The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-24-2010, 06:25 PM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Do Peer-Reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm?

Proponents of government action to regulate CO2 all in the name of preventing a "man-made" global warming "catastrophe" will declare that no peer-reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm. I argue this is not true,

750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

Quote:
The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of "man-made" global warming. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers.

Last edited by Miller; 07-02-2010 at 11:17 PM.. Reason: Poptech was never going to give us up
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-24-2010, 06:35 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,259
The bold font is what convinced me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-24-2010, 06:38 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Poptech, you embarrassed yourself and the whole of AGW skepticism in this thread, and this one . . . Why do you keep trying?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-24-2010, 06:42 PM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Poptech, you embarrassed yourself and the whole of AGW skepticism in ...
Not at all, now anything relevant to say to the discussion?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-24-2010, 06:57 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" do not equal "skepticism".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-24-2010, 07:01 PM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" do not equal "skepticism".
Your point? They are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count and are included as references in defense of various papers.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-24-2010, 11:07 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,401
Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-24-2010, 11:18 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 14,508
If I look at the tests for the speed of light and spot an error that prevents them from measuring things quite as they intended to, does this mean that there is skepticism about whether light travels?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-24-2010, 11:27 PM
Squink Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
What's "man made global warming alarm" and where can I get some?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-25-2010, 02:24 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 14,618
Oh, Hastur, Energy and Environment? Do we need to do this again? It's a paid-for oilrag.
Climate Research? Yeah, they're famous for their editorial impartiality

Last edited by MrDibble; 06-25-2010 at 02:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-25-2010, 02:37 AM
Superhal Superhal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
All good research papers criticize themselves. It's part of the process. If they don't look at the weaknesses in their own research, it likely wouldn't pass peer review.

Simply criticizing research about X doesn't mean the findings are wrong.

Example: I do a study on the addictive effects of smoking on children, and I point out that I only used non-menthol cigarettes. I should mention that menthol cigarettes may have a different results, but this criticism doesn't necessarily mean that my findings (cigarettes are addictive to children) is wrong.

Last edited by Superhal; 06-25-2010 at 02:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-25-2010, 04:56 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Peer review means fuck all, and I wish people would shut up about it. Every time some global warming skeptic harps up about "peer reviewed papers" it makes me cringe. It's just there to stop stupid errors, ensure a basic level of scholarship and make sure everybody is referencing the right papers (usually the referee's papers, it has to be said). Getting a paper into a reviewed journal isn't a major feat, and it sure as hell doesn't make it correct. Getting your paper's contributions accepted as scientific orthodoxy is the major feat.

What matters is the consensus of the scientific community. That consensus is overwhelmingly in support of the anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy. So, yes, it may be the case that a tiny percentage of peer reviewed papers support AGW skepticism. But, so the fuck what?

Last edited by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party; 06-25-2010 at 04:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-25-2010, 06:14 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 19,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
What matters is the consensus of the scientific community.
Consensus doesn't mean squat; proof is all.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-25-2010, 06:51 AM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Consensus doesn't mean squat; proof is all.
That's true, but I suppose for us types who don't understand the science fully, or the statistics, or whatever, consensus is really one of the only ways of knowing where the proof might lie. It's certainly not a necessarily good method, but it doesn't mean squat.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-25-2010, 06:52 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Oh, Hastur, Energy and Environment? Do we need to do this again? It's a paid-for oilrag.
Climate Research? Yeah, they're famous for their editorial impartiality
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X). Both editors are from universities and they receive no funding from energy companies.

Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X). There is no problem with their editorial policy and have standard peer-review practices. The papers in question actually were sent to 4-5 reviewers as opposed to just 3.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-25-2010, 06:55 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squink View Post
What's "man made global warming alarm" and where can I get some?
Here

Last edited by Miller; 07-02-2010 at 11:36 PM.. Reason: Poptech was never going to let us down
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-25-2010, 07:14 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Consensus doesn't mean squat; proof is all.
In science, consensus means everything. Science is not mathematics. There is no proof, when it comes to science. Besides, consensus just reflects the body of evidence. So you can stitch together a list of 750 dubious articles on AGW. So what? About 750 articles on the subject get published on it every few months. It means nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-25-2010, 07:44 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
So you can stitch together a list of 750 dubious articles on AGW. So what?
There is nothing dubious about them, they are all peer-reviewed contrary to a common misconception that these papers do not exist, as noted by a commenter at RealClimate.org,

Quote:
"I canít tell you how many times Iíve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. Itís one thing to engage and refute. But itís not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., comment at RealClimate.org
So there is your reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
About 750 articles on the subject get published on it every few months. It means nothing.
Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-25-2010, 07:55 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Nothing dubious about them? Are you shitting me? The first couple on your list are from a journal called "Energy and the Environment", apparently an interdisciplinary journal about energy production and usage. Further down, there's papers appearing in the "Electricity Journal" and some others in the "Journal of Iron and Steel Technology".

You couldn't have put together a weaker list if you had tried. Again, the root of this problem are rank amateurs like you latching onto the idea of "peer review", knowing absolutely fuck all about how science works. It isn't enough to point to a list with a couple hundred papers of dubious origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech
Yes that many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.
Really? What does "AGW theory" mean? Why don't you put some figures together to show us how few endorse "AGW theory"?

Last edited by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party; 06-25-2010 at 07:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:02 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
Nothing dubious about them? Are you shitting me? The first couple on your list are from a journal called "Energy and the Environment", apparently an interdisciplinary journal about energy production and usage. Further down, there's papers appearing in the Electicity Journal and some others in the journal of Iron and Steel technology.
All papers from Energy & Environment were peer-reviewed,

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and WorldCat
- Found at 47 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 81 in electronic form.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (XLS)

It is an interdisciplinary journal about energy and environmental concerns.


The four papers from the Electricity Journal were peer-reviewed,

The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1040-6190)
- EBSCO lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
- ProQuest lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal


The one paper from Iron and Steel Technology is peer-reviewed,

Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)

"Iron & Steel Technology readers will find timely peer-reviewed articles"

[[LIST OF JOURNALS REMOVED]]

Journal Count: 216 - All peer-reviewed.

Last edited by Miller; 07-02-2010 at 11:36 PM.. Reason: Poptech was never going to run around and desert us
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:07 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,322
Moderating

To reiterate an earlier post, Poptech:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?
I am also shortening the list of journals in your last post. I've told you before about trying to win arguments by posting ridiculously long lists.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:09 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003


You typed all that in 7 minutes? Or do you have it laying around somewhere ready to copy and paste? Presumably the latter, as it essentially ignores what I said in my last post.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:10 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
Really? What does "AGW theory" mean? Why don't you put some figures together to show us how few endorse "AGW theory"?
There are only 101 results (all may not be peer-reviewed, I checked there are books and editorials in there) in Google Scholar for 2010 that even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming". That is an average of only 16-17 a month that even mention the word, which does not mean "explicitly endorses". Your assumption has been disproven.

Last edited by Miller; 07-02-2010 at 11:37 PM.. Reason: Poptech was never going to make us cry
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:10 AM
njtt njtt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Consensus doesn't mean squat; proof is all.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as incontrovertible proof in matters of science (in math and logic, maybe, but even that is arguable). Informed consensus is what determines scientific "truth." (It may not be ideal, but it is by far the best we have got, or are ever likely to get.) An alleged proof is worth noting, unless it is accepted by the relevant scientific community.

ETA: I see Capt Ridley's party beat me me to it.

Last edited by njtt; 06-25-2010 at 08:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:11 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post


You typed all that in 7 minutes? Or do you have it laying around somewhere ready to copy and paste? Presumably the latter, as it essentially ignores what I said in my last post.
It is at the bottom of the list in the notes (which you apparently did not read).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:20 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Poptech, just what is your relationship to the web site to which you link in the OP?
I helped compile the list, you do not allow long posts of papers so I assumed a link was more appropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:20 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---NAME REMOVED--- aka Poptech, infamous shill
There are only 101 results (all may not be peer-reviewed, I checked there are books and editorials in there) in Google Scholar for 2010 that even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming". That is an average of only 16-17 a month that even mention the word, which does not mean "explicitly endorses". Your assumption has been disproven.


You used Google Scholar! Deary me.

Are you still regurgitating the Firefox myths list around the Internet? How many discussion boards have you been banned from now?

Last edited by Marley23; 06-25-2010 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:25 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,322
Modding

Capt. Riddley's Shooting Party, insults like "shill" aren't allowed in Great Debates. Using the quote function that way isn't a good idea either. Please don't do this again.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:27 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
You used Google Scholar! Deary me.
Google Scholar results are inflated due to non-peer-reviewed sources (does not help you) but it more than sufficiently indexes one of the largest if not the largest amount of peer-reviewed journals.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:31 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Capt. Riddley's Shooting Party, insults like "shill" aren't allowed in Great Debates. Using the quote function that way isn't a good idea either. Please don't do this again.
In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known "AGW-hoax advocate" (for lack of a better word ) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.

He's also infamous for having compiled a list of "Firefox myths", setting up multiple blogs under different names, and spreading the list all over the Internet. As a result, he's banned from multiple discussion boards due to his inability to debate with any sort of integrity. Notice even now how he just keeps repeating the "peer reviewed" line over and over, without actually responding to anything people are saying.

Last edited by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party; 06-25-2010 at 08:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:32 AM
njtt njtt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
The four papers from the Electricity Journal were peer-reviewed,

The one paper from Iron and Steel Technology is peer-reviewed,
Yeah, peer reviewed by "peers" who have some expertise on electricity and on iron and steel technology respectively, not experts on climate science. The very fact that papers concerned with climate are getting published in journals with a totally different remit is a pretty good indicator that these papers are crap that could not get published in any proper climate science journal.

(It also raises a red flag suggesting that Electricity Journal and Iron and Steel Technology may well be bottom feeding journals even within their own areas. It rather looks as though they may be publishing crappy papers on climate because they can't get enough decent stuff on electricity and on iron and steel technology to fill up their pages; either that, or else the guy with the otherwise unpublishable paper on climate is the editor's brother-in-law or something.)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:32 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X). Both editors are from universities and they receive no funding from energy companies.
SourceWatch:

Quote:
The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X).
Yes, but:

Quote:
In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[5] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[6]. Concerns over the peer review of this paper led to a revolt by the editorial staff of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.
See also Soon and Baliunas controversy.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:36 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known "AGW-hoax advocate" (for lack of a better word) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.
This is not true. I do not advocate any "hoax". I also do not spam any forums, I have replied in criticism to the list where misinformation was stated. An older version of this list was originally posted in these forums by another user (not me), it seemed to generate an interesting debate so I have provided the update for this reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
He's also infamous for having compiled a list of "Firefox myths", setting up multiple blogs under different names, and spreading the list all over the Internet.
This is not true.

I am not sure why you have resorted to attacking me and not the list.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:42 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,322
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
In this case, it is not an insult, rather an accurate description of his profession. He is a well-known "AGW-hoax advocate" (for lack of a better word ) who continually spams Internet forums with links to his website. See the comments here for a discussion, for instance.
Then go ahead and attack his posts or discuss his behavior without the name calling. Meanwhile I see that you also posted Poptech's IRL name. As far as I'm concerned that's a jerk move, and a punitive and unnecessary thing to do. So I'm escalating my note a formal warning. Don't do this again.

EDIT: Poptech says the name that was posted is not his real name, so the warning is rescinded.

Last edited by Marley23; 06-25-2010 at 09:14 AM.. Reason: reversed warning
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:42 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech
I am not sure why you have resorted to attacking me and not the list.
The list is a joke. I've already explained it to you. Citing climate papers published in journals on iron and electricity reveals your whole argument to be built on a pillar of sand.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:43 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
Yeah, peer reviewed by "peers" who have some expertise on electricity and on iron and steel technology respectively, not experts on climate science.
That is not how the peer-review process works. When a paper goes out for review in any peer-reviewed journal, standard practice is to send it to appropriate reviewers, thus climate related papers will get reviewed by climate scientists no matter the journal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
The very fact that papers concerned with climate are getting published in journals with a totally different remit is a pretty good indicator that these papers are crap that could not get published in any proper climate science journal.
There are an extensive number of climate related journals listed yet all the papers are still peer-reviewed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
(It also raises a red flag suggesting that Electricity Journal and Iron and Steel Technology may well be bottom feeding journals even within their own areas. It rather looks as though they may be publishing crappy papers on climate because they can't get enough decent stuff on electricity and on iron and steel technology to fill up their pages; either that, or else the guy with the otherwise unpublishable paper on climate is the editor's brother-in-law or something.)
It can also mean that the scientist publishing to them is a regular publisher and felt more comfortable doing so. The paper from Iron and Steel technology was directly addressed to steelmakers as a review paper of the science. There are five papers on the list from these two journals. No need to ignore the rest of the 750+ peer-reviewed papers.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:54 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech
That is not how the peer-review process works. When a paper goes out for review in any peer-reviewed journal, standard practice is to send it to appropriate reviewers, thus climate related papers will get reviewed by climate scientists no matter the journal.
It's how the process works in reputable journals. For journals whose only purpose is to be a home for cranks like E&E, not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:58 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
SourceWatch:
Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
Quote:
These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.
- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
Quote:
An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
- Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)
Quote:
The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouceWatch
The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.
Energy & Environment is an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen considers herself a climate change agnostic.

"As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic." - Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouceWatch
Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouceWatch
Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.
Stephen Schneider is not a "wide" criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[5] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[6]. Concerns over the peer review of this paper led to a revolt by the editorial staff of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.
This paper was sent to 5 reviewers as opposed to the standard 3, none of which were skeptics. All were reputable paleoclimatologists. One editor von Storch got in a huff over the paper and even after being offered the job as chief editor of the journal resigned and got his friends on the board to go with him. The conclusions of the paper were later confirmed in a reappraisal,

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates

Last edited by Miller; 07-02-2010 at 11:37 PM.. Reason: Poptech was never going to say goodbye
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:59 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Meanwhile I see that you also posted Poptech's IRL name. As far as I'm concerned that's a jerk move, and a punitive and unnecessary thing to do. So I'm escalating my note a formal warning. Don't do this again.


Your call, of course; but I formally register dissent on that point. Any Doper doing what Poptech apparently has been doing here and elsewhere deserves to be outed by any means available.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
The list is a joke. I've already explained it to you. Citing climate papers published in journals on iron and electricity reveals your whole argument to be built on a pillar of sand.
All the papers listed are peer-reviewed. Your choice to cherry pick the 5 papers on the list from these two journals is meaningless, since even removing them would leave over 750 papers. There is a Journal citation list at the bottom of the page that includes 216 journals.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:03 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Just keep repeating that line about the papers being peer reviewed, Poptech.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:03 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Then go ahead and attack his posts or discuss his behavior without the name calling. Meanwhile I see that you also posted Poptech's IRL name. As far as I'm concerned that's a jerk move, and a punitive and unnecessary thing to do. So I'm escalating my note a formal warning. Don't do this again.
The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:06 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
It's how the process works in reputable journals. For journals whose only purpose is to be a home for cranks like E&E, not so much.
E&E's peer-review process uses standard practices and sends climate related papers to climate scientists. This has been confirmed by the publisher, editor and authors of the papers.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:08 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.
You didn't think it was necessary to disclose this to me when I contacted you about your name being posted?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:09 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
You didn't think it was necessary to disclose this to me when I contacted you about your name being posted?
I did not know it would be discussed in the forums, my apologizes.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:09 AM
Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech
The only problem is it was not my real name but one put out by Firefox fanboys in an attempt to link me to Islamic extremists. I have never listed my IRL name online anywhere and never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech
On Firefox myths.
This is not true.
So which part wasn't true?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:17 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
So which part wasn't true?
This,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party View Post
...setting up multiple blogs under different names, and spreading the list all over the Internet. As a result, he's banned from multiple discussion boards due to his inability to debate with any sort of integrity.
I have not set up multiple blogs to spread anything all over the Internet (outside of a submission to sites like Digg). I always debate with integrity and do not engage in this sort of witch hunt on a poster.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:25 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,322
Modding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
I did not know it would be discussed in the forums, my apologizes.
I've reversed the warning, then. I hope I don't have to moderate any more of this ridiculousness.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:28 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
If we're talking about the relative credibility of sources -- and that's what this whole thread is really about, not any substantive scientific debate -- then you will never do your case any good by citing DiscoverTheNetworks. David Horowitz is a pure-D crank, even RWs should know that. As for DiscoverTheNetworks, SourceWatch has it sussed:

Quote:
DiscoverTheNetworks (DTN) is a database/search website meant to track "the left" and terrorists, with an implicit connection between the two, with some similarities to SourceWatch. It is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. DiscoverTheNetworks was launched on February 15, 2005, but Horowitz claims it was two-years under development. The About Us section explains, DTN:

Quote:
is a "Guide to the Political Left." It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.
It continues:

Quote:
By browsing this database, and familiarizing oneself with the agendas of the individuals and organizations it contains, with the scope of their activities and with the tens of millions of dollars available to support them, a user of this base will find ample evidence for the existence of this left and for the fact that it is a major player in the political destinies of the nation. (See in particular the organizations and individuals associated with ANTI-WAR groups and The Shadow Party.)
The movement to protest the war in Iraq reconfigured the presidential campaign of 2004 and has affected American policy not only in Iraq but in the War on Terror generally. It has changed the face of the Democratic Party and of American politics in general. What is the nature of this '??anti-war'?Ě movement, who are its leaders, and what are its agendas? The scope and features of this database allow for definitive answers to these questions.
...The database also provides group profiles of the organizations engaged in organizing opposition to the Patriot Act, as well as to frontline homeland security defenses such as border control (GROUPS/IMMIGRATION) and the linkages between them. Following the network of these organizations and individuals through the base reveals that they have agendas and perspectives that range far beyond the legal issues themselves and are rooted in their radical opposition to the American status quo. These agendas are anti-corporate and socialist.[1]
DTN copies the Campus Watch formula, but is applied to the broader political movement, as the About Us section explains:

Quote:
Other concerns are certain to be raised that we will not regard as legitimate but rather as veiled expressions of distress over the factual information revealed on the site. A cry of such distress has already greeted a perfectly reasonable database called Campus Watch, provided by the Middle East Forum. This site records and analyzes the views of leftwing academics concerning terrorism in the Islamic world, views that can fairly be described as apologetic and even sympathetic to the radical Islamist cause. Critics of Campus Watch, many of them with views identical to those reviewed on the site, have claimed that the very enterprise of posting such critical reviews is '??McCarthyism'?Ě and an Internet '??witch-hunt'.?Ě Such responses reflect an anti-intellectual attitude that seeks to embargo the political debate before it takes place.[2]
Overall, DTN is a Smear Portal on academics, journalists, and activists on the left. It is a website where all the smears and red baiting that can be found in FrontPageMag, Campus Watch, and similar-ilk-organizations are put under one roof for "research"

<snip>

Smear Portal

The DTN website contains a section on individuals, and states: "This section examines activists for leftwing agendas and causes, radical egalitarians, and opponents of American 'imperialism' "[3]. It applies a smearing by association to the well known "leftists". Namely, DTN provides a list of leftists and intersperses the names/photos of demonized "terrorists" or people the neo-cons love to hate. For example, the first person on the list is "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" (a demonized terrorist) and next to him is Al Sharpton. It continues, Dennis Kucinich, Fidel Castro, George Soros, Harold Ickes, Howard Dean, Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson, Jim McDermott, etc. Guilt by association is implied, but there isn'??t any association between many of the people on the list. The only thing that is attempted here is to smear some of the individuals involved, implying that there is an association with unsavory terrorists - although they forgot to add OBL! NB: DTN considers John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi as leftists, thus its remit is rather wide.

Noam Chomsky's DTN profile reveals further the bias of the author and director of this website. Most of the smears, misrepresentation and abuse in this section derive from David Horowitz's The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, Part II: Method and Madness, etc. There is a long list of articles of a similar nature by the likes of Horowitz, Peter Collier, Elliot Jager, Bruce Thornton, Anders G. Lewis, Benjamin Kerstein, Paul Crespo etc.[4]

Just like Campus Watch, DTN has a strong pro-Likud zionist bias. Several of the individuals it targets have been critical of Israel. The Issues section of the website lists The Middle East, and it ports much of the material available on Campus Watch and Middle East Forum.

Last edited by Marley23; 07-03-2010 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:43 AM
Poptech Poptech is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
If we're talking about the relative credibility of sources -- and that's what this whole thread is really about, not any substantive scientific debate -- then you will never do your case any good by citing DiscoverTheNetworks. David Horowitz is a pure-D crank, even RWs should know that.
Everything stated about SourceWatch by DTN is factual, especially,

"As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users."

SourceWatch is a left wing smear site, exposed by DTN so it is no wonder SourceWatch users would desperately try to discredit DTN. Quoting that it is anti-terrorist or pro-Israel does nothing for your case as what we are discussing has nothing to do with either.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.