Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

1. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely assumed why his papers and his father's were listed, "Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers..."

Papers can be listed for two reasons,

(1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)

(2) They support skeptic arguments against Alarmism defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." (Not defined or mentioned by him)

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

And completely refuted: Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

You are not even reading what is posted. The debate with Roger Pielke Jr. was in relation to the list of 1350+ peer-reviewed papers not the 97% consensus as was posted.

This was not ignored, it was just not addressed in that post. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

The refutations are listed chronologically. "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor". Energy & Environment is indexed in the ISI and cited 28 times in the IPCC reports. While the editor admitted no such thing as you are distorting the context of what she said, "My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom." - Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Editor, Energy & Environment). Only 2 of those 13 authors are the same and it is completely valid for someone who states an objection on a paper to submit a comment for peer-review as that is how scholarly papers are challenged. Attempting to misrepresent and hand-wave away these published criticisms is again misleading and intellectually dishonest. They are not simply "nit-picking" but criticizing the papers for completely misrepresenting the actual positions of scientists on this issue.

This is incorrect, our site is politically independent not conservative. We do not say the paper is unreliable the scientists who had their papers misclassified did. And it is not 7 out of 11,944 as Cook et al. was not counting authors but papers. Any error rate on such a study is completely unacceptable since it shows their methodology to be fatally flawed and their conclusions worthless. Correction, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 papers (66%) held no position. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. None of the disagreements were erroneous as all those authors except Dr. Tol are well known skeptics. Claiming that any of these skeptic papers are part of a "consensus" on AGW is not only misleading by intellectually dishonest. Is your intent to mislead people?

You were right the first time. Muller was never a skeptic. It is impossible to call yourself a skeptic and make this statement,

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

Muller explicitly stated that he was not a skeptic,

"I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419

No skeptic has ever made comments like these,

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

Incorrect, this is in the article. His criticism of the Hockey Stick did not change his position on climate change,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming".

He was never universally regarded as a skeptic despite the cartoonist's website desperate attempts to make him out to be one. You cannot find a single comment or article from him on any skeptic site and you will not find any statement that he signed being skeptical of anything.

Lomborg's position has never changed,

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1540-bjorn-lomborg-u-turn-on-global-warming-hardly.html

"After years of being accused of believing something I didn't believe—or, more accurately, not believing something I really did—I made headlines last month for changing my mind even though I hadn't. Confused? Imagine how I feel."

Please get your facts straight.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism...