The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:
“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”
Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date? 😉
=========================================
Excerpts of: Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.
“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday.
…
Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.
“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.
Some critics think these are merely cosmetic efforts that do not address the real problem, however.
“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”
“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
…….
read the rest at Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate in the New York Times
Herman L
J.Peden (13:34:46) :
Climate Science is no more than a massive Propaganda Operation
See my response to Smokey: at the starting gate your response is political — not-scientific. On what basis of fact do you determine that the IPCC produces propaganda and not scientific reports?
I already told you, Herman – to which you did not respond, another Propaganda Operation Tactic itself. QED
Herman L – Read the following (if you dare), and see if you still support the claims of the IPCC:
Why the IPCC should be disbanded
“Introduction
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias. One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how wrong this impression is. The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its
misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.
Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate. It’s time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.”
I can’t believe all the comments praising Willis Eschenbach. I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. My undergraduate students can write better and more clearly than he. Besides which, pieces of two of his graphs were missing.
What are his credentials? In what area of climatology did he get his doctorate and where? How many years has he spent gathering and analyzing climate data? In what reputable scientific journals has he published? Does he even know the difference between weather and climate? How does he account for the uncommonly rapid melting of the polar ice caps?
Too bad the NYT bothered to quote him.
PJB (08:42:23) :
Your conclusion may be right. Gavin Schmidt utilizes the carefully honed bulldog tactics of insurance companies: Deny, Defend, and Delay. The strategy can be applied to any adversarial issue. Synthesizing your analysis, the standard attack is:
Disavow validity of claim
Discredit claimants
Appeal to authority
Disinform by obfuscation e.g. “climate is too complex for you”
These tactics are also at the heart of the mythical “Debunker’s Field Guide” used by corrupt governments, agencies and crime syndicates the world over. Back in 2007 CNN’s Anderson Cooper did an expose on the auto insurance industry use of Deny, Defend, and Delay:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/02/insurance-companies-fight-paying.html
The antidote? Pure sunlight. It gets brighter every day.
Diminish the importance of the accusations.
Deflect the issues. Blame the problem on the weather!!!
(Weather is NOT climate, remember?!)
Relegate the proof of malfeasance to one among many specious propositions.
Reconfirm the unusual nature of the accusations
(perfect storm…AGAIN with the weather!!)
Finally, discredit the accusers by comparing them to LHO, CT
I have scanned the original version of Broder’s article, as it appeared on the front page of the International Herald Tribune on Tuesday
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/the-climate-article-the-new-york-times-editors-did-not-want-you-to-see/
They actively stopped the article from going to the website, hatcheted it around, mixed it up, called at least two more interviewees, picked up Willis’ words…
Why did they feel compelled to do that? One can only guess. The main difference I can see is that in the original there was no word from GISS or the UGS, and there was instead plenty of prominence for Prof Curry. Overall, it was probably not of Joe Romm’s liking.
Not a Carbon Cow (20:54:17):
Why is it that you (and others) think what I do for a living (i.e. a climate scientist) is so distasteful (and not worthy of me defending it)?
Can you (or anyone else) find one single example of when I have hyped death and destruction from human GHG emissions?
Google away…
-Chip Knappenberger
Alexandra Skidmore
From your post, I suspect you do not operate in any of the fields of science. Could you confirm?
Ref – Alexandra Skidmore (08:37:41) :
“I can’t believe all the comments praising Willis Eschenbach. I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. My undergraduate students can write better and more clearly than he…”
_________________________________
I find your claim to be oximoronic. Undergrads can’t write better than anyone, and they haven’t in over 40 years.
PS: If you say anything about u-know-who he tends to respond with rather long dissertations. Be careful, you’re pushing the envelope.
A C Osborn (06:58:46) :
Interesting that every single item that you have quoted, except maybe (chapter 6), has been proved wrong by later research.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by “research.” I toss aside the self-published internet pages. There’s so much of that out there that you can find whatever you want to support your opinions; they do not count as scientific research. Maybe it does to you, but if it’s good enough for other scientists to accept, it’s good enough to be published. These have not been published in scientific journals.
By my calculation only two of your links reference actual scientific articles that resemble published research in scientific journals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
which reports on an article in Nature, a very well respected journal. I’m not sure you read it fully, because the article includes this: “The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.”
This, of course, only addresses future temperature rise. It does not address that past CO2 emissions are contributing to the greenhouse effect. For that, I turn to the other published article you cite:
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
(International Journal of Modern Physics B)
The abstract states: “The atmospheric greenhouse effect … essentially describes a fictitious mechanism.”
I’ve never heard of this journal and have no idea how the editors chose to publish it. But the abstract is fascinating and, if true, would turn science on its head. So the greenhouse effect is a lie? Well, if true, then you win and I give up — problem solved.
Unfortunately, it’s not true. I doubt very much that many (if any) scientists in the world will come to the defense of what I understand these authors to be writing here. In fact, Gerlich and Tscheuschner have already been refuted by Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society. You can find his paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
When Anthony Watts writes an article here that supports Gerlich and Tscheuschner (and can scientifically dismiss Smith’s findings), I’ll consider joining the denier camp. Until then, I’ll put this down as proven wrong and not supported by all the other research. That probably won’t convince you, but I’ve left Anthony an opening to return to this point and prove, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner assert, that there is no greenhouse effect.
Alexandra Skidmore (08:37:41)
Alexandra, assuming you are now done with the ad hominem attacks, do you have anything scientific to contribute?
You seem to think that the “credentials” of the author are what is important in science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientific truth written anonymously on a bathroom wall is still true. Ad hominem attacks by a PhD with graduate students are still meaningless.
Your focus on the person rather than the science doesn’t become you, Alexandra.
PS – if you had bothered to read the thread rather than foolishly jump in at the end you would have seen that I have posted my CV online, specifically so that ad hominuts like yourself would have something to chew on.
PPS – You say “How does he account for the uncommonly rapid melting of the polar ice caps?” The Arctic ice caps are recovering. The Antarctic ice caps have been increasing for years. Before uncapping your electronic pen to attack someone, you really should check your facts, otherwise you just look petulant …
Willis Eschenbach (10:54:57)
Alexandra, intrigued by this comment, I just went back and looked at my article on Darwin. All of the graphs looked complete to me. Which parts of which graphs were missing?
w.
Willis:
You are way more polite than I would be with Ms. Skidmore. She appears to be a mathematician – but I can find no recent publications nor any trace of her on any faculty currently. In any case, a PhD in Cimate Science and a string of articles would not make her comments more accurate.
Keep up the great work and the great tradition of basement and garage scientists.
Willis, don’t expect to hear from Ms Skidmore anytime soon. She’s likely having her undergrads craft her response.
SPO surely isn’t Big Oil, or Medium Oil, or even Little Oil. So it must be Baby Oil.
Herman L (10:31:41) :
You conveniently ignored my post, interesting.
What I posted was scientific research. Climate Change Reconsidered of which you so easily ignored because of who published it is an over 800 page report fully and extensively sourced to the scientific peer-reviewed literature.
“Unfortunately, it’s not true. I doubt very much that many (if any) scientists in the world will come to the defense of what I understand these authors to be writing here. In fact, Gerlich and Tscheuschner have already been refuted by Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society. You can find his paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf“
Arvix is not peer-reviewed but that has been refuted,
Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” (PDF)
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA… Gavin and the team are getting so desperate that they are all resorting to name calling
Since Herman likes to ignore posts, I will post it again,
Scientific literature that supports skepticism,
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
Refutation of the IPCC Report,
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF)
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Poptech – “http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf”
I would only add to your comment this way – Check and Mate!
Our only newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal continues to publish misinformation on man-made global warming. The latest OPED, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes,”March 4,2010. We have an obligation to remind the editors of newspapers that the “science is not settled” by opinions made on behalf of science. While the article is not worth the read, I would appreciate any comments about my reply to the Journal Editorial staff. Surely, there is a climate scientist within the Albuquerque area that could write an OPED explaining the current situation better than I. If you are out there, please write to the Journal.
Below is my response to the OPED. The author admits that she is not a scientist but she presents a group called the New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics. I wonder how she got that job. Jon Shively
In a recent Journal OPED piece, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes”, Eva Thaddeus made several statements that should not be left unchallenged. “It is not difficult to arrive at an informed opinion about this issue. It’s a question of knowing what sources to trust”. For those who are not educated in the physical sciences this would seem to be a valid principle to determine the truth, unless the scientific sources that serve as a basis for the opinions of professional scientific academies have been duped by a few science leaders in the field of climate research who faked the evidence to make it appear that global warming is caused by a particular mechanism, carbon dioxide. While is true that some professional scientific academies have endorsed the basis of global warming aggravated by the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently a significant number of academies have withdrawn their support for man-made global warming, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal Chemical Society to name three prominent science groups. Others have questioned whether the science is really “settled”. The question I ask is whom do you trust when professional societies have been compromised or duped by scientific leaders in climate research.
Scientific dishonesty in climate research has recently been revealed. In November 2009, a large number of e-mails were released or high jacked between the leaders in climate research at East Anglia University Research Center under Dr. Phil Jones and other prominent climate scientists in the US and UK. It is apparent from the e-mails that the scientists were less than straight forward. They were unwilling to share the data or the basis of their pronouncements with other scientists despite the fact that the university in under Freedom of Information law. More damaging to the credibility of climate research on global warming is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made several major errors their 2007 report, AR4, in predictions about the consequences of man-made global warming. One prediction is that the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035. It turns out that the prediction did not come as a result of scientific inquiry. Other predictions such as the disappearance of the rain forests in Brazil, droughts in Africa, rising sea water levels, and ice disappearance in the artic have also be tied to unreliable sources of scientific evidence. These errors have been summarized in an editorial by the UK Telegraph in “The Perfect Storm is Brewing for the IPCC”, by Christopher Booker. While small errors could be overlooked, the extent of the lack of scientific rigor combined with a lack of checking the validity of sources of evidence that the climate is warming due to carbon dioxide calls into question the validity of the whole IPCC report. In fact, Dr. Phil Jones who was asked to stand down as director of the CRU at East Anglia University because of the e-mails has now admitted that the planet has not gotten warmer since 1996 despite a significant increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also admitted that the planet was probably much warmer during the medieval warming period around 1000 CE than now. Finally, Dr. Rajendra Pachuari who is heads the IPCC has earned millions of dollars through his research institute TERI including 17 lucrative contacts with the EU.
Ms Thaddeus asks, “What mechanism would operate that could allow these people to work together to defraud the rest of us”? The answer is; self preservation. Research is funded by governments. Scientists are required to compete for the research funds to support their work at universities. However, in the last 20 years the vast majority of the government funds available for climate research from US, UK, and EU governments and private source have been limited to proving that carbon dioxide causes the climate to warm. By the way, funding for climate research from government agencies out paced the private sector by 100 to 1. Most of the industry funds, especially from the oil companies, actually went to support the governmental funded research. The skeptics are essentially unfunded.
Since Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the IPCC and governments have blamed the heating of the planet on combustion of carbon based fuels, especially from fossil fuel consumption by industrialized nations. To discourage the use of fossil fuels a system of carbon trading fees was established that are given to undeveloped nations by the industrialized nations and several EU governments have been paying these carbon trading dollars and have sought to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Naturally, those involved in trading stand to make a lot of money, i.e., Dr. Pachauri and Al Gore to name two. Thus what started out to be a scientific investigation of climate mechanisms that may explain some of the warming the planet has experienced since 1900, have become an industry and a culture of scientists only interested in self preservation. This sad result is that a culture has formed in the dominant, man-made climate, science community that cannot stand to be questioned and which vilifies skepticism. It has also created feeling of mistrust to the extent that a dialog between scientists on each side of the issue is extremely labored. The few skeptical scientists who did question the results have been chastised by politicians, media, and the “insider” scientists as a bunch of “deniers” and “flat earth” scientists.
Global climate science has significantly lost credibility along with the scientific organizations that endorsed the mechanism of global warming from the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now we can no longer trust the academies, the IPCC, and the government to speak candidly and honestly about what is known about anthropological global warming. Maybe the science on global warming was settled but it isn’t now. Science now says I don’t know!
Our newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal, has published another OPED that conveys misinformation about our skepticism of man-made global warming. The OPED is titled, Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes. I have drafted a response to the OPED. Note the author admits that she is not a scientist but she heads the NM Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics. She is a teacher.
If you happen to encounter this input under this issue at the late date, please comment on my response to the Journal OPED
In a recent Journal OPED piece, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes”, Eva Thaddeus made several statements that should not be left unchallenged. “It is not difficult to arrive at an informed opinion about this issue. It’s a question of knowing what sources to trust”. For those who are not educated in the physical sciences this would seem to be a valid principle to determine the truth, unless the scientific sources that serve as a basis for the opinions of professional scientific academies have been duped by a few science leaders in the field of climate research who faked the evidence to make it appear that global warming is caused by a particular mechanism, carbon dioxide. While is true that some professional scientific academies have endorsed the basis of global warming aggravated by the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently a significant number of academies have withdrawn their support for man-made global warming, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal Chemical Society to name three prominent science groups. Others have questioned whether the science is really “settled”. The question I ask is whom do you trust when professional societies have been compromised or duped by scientific leaders in climate research.
Scientific dishonesty in climate research has recently been revealed. In November 2009, a large number of e-mails were released or high jacked between the leaders in climate research at East Anglia University Research Center under Dr. Phil Jones and other prominent climate scientists in the US and UK. It is apparent from the e-mails that the scientists were less than straight forward. They were unwilling to share the data or the basis of their pronouncements with other scientists despite the fact that the university in under Freedom of Information law. More damaging to the credibility of climate research on global warming is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made several major errors their 2007 report, AR4 in their predictions about the consequences of man-made global warming. One prediction is the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035. It turns out that the prediction did not come as a result of scientific inquiry. Other predictions such as the disappearance of the rain forests in Brazil, droughts in Africa, rising sea water levels, and ice disappearance in the artic have also be tied to unreliable sources of scientific evidence These errors have been summarized in an editorial by the Telegraph in the UK, “The Perfect Storm is Brewing for the IPCC”, by Christopher Booker. While small errors could be overlooked, the extent of the lack of scientific rigor combined with a lack of checking the scientific validity of sources of evidence that the climate is warming due to carbon dioxide calls into question the validity of the IPCC report. In fact Dr. Phil Jones was asked to stand down as director of the CRU at East Anglia University because of the e-mails and has now admitted that the planet has not gotten warmer since 1996 despite a significant increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also admitted that the planet was probably much warmer during the medieval warming period around 1000 CE than now Finally, Dr. Rajendra Pachuari who is heads the IPCC has earned millions of pounds through his research institute TERI including 17 lucrative contacts with the EU.
Ms Thaddeus asks, “What mechanism would operate that could allow these people to work together to defraud the rest of us”? The answer is self preservation. Research is funded by governments. Scientists are required to compete for the research funds to support their work at universities. However, in the last 15 years vast majority of the government funds available for climate research from US, UK, and EU governments have been limited to proving that carbon dioxide causes the climate to warm. By the way, funding for climate research from government agencies out paced the private sector by 100 to 1. Most of the industry funds, especially from the oil companies, actually went to support the governmental funded research. The skeptics are essentially unfunded.
Since Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the IPCC and governments have blamed the heating of the planet on combustion of carbon based fuels, especially from fossil fuel consumption by industrialized nations. To discourage the use of fossil fuels a system of carbon trading fees was established that are given to undeveloped nations by the industrialized nations and several EU governments have been paying these carbon trading dollars and have sought to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Naturally, those involved in trading stand to make a lot of money, i.e., Dr. Pachauri and Al Gore to name two. Thus what started out to be a scientific investigation of climate mechanisms that may explain some of the warming the planet has experienced since 1900, have become an carbon industry and a culture of scientists only interested in self preservation. This sad result has generated a culture has in the dominant, man-made climate, science community that cannot stand to be questioned and which vilifies skeptics. It has also created feeling of mistrust to the extent that a dialog between scientists on each side of the issue is extremely labored. The few skeptical scientists early on who did question the results have been chastised by politicians, media, and the “insider” scientists as a bunch of “deniers” and “flat earth” scientists.
Global climate science has significantly lost credibility along with the scientific organizations that endorsed the mechanism of global warming from the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now we can no longer trust the academies, the IPCC, and the government to speak candidly and honestly about what is known about anthropological global warming. Maybe the science on global warming was settled, but it isn’t now. Science now says I don’t know!
Taipei update on yesterday’s 6.4 southern Taiwan earthquake.
None of my friends and family in southern Taiwan were impacted by it. But my feeling do out to those who were hurt.
The earthquake levels in Taipei [northern end of Taiwan] were quite moderate and there was not much potential for damage up north here. I blogged here on WUWT right through them with losing a keystroke, just a higher number of spell-check/grammar errors.
John in Taipei
Herman L (09:57:07): You wrote, “I have been asking for more than two years for a scientific rebuttal from the ‘deniers’ to the 900 pages of the IPCC FAR Working Group One report. No one has produced one.”
I’ve illustrated in three posts how the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955 has been driven by natural variables (ENSO, AMOC, NAO, NPI) not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases. Here are the links:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
I’ve also shown that the rise in Global SST and TLT anomalies during the satellite era are responses to ENSO events and not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases. Here are those links:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
I’ve shown how and why the IPCC GCMs use outdated TSI data when they attempt to reproduce the 20th Century rise in global temperatures:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
And I’ve illustrated how climate scientists misrepresent the impacts of ENSO:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-studies-misrepresent-effects-of.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/multiple-wrongs-dont-make-right.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/regression-analyses-do-not-capture.html
While I could understand how you might’ve missed those posts at my website, many of them were also co-posted here at WUWT. Just enter my name into the WUWT search above and you’ll find them and other posts discussing similar topics.
BTW: I’m a skeptic, not a denier. I understand the Earth has warmed and will be happy to use data to illustrate why. One simply has to break the data down into subsets.
Poptech (17:25:47) :
Since Herman likes to ignore posts, I will post it again,
No, Herman has a paying job that takes time away from this. I will respond later …
Did Herman evaporate or did he really think that there was no scientific rebuttal to the IPCC?
Poptech (17:25:47) :
Since Herman likes to ignore posts, I will post it again,
Scientific literature that supports skepticism
I have not been ignoring posts. As I stated elsewhere, I do not have all the time in the world to respond to everything. Also, Anthony has put me in the “penalty box” which causes a delay (and sometimes outright omission) in my posts. Ask him to remove it.
I only have time now for some responses, so I will start at the top.
The title of the webpage you cite is “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming.” First, you’re saying “Scientific literature that supports skepticism,” not “denying the existing of AGW” — right? Are you skeptical of some recent scientific findings regarding climate change, as all scientists are, or do you deny AGW entirely? I don’t know which you purport to claim with this list, because the two are very different. And if you’re “skeptical” of some scientific findings, my question is: which scientific findings specifically? Do you want to go all the way back and deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper claims? Where in the scientific findings do you draw the line?
I’ll turn to the list you cite, which has numerous problems that lead me to question how the author compiled it.
For example, the abstract for one of the papers in the list reads: “This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source.” Whatever the paper is trying to demonstrate, it’s not denying AGW.
However, here some problems with the list you cite:
Many not scientific papers
As a prime example, the list includes “A scientific agenda for climate policy?” It is a Commentary by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. A commentary is not a scientific paper.
There are papers, but not related to climate science
A perfect example is “When scientists politicize science” by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. This is a social science paper, having nothing to do with the natural sciences.
Many not peer reviewed
There are ninty (90) papers from Energy & Environment, which is a trade journal, not a peer reviewed scientific journal listed by the Institute for Scientific Information.
Some are not “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming”
Two examples here:
“Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World”
The abstract reads: “Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. … Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.”
In this case, the authors clearly recognize that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. In reading this abstract, I do not understand why someone would classify this paper as supporting “skepticism.”
Similarly, another paper:
“Cold–an underrated risk factor for health”
The abstract reads: “The strong indirect epidemiological evidence coupling cold climate to mortality may be related to indoor rather than outdoor climatic conditions.” Reading the abstract one realizes it says nothing about climate change, much less AGW. I have no idea why it was included in the list.
These points I raise — non-science papers, non peer-reviewed articles, abstracts that do not support the claims of the person who compiled the list — lead me to question the relevence of the entire list. I’d like the author of the list to come forward and defend his definitions of “peer-reviewed” and “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming” against the points I’ve raised, because I have no idea what he means by that based on my reading of the material in the list.
Sure, I’m sure you can find some papers that are in support of your arguments. However, the point I make is that the IPCC reference list was used by the IPCC authors to produce their report. I’ve put the two together: 5000 peer-reviewed papers and a comprehensive report based on those papers. What comprehensive report is based on this list of papers? I bet there isn’t one.
That’s all I have time for now. More later …