.

You can deny reality all you want.

Economic Affairs (4 papers on the list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0265-0665)
- EBSCO lists Economic Affairs as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- ProQuest lists Economic Affairs as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "There is a section of double blind refereed articles" - Economic Affairs

The Independent Review (5 papers on the list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1086-1653)
- EBSCO lists The Independent Review as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists The Independent Review as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "The Independent Review is thoroughly researched, peer-reviewed, and based on scholarship of the highest caliber." - The Independent Review

A Political Journal. Sounds like a comment article.

Incorrect, it is an economic journal and the article was peer-reviewed.

Journal of Information Ethics (2 papers on the list) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1061-9321)
- EBSCO lists the Journal of Information Ethics as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- ProQuest lists the Journal of Information Ethics as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

Comment on "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes"
(Pielke Research Group, 2004)

Hey Poptech, besides that article not being peer review, I thought the Pielke's in a rather angered tone told you to remove their articles from your list.

It has been irrefutably been established that you are illiterate as comments are not counted.

Are you really this ignorant on everything relating to the list? Pielke Jr.'s nonsense I've already rebutted ad nauseum and can be found in the rebuttal section on the list,

"Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. "

Pielke Sr. simply wanted it clearly stated he was not a skeptic. Something you continue to lie about.

I am happy I can continue to educate Rick about his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments.

 

[Poptech]

Rick, I have a feeling that after insulting you again he will proceed to say that those papers are on the list but are not "counted".

All peer-reviewed papers are counted. The only one he listed that was not peer-reviewed was the comment from Pielke Sr. which was a rebuttal to Santer et al. (2003) - "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropospheric Height Changes".

Your continued illiteracy is noted.

 

[Greatcloud]

1) What do you mean when you say "sun's output"
2) Do you HONESTLY believe climatologists have not considered this?

The total output solar flares and sunspots the total output of the sun.

I believe climatologists think it is greenhouse gases that caused it.