Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition

Sun, 2011-04-17 15:41Emma Pullman
Emma Pullman's picture

Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on Populartechnology.net listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.

Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.   

Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails.

Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.  Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again.

Dr. Sherwood B Idso is the most cited author on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the papers. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation

The second most cited is Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known climate sceptic who admits that around 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.

When you really crunch the numbers, all you really find is a small echochamber of the same individuals who pop up on every denier list and petition around. James W. Prall at the University of Toronto has put together a fantastic analysis of the names that appear on these lists, and shows how most of them share funding ties to the oil industry. 

Now a note on the most cited journals on this list. Articles from trade journal Energy and Environment are cited 137 times on the list. Energy and Environment is edited by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Benny Peiser. Numerous known climate skeptics sit on the editorial staff including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen.  The journal has become a go-to resource for policymakers and politicians who are skeptical of the scientific consensus of climate change. 

Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales has described it as “the climate sceptic’s journal of choice”. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge is considered a key resource for establishing the credentials and influence of key academic journals. It does not list Energy and Environment.  

A further 24 papers come from the journal Climate Research which is perhaps best known for publishing a 2003 paper by Sallie Baliunas and Willy Soon that received funding from the American Petroleum Institute. In response to the paper’s publication, the editor in chief, Hans Von Storch, and five of ten members of the editorial board, resigned in protest.

Let’s contrast this “900+ list” with the real facts. Expert Credibility in Climate Changewhich appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examines over 2,400 climate scientists and authors who have signed public statements on climate change. Their research says that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field believe that global warming is happening, and that we must respond to it.

A note to deniers: if you keep publishing these lists, we’ll keep debunking them. Long lists might look convincing, but they’re no substitute for research that is free of fossil fuel industry bias and is taken seriously by the scientific community. 

*Updated: Peiser is listed as one of the global warming ‘experts’ by the Heartland Institute, but does not work there.

Image Credit: Prospect Magazine

Comments

This article may have gotten some traction before Climategate but today looks like stylized AGW krud. And desperate as well.

Desperate and completely refuted,

Rebuttal to “Don’t Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition” http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4033

Emma, do you understand what a circular argument is? Your chief reasoning for not paying attention to sceptical positions is that they come from…sceptics. Some of the other points you make are hilariously inaccurate or apparently blind to reason. Benny Peiser doesn’t belong to the Heartland Institute, he’s simply due to speak at their event. Many who you accuse of being being “Right wing libertarians” are actually Labour peers.

You also seem to ignore how widespread are the ‘fingers in the pie’ when it comes to ‘climate scientists’ and ‘climate experts’ promoting the hypothesis of AGW. From getting the next research grant to owning companies in the ‘renewables’ sector, their motivations are - as you might put it - “pretty incriminating”.

And the 900 papers can be narrowed down to far fewer sources? The parallels with the tight team of AGW zealots in effectively three organisations worldwide are just too tempting…

For a more comprehensive demolition of this scurrilous hatchet job on some very distinguished scientists, see:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4030

If you could show ANY evidence that any of these eminent scientists have changed their views due to payment from ANYONE, I assume you would have done with great relish.

Its time to put up or shut up, methinks.

Judith Curry wrote an interesting essay about Right Wing Think Tanks such as the Heartland Institute here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/14/blame-on-heartland-cato-marshall-etc/

She also goes on to state the bleedin obvious. Perhaps Ms Pullman could have a read.

Thank you.

Good article Emma. As usual any critical analysis of Andrew’s list draws the ire of his fans. I’m sure that the author himself will eventually pay a visit.

Be prepared for a distortion of reality and a bending of the facts that will occur should Andrew appear. Good luck.

Your definition of ‘democracy’ is of a society commanded by ‘experts’ who ‘know’- a technocracy for example, or the current psychotherapeutic state. You should be ashamed of your own subversion of the basic principle of liberal democracy, namely the right to make mistakes and thereby learn from them.

‘Sowing confusion’ happens, it is the price of freedom (for example in a court of law). The only remedy is to meet the argument, something your ad hominem stance prohibits. In science, the rule for new knowledge is ‘the minority is always right’, pace Einstein versus Deutsche Physik. But at least your anti-democratic stance is plain: ‘Don’t trust the people. They are so easily misled. Only those who are certain of their ground should be allowed to speak.’

Unless unchecked, this will lead, (as so often in the past) to the totalitarianism implicit in the very insult ‘denier’ you employ so easily, ignorantly and ferociously. But AGW is a fast crumbling doctrine; in a short time there will be nothing left of it - where will you Left Fascists go then?

“You should be ashamed of your own subversion of the basic principle of liberal democracy, namely the right to make mistakes and thereby learn from them. ”

In 2111, it was finally realised that Mankind had made a big mistake. Large areas were uninhabitable, stricken by drought and unable to support people by crop-growing; other areas had been reclaimed by the expanding oceans. The remaining areas were overcrowded and disease-ridden, their inhabitants, part-indigenous, part-refugees, living in abject poverty. Not only had Mankind squandered its energy resources at a breakneck rate, but in doing so it had wrecked the planet’s climate at a geologically breakneck speed.

In considering the lessons learned from this mistake (even though it was too late to do anything about it), opinions varied from “how could we have been so completely stupid??” to finding appropriate minorities to blame and persecute. But nobody dared mention “Freedom” ever again.

Cheers - John

In 2010, there were (according to the alarmists at the UN) supposed to be 50 million “climate refugees” fleeing sunken countries, drought-ravaged lands, flood-ravaged lands, disease-ravaged lands and so on.

The true figure is 0.

Another – by no means the last – total fail by the emotionally immature alarmists who drive this scam, heedless of the damage they do.

Yes I’ve noticed this story has suddenly started doing the rounds in the echo-chamber!

Read: http://www.osce.org/eea/14851

and criticise its actual content if you wish, but before the rest of us nod off, please stop spreading misinformed, unreferenced spin. Everyone is bored stiff with such antics these days.

Cheers - John

So your defence is a paper that was written in 2005 that uses the 1995 data? Do you realise that the paper simply assumes future displacement due to climate change, so has no new evidence?

The reason this story has been “doing the rounds” is that it is important evidence in itself, but even more important in showing the dishonesty of the climate hysterics who tried to hide the prediction they made that did not come about.

Put this alongside the many other predictions that have been shown to be wrong, and AGW is starting to move from looking rather shaky to being dead in the water.

Mr Mason, could you tell me one prediction of the climate hysterics that has come about? In science a hypothesis is made and predictions made from it. Those predictions are tested (wither in the laboratory or in this case by studying the current climate and evidence of climate history or by waiting for future observations) and if they are not correct then the hypothesis is determined to be wrong.

The predictions have proved wrong (most importantly the basic failure of the models to reflect real changes on any scale, from diurnal to decadal, but all the other, more detailed predictions I know of, such as no more snow in Britain, have proved wrong too). Do you actually know any that have proved correct.

With all due respect, I’m just gonna go to sleep on that one! It would be a waste of keyboard hits to do otherwise.

Is this where they send trainee Denialists these days? Try The Guardian or even better the Daily Telegraph!

Cheers - John

You can tell trainees denialists from serious denialists. The trainees just hand-wave, make unsupported statements, and dont actually link to evidence while the more serious ones do link to evidence. The latter ones are easier to deal with because you just look at their evidence and show that they have either misinterpreted it, or that it is not evidence but just more unsupported statements from some political blog or think tank.

Prove that the list is dominated by scientists who actually receive money from fossil fuel companies. That has not been done here. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company unrelated to science that scientist is now “funded by the fossil fuel industry”. Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating direct fossil fuel company funding.

Then prove that the very few scientists on the list who have received minor direct donations from energy companies over the last 20 years have received enough energy company funding to sustain all their research over this time period (make sure to divide by 20).

Finally prove that a single skeptical scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation from anyone not just energy companies.

As Rich points out, predictions can be made when you have a good hypothesis and theory. For example, based on the properties of CO2 people like Arrhenius (around 1900) calculated how much temperature would rise as CO2 increased (and fall as CO2 decreased). Both paleoclimatology and modern measurements show he was right: Google “Richard Alley” + “CO2 biggest control knob” + “AGU” for a top-notch lecture. Note this that anthropogenic global warming is the prediction, not a theory–Im sure Rich knew that though. Incidentally, Arrhenius also calculated that the Arctic would heat up faster, another successful prediction.

Then there is the prediction that the stratosphere would cool down while lower temperatures would increase as the CO2 would trap heat, nights will warm faster than days, the troposphere would rise, and the ratio of hot to cold temperature records would increase in favour of hot records, just to name a few. See
skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

In fact, the climate literature is replete with numerous successful predictions, large and small, local and global, going back over 150 years in diverse disciplines like chemistry, oceanography, biology, physics, paleo-studies etc etc etc etc. That wealth of information allows me to make another prediction: Those who say there are no accurate predictions havent read a single relevant peer-reviewed science journal or even cracked an undergraduate textbook on climate science.

Perhaps those people should learn about climate change before denying climate change. Start with The Discovery of Global Warming. aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Have the climate panic brigade heard of a phenomenon known as “projection”?

Projection is where a person does not understand how anyone could be different from them or their narrow group of friends, so they project their own characteristics and habits onto the others. They interpret people (and especial rivals or opponents) only in their own terms, and with their own faults and habits. It is a particular habit of political people, especially on the left.

So climate hysterics claim that sceptics (who are rarely funded at all) are influenced heavily by oil-company funding (despite the vast majority of this going to the climate panic side) because the only reason man-made climate change is still on the agenda is that people rely on it for a living, so have to talk it up; this is why none of their predictions actually come about.

So climate hysterics claim only professional sceptics are doubtful, because the hysteria is based entirely on people who have committed themselves to the disproved hypotheses (the models this whole thing is based on were disproved 15 years ago when it was shown there was no warming in at the 300 - 150 hPa level in the tropics as all the models predict) so deeply that they cannot change.

So climate hysterics falsely claim scepticism is based only on libertarian politics (since when was a desire for freedom for all a bad thing?), because climate hysteria is based entirely on communists who feel lost since their previous ideology was proved to be complete idiocy that killed between 50 and 100 million people. So they attack enterprise that has saved billions of lives.

So AGW defenders claim that scepticism is based on very few scientists who are not specialists and are biased … well if you can’t guess why, look at the actual qualifications and publishing history of the IPCC authors, and the history of the study subject of climate “science”.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

To say that climate change has no basis is a very dangerous way to carry on and i think the fact we are on a seemingly sinking ship it is dangerous to dispute . Time is running out . Canada should be the leader in the developed countries in pushing through sticter rules concerning emissions . If Emma is wrong about anything why are you all so defensive? i will tell you why because she is touching on truths that you all do not want peopkle to know and the truth hurts . I admire what Emma has done stiriing you all up is great i love it alot of you have more self interest and power than you would like us to know and i trust Emma much more than alot of your silly babble..

It is amazing how densely interconnected the oil money and the think tanks are. If the climate skeptics want to be taken seriously they should start doing work that is not tainted by oil money, and is good enough to get into a real journal.

In case you havent noticed, this whole thread is about the fact that there are over 900 papers ” good enough to get into a real journal”

And just how does oil money taint research anyway? If it does, clearly we must throw out all the research to come out of Hadley CRU, as they have openly admitted taking money from both BP and Shell, the industry shills!

But no, there are many reasons to doubt CRUs work, but where they got their money from isnt one of them. You are just looking for a cheap and easy reason to disregard evidence that contradicts your deeply held beliefs. Which is understandable, but definitely NOT science.

Sorry Peter. E&E is not a real journal. Pielke has even stated his regrets for ever publishing there.

Rob

There is nothing whatever wrong with E&E other than that it considers non consensus views. All its papers are thoroughly peer reviewed, and it is widely accepted (other than by one eyed alarmists) as a legitimate journal.

Or do you want to “redefine the peer reviewed literature”? Now where have I heard that before?

Ah. I guess that goes for articles that appear in E&E on “Expanding Earth Theory.”

The only way in which E&E is a peer reviewed journal is that they decided thats what the wanted people to believe they were. The papers are clearly not peer reviewed with any measure of scrutiny. Again, even the Pielkes say they regret ever publishing there.

What “articles” are you talking about?

The papers in E&E are clearly peer-reviewed and the journal is irrefutably cited multiple times in the IPCC report,

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 157 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- “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)
- “I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” - Richard Tol, Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)

Gee, you would think they’d know that themselves. But no, they actually contradict you in their own mission statement.

“Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform”

Now go through Poptech’s list and identify the “viewpoints” and “technical communications”…

Of course, E&E already has redefined peer review. For example, despite claiming E.G. Beck’s paper on historic CO2 levels was its most rigorously reviewed paper, it contained errors even a high school student could see, after asking them a simple question: “What process can cause CO2 amounts in the atmosphere to drop with so much in such a short period, and how should we be able to see if this is credible?”
There’s also a figure claiming to contain the diurnal cycle due to photosynthesis, but taken that time of the year and the location, that photosynthesis surely kicked in a bit early…(as in several hours before sunrise!). I hope even you can see that something is fishy there, yes? It’s, I guess, at best High School biology.

Personal viewpoints and other non-peer-reviewed content from E&E are not on the list.

E.G. Beck has refuted the only published criticism of his paper and it appears following the original on the list,

- Comments on “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)
- Ernst-Georg Beck

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf

…is not the same as a refutation. In fact, Beck managed to NOT answer the criticism at all, something that in any *normal* journal would have gotten him a kind request from the Editor to answer to the criticism, or see his reply rejected.

Beck directly responded to the comment. I am well aware in other journals they would censor a reply from a skeptic as that is standard operating procedure.

Beck’s response was non-responsive. This has nothing to do with him being a ‘skeptic’, but everything with most respectable journals not accepting replies that are non-responsive. That’s a waste of valuable space (most journals have page limits). Once again you show you have absolutely no understanding of scientific publishing, nor what constitutes a proper response to scientific criticism.

That is your opinion, I disagree and believe he directly responded to the comment on his paper.

I am sure if you were an editor you censor the reply as well, which does not matter. Thanks to the Internet everyone can read it.

I have an extensive knowledge of scientific publishing and the politics that goes on to keep dissenting viewpoints out.

Your comment is outright laughable. There, I responded, and thereby have refuted what you said.

Poptech’s “extensive knowledge of scientific publishing and the politics that goes on to keep dissenting viewpoints out” summarised in a nutshell.

For those with a bit more functional thinking: In two comments Beck was told his own measurements begged the question how CO2 could have changed so violently so rapidly, only to stop when the modern measurements were introduced. Beck’s response was to claim no such explanation was needed, he just reported the real data. This is like someone reporting wild fluctuations in e.g. a population census, and then saying those are the real data, with no known errors, and there’s no need to explain how e.g. a city went from 100,000 citizens to 250,000 a few years later, and then back to 80,000 another few years later.

You do not have the ability to determine who has more functional thinking. Your comments on Beck’s paper are not published so they are worthless. Let me know when you publish them.

Comments on Beck’s article have been published. He failed to rebut those comments. Hence, his claims are refuted. And note, THIS is what constitutes a refutation: showing someone wrong, and the person unable to respond to that criticism.

But by your argumentation, creationism is true, since you can find plenty of publications on the topic that people have not commented on in the literature, hence…

He refuted the comments on his rebuttal paper.

Bringing up creationism is all I need to know about your obsessions.

Roger Pielke Jr., Ph.D. in Political Science (yes it is intentionally hidden off his page) is no authority on peer-reviewed journals. E&E is a very real journal, it is even cited by the IPCC!

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 157 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- “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)
- “I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” - Richard Tol, Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)

I have dismissed this meme and strawman argument further up thread.

And yes, Rob is correct, E&E is not a credible journal. The “list” also includes papers which have been refuted since publication. It is a joke. Those who deny evolution also have similar lists, do you doubt evolution too?

And stop making arguments from emotion about “beliefs”–the radiative forcing of GHGs has nothing whatsoever to do with a “belief system” it has everything to do with physics.

Gracious, so much BS crammed into one post Wilson, Bravo.

And save us the lecture on what you believe to constitute to be good science, lest we have to remind you of Lindzen and Choi, Soon and Baliunas, McLean et al, Douglass et al, Beck, Spencers bizarre modelling….et cetera.

E&E is a very real journal as it is cited multiple times in the IPCC reports.

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 157 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- “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)
- “I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” - Richard Tol, Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)

All published criticisms of any of the papers on the list have been refuted.

My list has nothing to with creationists and I personally support evolution theory.

Considering your own argumentation about climate science, you should, by following the same analogy, question evolution…

unless the reason you question climate science has nothing to do with the presence of peer-reviewed papers that support ‘skepticism’, but rather with the fact that the projections of mainstream climate science are inconvenient to you, whereas those of evolution are not.

I am religiously agnostic so why would I support creationism?

The reason I question alarmist climate science is due to the evidence that it is alarmist and not sound science.

If you are going to doubt CRU work, you will also have to doubt half a dozen other temperature sets, including satellite temps, because they are all in close agreement.
skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Btw, this list does not have 900 papers good enough to get into a real journal. Some of them are not in peer-reviewed journals. Others do not say what people claim they say. Others are arguing about some minutiae where there is still lots of debate. Others have been refuted by several other papers that were published later. Others are not relevant. And *apparently* on an earlier incarnation of the list, some papers were “submitted” which does not mean published. greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/ (I have not checked that for myself yet though).

I am surprised people are still taking this list seriously.

And even if the 900 papers all said what is claimed (they do not), were all in peer-reviewed journals (they are not), they are still in the minority. E.g. Nature Geoscience, one journal that is not directly climate-related, has 5 articles dealing with some aspect of climate in just one week.

The original journal, Nature, usually has a few every week too. Nature has also started a new journal called Nature Climate Change which in one year will have more than 900 papers (assuming it is published once a week like Nature, and assuming they only print 5 papers instead of 10 or a dozen).

There are quite a number of other peer-reviewed journals directly related to climate as well as numerous other disciplines such as ecology, biology, physics, paleo-disciplines.

Here is a list of science journals and climate science journals.
eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

The number of papers published every month that deal with some aspect of climate change in some way is even more staggering. I cannot even keep up with the papers just from my Nature and Ecology subscriptions in my discipline (ecology and biology)–I bet the papers that deal with some effect of climate published in my discipline alone over the last 5 years alone will be greater than 900. Imagine how many papers are published just in the American Meterological Society journals alone: journals.ametsoc.org/

If you are going to give credence to one paper in one journal that supports your position, then if you are honest you will have to give even more credence to several subsequent papers in the same journal that refute that original paper, right?

In short, there is an avalanche of peer-reviewed papers, and every month that avalanche grows bigger (Nature: Climate Change started in April). 900 papers, even if they all were all in peer-reviewed journals, will quickly be swamped as knowledge accumulates at an increasing pace.

All the counted papers are in real peer-reviewed journals. All published criticism of any of the papers has been refuted.

The submitted papers are still on the list but were never counted then and are not now as explicitly stated,

Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,

Peer-Reviewed Paper Count: 900+

Additional Paper Count: 90 (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers)

When Greenfyre stated this lie he never counted the list, anyone who has will know it is a lie and always was.

If you have not checked out a lie why are you repeating it? Greenfyre’s lies have been repeatedly debunked,

Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595

All the papers on the list support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm, defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

There are very few explicit climate change journals. Many papers in the IPCC come from peer-reviewed journals which are not explicitly about climate change.

There are not an “avalanche” of papers that refute these. All published criticisms of these papers has been refuted.

And the climate hysterics should start doing work that:
1. Doesn’t twist the facts to fit their beliefs/hypothesis
2. Isn’t hidden, protected by email and data deletion, or fenced off from scrutiny and scientific examination by refusal to supply data or code. You know. like actual science
3. Isn’t funded by the ‘renewables’ industry nor has a direct link to the financial and career success of the authors
4. Does not have to rely on their mates’ oligarchy at the pseudo-science journals to suppress scrutiny, criticism or refutation
5. Doesn’t end up being completely disproved by reality.

Its always important to add a denominator to any “big” numbers the deniers throw out. Poptech list of 900 papers is only a numerator. The denominator, the number of peer reviewed research papers on climate change, numbers in the 100s of thousands.

Poptechs number is actually very very tiny. http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

Nice post, Robert. Thanks for sharing!

Emma

Your post has been savaged by critics in this thread, leaving you looking rather foolish. Is this the only comment you have to make?

Peter… Is this your pat response to everyone you disagree with?

Sorry Rob but your Google Scholar illiterate post has been completely discredited,

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

No meaningful conclusion can be drawn regarding the number of peer-reviewed papers supporting AGW theory using numerical result totals from Google Scholar searches due to the inclusion of erroneous results.

Here are some examples that appear in Rob’s worthless search results,

Adam, Eve, and the genome: the Human Genome Project and theology [Book] (S.B. Thistlethwaite, 2003)

“This important book combines a basic primer on genetic research with ethical reflection by an interdisciplinary team on key questions and a deeper look, in light of such research, at what it means to be human.”

Tom of Twofold Bay [Book] (V. Kattooparambil, 2007)

“This is the story of Tom, Killer whale of Twofold Bay, Eden, friend to George Davidson (bay whaler) and others like him: it is based upon a true story that will live in the memory of the citizens of Eden for eternity, a museum being built in Tom’s honour upon his death.”

Around the States in 90 Days [Book] (A. Moseley, 2009)

“Determined to escape a 9 to 5 life but equally determined not to do anything socially worthwhile, Andy Moseley took the only option available to him and packed his bags and left for America. His plan was to see as much of the country as he could in 90 days. Starting in Washington and ending in San Francisco, he passed through Canada and along Route 66 taking in several places not on any logical route across the country, and eventually covering half of the States of America, and a few bits of Canada too.”

Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America [Book] (E. Robinson, 2010)

“A Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and commentator explains how years of desegregation and affirmative action have led to the revelation of four distinct African American groups who reflect unique political views and circumstances, in a report that also illuminates crucial modern debates on race and class.”

Landfall along the Chesapeake: in the wake of Captain John Smith [Book] (S. Schmidt, 2006)

“In 2002, Susan Schmidt retraced John Smith’s 1608 voyage on the Chesapeake Bay. In Landfall along the Chesapeake, a cruising guide for Chesapeake boaters and a field log for naturalists, Schmidt compares the beauty of ancestral legacy and childhood memory to her observations on a 100-day voyage in a 22-foot boat.”

Extreme Cuisine: Exotic Tastes from Around the World [Book] (Lonely Planet, 2009)

“Imagine tucking into grasshoppers as you wander the Mercado Benito market in Oaxaca, Mexico, or chowing down on juicy witchetty grubs on your travels through Central Australia - such meals can be the perfect entree to a culture. In this book you’ll find over 50 delicacies that creep, crawl, sizzle and spit, where they originated from and where you can experience them. You may not salivate over blood, scorpions, chicken’s knees or partially digested coffee beans, but travel long enough and you’re bound to meet someone who does. Extreme Cuisine is sure to challenge your idea of what makes good eating.”

Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes [Book] (T. Kallison, 2010)

“Can you imagine a world without music? That’s exactly what happened to young Melody Bell and her two friends, Harmon E. Cord and Justin Tyme. These three youngsters share their common aspirations to one day become celebrated pop stars!”

Embarrassing that he continues to peddle his computer illiteracy.

No. Im really sorry, Andrew, but nothing could be further from the truth. We more than established that your figures are a tiny fraction of the scientific literature on climate change. I think you need to accept that and just start getting used to it.

Im sorry Rob, but unless you can put up some actual evidence, you need to accept that this research is real and significant. You make no attempt to answer Andrews points, preferring instead to try the condescension approach. Major fail, sorry

Please see the post below relative to a conservative estimation of climate papers.

What continually fails to happen with Poptech is that he refuses to accept any criticism of his flawed list. There are a great many papers on his list that do NOT support what he says it does. They are papers that are fully in agreement with AGW but his list is only subjected to his own skewed analysis of this issue.

If youre into independent audits (as youve quoted so far) then about 2/3 of Andrews list would be discarded as not supporting his claim if even the slightest audit is applied.

I suggest people read up on Greenfryes run in with Poptech as well… http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/

Rob

You are totally wrong about that as well. I have, in fact, read a good number of the papers of Andrews list (not the majority, I’m not that keen!)and those are all legitimately skeptical of at least some aspect of the IPCC “consensus” view. They dont all agree with each other (why should they, this isn’t a church?), but all the ones I have seen are indeed problematic for the consensus viewpoint, even if some of the authors (notably the Pielkes) dont consider themselves skeptics - I suspect you do.

Pages

[x]

At a June 19 speaking event at London's Chatham House, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed the Russian government is covertly working to discredit hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the west from afar.

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations,...

read more