Report: 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Poptech · 2012-05-21T10:17:50.127990+00:00

... Dickenson is absolutely confused about the context.

Right, and you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - know better than the authors of the peer-reviewed paper - priceless :)

scpg02 · 2012-05-21T10:07:14.663657+00:00

Not the same John O’Sullivan, but definitely another guy that has no clue about climate science (or science in general) and which is clearly fabricating sensationalist stuff - again, here is the nature link which has no reference to Hansen or climate - but obviously Heartland operatives don't care very much about facts:

http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2012-05-20T21:41:00.422904+00:00

Very good suggestion - I added it at:

http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/twhvp/surprisesurprise_peter_gleick_cleared_of_forging/

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2012-05-20T21:38:30.771731+00:00

Even more surprising - I learned about it in /r/climateskeptics - where there are some other very interesting denial topics under intense debate :)

Poptech · 2012-05-20T21:27:45.747880+00:00

Of course this is for debate - on one side we have the non-peer-reviewed opinion of some stupid blogger with no scientific record claiming to know better what a study means than the two climate scientists that are authors of the peer-reviewed papers that he cites as support for his delusional claims, and on the other side we have the actual authors which are on record saying:

After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

It is as simple as that - everything that you claim on the internet is just your stupid opinion, and in this case between your very stupid opinion and the informed opinion of the two climate scientists that are authors of that paper - I just trust a huge lot more the two professors!

scpg02 · 2012-05-20T21:15:46.718472+00:00

That johnosullivan guy (definitely no scientist - is he the British conservative political commentator and journalist which is editor at National Review?) and the submitter of this story must be both very stupid (and must believe everybody is just as stupid as them and that nobody will check their claims and their links) - the article in Nature does not even mention Hansen or climate, so everything in this story must be another Heartland institute fabrication - here is the Nature article, see for yourself:

http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600

Poptech · 2012-05-20T21:04:19.639950+00:00

Prove me wrong quote the frickin paper!!!

If it was my word against the word of Poptech/Alyssa that would be a reasonable request - but that is not the case here!

Here we have you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - claiming to know better what a study means than the two climate scientists that are authors of the peer-reviewed papers that you cite as support for your delusional claims, scientists which are on record saying:

After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

Poptech · 2012-05-20T20:46:17.934594+00:00

On one side we have you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - claiming that:

Their paper says no such thing. ...

On the other side we have Professor Dickerson on record with Professor Pielke Jr. standing behind him as saying:

... Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

For me is case closed - you are delusional in believing you know better than those climate scientists what their own paper means, and just as those two said - the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

Poptech · 2012-05-20T20:31:53.368014+00:00

Oh, so you now answer for AlyssaMoore? Is that just a pseudonym behind which we find the Poptech guy?

The story is now very clear - one of the actual authors of the peer-reviewed paper decided to remain on record saying:

... Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

The other author published those precise words without any rebuttal or comment (after also previously saying himself "...as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.", which also was left on record) - so it definitely is case closed - the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

(and as the "cherry on top" - you also try to suggest (against all the clear evidence on record) that you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - know better than those two authors of the actual paper what that peer-reviewed study means).

Poptech · 2012-05-20T20:20:50.496161+00:00

The story is now very clear - one of the actual authors of the peer-reviewed paper decided to remain on record saying:

... Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

The other author published those precise words without any rebuttal or comment (after also previously saying himself "...as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.", which also was left on record) - so it definitely is case closed - the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

(and as the "cherry on top" - you also try to suggest (against all the clear evidence on record) that you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - know better than those two authors of the actual paper what that peer-reviewed study means).

kokey · 2012-05-20T20:10:05.928831+00:00

You must be joking - so we already knew with certainty that all but one of the documents were 100% real, and now we know that the damning memo was not written by Gleick? And that Gleick was most likely right all along? And I hear about that surprising turn of events right here and not on the Greenpeace site? Oh, reality can be so ironic sometimes :)

Poptech · 2012-05-20T19:59:55.359581+00:00

The blog post written by Pielke Jr is called Better Recheck That List and contains the very explicit words "...as their list doesn't represent what they think it does."

The only update that Pielke Jr made to that post seem to be one from his co-author of one specific paper, which explicitly is saying (and as long as Pielke quoted that on his blog and made no further comment to it I am pretty convinced it has to be his position too):

"After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

Poptech · 2012-05-20T19:38:29.581217+00:00

Sorry, I don't really care about your claims and rationalization, the facts that we have are that we only know of 3 reputable climate scientists that have looked to your list and have found 22 of their papers in the list and explicitly requested for their papers to be removed from the list - it is your right to keep the papers on the list but it is my right to conclude - just like the above climate scientists - that the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

Poptech · 2012-05-20T19:21:57.243022+00:00

So you are actually saying that the only 3 climate scientists that so far have looked at your list have found their 22 papers as being misrepresented and requested those papers to be removed from that list?

I am now more and more convinced that the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

Poptech · 2012-05-20T19:05:35.714585+00:00

All of the Pielke's papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).

Nice try, but Pielke Jr is saying (I took the liberty of making the relevant parts in bold):

"After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

Given that context you seem to claim that you - some stupid blogger with no scientific record - know the meaning of a number of peer-reviewed papers authored by Pielke Jr and Sr better than the authors of those papers - something I am really skeptic of, and as such I can only reach the same conclusion as those scientists - the content of your blog/site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading!

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2012-05-20T18:54:28.706411+00:00

Weather does not equal climate.

Thinkprogress.org do not make any claim that climate and weather are equal, they are just reporting facts provided by NASA.

Do you have anything to comment on those facts or are you trolling again? Are you a covered operative trying to distract the attention from those facts? Or do you claim that you know more about that data than the engineers and scientists from NASA?

Poptech · 2012-05-20T18:44:15.077227+00:00

I do it because I am skeptical ...

Nothing like that could be seen in your stupid posts - we were commenting about a list of papers that allegedly are disproving the scientific consensus on AGW, and you have not raised one single point on that subject, which leaves you with very few alternatives - are you trolling, are you a covered operative trying to distract attention from this topic or do you claim to know better that Pielke Jr + Sr what their papers mean? Or can you make any scientific point relevant to that topic? Since I see no other satisfactory explanation to your posts in this topic!

Poptech · 2012-05-20T17:25:44.350900+00:00

You are definitely not addressing the points made there in regard to this list, so what is your point? Are you trolling or you are just some Heartland operative jumping to cover for another Heartland operative that was exposed?

And more important - are you now claiming that you or some stupid internet guy (now that kokey decided that stupid is perfectly OK I am going to use it a lot more) know better than Pielke Jr + Sr about climate and about peer-reviewed papers that are written by Pielke Jr + Sr?

Or do you deny that the authors of those peer-reviewed papers have said:

"After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

Poptech · 1 day

I see that Pielke Jr. (and Sr.) papers are still listed, in spite of those two authors being very clear that the blogger is either stupid and does not understand what their papers say, or is just another Heartland disguised operative interested in spreading lies and misinformation:

"After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

Also see:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/

ItsJustAConspiracy

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login