tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8108170049011251374..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Startling about face by Anthony Watts agreeing at least a 97% scientific consensusSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14281436240369611332013-06-20T01:40:03.936+10:002013-06-20T01:40:03.936+10:00Welcome, Andrew. Sorry, but I fail to see any dec...Welcome, Andrew. Sorry, but I fail to see any decent rebuttal however I'm perfectly happy for you to have pointed this out and I'm sure my readers will give it their close attention. What I read seemed to be mostly along the lines of "not fair, he said my list was nonsense". Or "but I don't mean the paper is skeptical of AGW, I just mean there's something in it we can use to fight off any efforts to shift to clean energy" or similar. (Perhaps you meant to link to something else?) <br /><br />I did notice your claim that E&E has an editorial board. Of course they do. They don't always/often? subject the articles they publish to peer review. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/" rel="nofollow">E&E</a> prides itself on being contrarian.<br /><br />Fortunately you handily provide a link to a website on which it shows that some of the authors on your list have been telling you for years that you've wrongly listed their work. So thanks. I'll update my article accordingly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading" rel="nofollow">The Carbon Brief's take down of poptech's silly little list</a><br /><br />Carry on. John Cook's given you a hand identifying something like 78 out of 12,000 or so who sometime in the past twenty years were still trying to deny the obvious. That should give you heart :DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25492706363928797402013-06-20T01:07:41.966+10:002013-06-20T01:07:41.966+10:00Good to see you maintain a absolute lack of fact c...Good to see you maintain a absolute lack of fact checking,<br /><br /><a href="http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4040" rel="nofollow">Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"</a>Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42063820538556109142013-06-03T03:12:52.927+10:002013-06-03T03:12:52.927+10:00Thanks Martin, I've just fixed them all, I thi...Thanks Martin, I've just fixed them all, I think.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91112789496043892902013-06-03T02:12:24.279+10:002013-06-03T02:12:24.279+10:00s/Toll/Tol/gs/Toll/Tol/gMartin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28891351175064828352013-06-02T13:54:39.669+10:002013-06-02T13:54:39.669+10:00Yes, I don't know what game Richard Toll is pl...Yes, I don't know what game Richard Toll is playing. He may have decided he's not getting the recognition he wants by the mainstream so he's trying for glory with the denier crowd. <br /><br />Or he might have some personal animosity towards the researchers. Does he know them personally? If so, why doesn't he sort it out in private first? If not, then what is the cause of his petulance? A mystery.<br /><br />Richard doesn't seem to be disputing the 97% as such. Or at least I've not read him disputing these actual findings or those of similar studies that had the same results. What he seems to be saying is they should have looked at an even larger sample of abstracts. I've no idea why - he isn't clear about that. 12,000 papers on the general subject, with almost 4,000 expressing a position is a sample more than large enough for valid conclusions. It's way more than any other peer reviewed study.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82567155268794429792013-06-02T06:23:38.866+10:002013-06-02T06:23:38.866+10:00Richard Toll's position is a very strange posi...Richard Toll's position is a very strange position for someone to take. That is - someone who believes that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible but that he doesn't think we should do anything about it. I suppose this is also Lomborg's view. But to have this view they have to conclude that humans of the future do not matter and that we have no ethical obligations to future generations. I think that we do and that the rights of people today are just the same as the rights of people 100 or 200 years from now. Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09129841408329015509noreply@blogger.com