Just when you think things can't sink any lower, the National Academy of Sciences has now published a list compiled by a non-academic weblogger that attempts to rank scientists by expertise, credibility and (oh!) belief in the consensus position on global warming.
It is a blacklist. It's also hilariously wrong. As Roger Pielke Jr. notes on his weblog, his father, who firmly believes in man's impact on the climate, is rated as a skeptic, while James Hansen, who has repeatedly criticized the IPCC consensus (albeit for being too conservative) is mentioned as a supporter of the IPCC.
This will contribute to the feeding frenzy on climate change and distract (as it is meant to do) from real discussion of climate change issues.
It is a black day for science and shows that there are people more stupid than Ken Cuccinelli.
The worst of it all is the fact that Stephen Schneider lent his name to this travesty. It's no longer enough to quote from the McCarthy hearings (At long last, Senator, have you no decency?). Does anyone here have any sense of shame?
All of the elements of climate consensus confusion creation (henceforth to be known as the 4Cs), are contained within this piece of junk. Creation of jargon. Attribution of motive. Assignation to a list because someone else put a scientist's name on it. Using opinion of where scientists publish and what they say as if it were gospel.
Very much of a piece with the other junk coming out these days. Very much a symptom of a group that can no longer respond to the real arguments.
It's a travesty. Stephen Schneider, how could you lend your name to this garbage?
Comments
But but but Climategate!!!!!!!
I went thru the list name by name. I was surprised that I knew 8 listees well. Of these the lists discription of area of expertise was way off. Number 54, Mike Garstang, was described as working in atmospheric transport, tropics and aersols. Mike Garstand worked on human impacts on climate and weather for at least 45 years. In fact he literally was working on climate change before Michael Mann was born. He was a firm believer in man-made climate change, he just questioned the role of co2. His published position is probably closest to mine. Forese Wezel,133, is described as an expert in Mediterranean basin tectonics. If I wanted data that I could trust on paleo-sea level I would turn to him and Moener,80. Not mentioned is that Fred Singer's,133, area was atmospheric physics and that he was a pioneer in remote sensing. And Sallie Baliunas,10, has character. Pielke,1, definitely belongs at the top of a list, but not this one.
In the page that the "primary investigator" calls "Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science", it is ironic that Schneider's "Area of research" is listed as "climate prediction". But the IPCC doesn't do "predictions" anymore, does it? Wonder how they can use his work!
It's also interesting that the area of research for Mike Hulme (no. 2 on the above list) is "climate data assimilation". Particularly since Hulme has recently written - and subsequently clarified (and then further clarified) - a statement to the effect that those who claim "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’" are [being] disingenuous." In fact, this "consensus judgment" was arrived at by a mere few dozen. Oh, well ... as one who specializes in "climate data assimilation", he should certainly know, shouldn't he?!
[Hmmm ... no links or URLs allowed? How can I support my claims?!]
the list is not a "black list". just another scientific study, that confirms the consensus.
Tom, i am just popping in because i was expecting a reaction to the retraction of the original "amazon gate" article by Jonathan Leake.
as i outlined on Deltoid, you have written multiple articles and based wild claims on the stuff written by North/Leake.
now that it turns out that you were wrong, as i told you even back then, will you admit it and finally change your posts?
Sod, I've seen what you've been writing on other weblogs, including Deltoid. You just scurry on back to that hole and keep on ranting.
Seems to be a straightforward analysis of numbers of papers published, number of citations of those papers, and policy positions of the various people. It finds 98% agreement amongst scientists publishing on the topic that humans are causing global warming.
The 475 'skeptic' names came from people who had signed on to the various surveys claiming the issue is in doubt. To get to that 98% agreement they have to be counting almost all of the 'skeptics' as having agreed that humans are causing global warming... which means that Pielke is NOT mis-classified. He is skeptical of many details of the consensus position (hence his decision to sign on to surveys saying so), but not AGW in general.
I also like the argument that claims of consensus based on publication history are incorrect because 'skeptics' can't get published... as that perforce would require (aside from acceptance of the 'grand evil GW conspiracy' theory) a consensus amongst scientific publishers. :]
Your gratuitous dig at the AG of Virginia is an inappropriate and false comparison between this government funded blacklist and a lawful investigation.
Frankly it is disappointing that you give so much cover for the blatant and transparent bad faith more and more of the CAGW promoters show.
The focus should be on how CAGW is becoming a Frankenstein monster of a social movement and that this so-called paper is simply the latest manifestation of the pathology of that movement.
CBD,
Defending blacklists is not surprising from you, but it is still disgusting to see how low you and other true believers will go. As marty points out, it is not an accurate list, if one is seeking accuracy. But it is useful busy little drones like you.
In the end, it always comes down to the courts;
solveclimate.com/blog/20100622/man-who-makes-greenhouse-gas-polluters-face-their-victims-court
Based on this I'd say that GW denialism's days are numbered. Only the Supreme Court could turn back 'Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power Co., et al.' now... and I don't see that happening as the case is basically black letter law. GW 'skeptic science' doesn't even come into it... as all efforts to introduce such have consistently failed the Daubert standard and thus been excluded from use in the courts.
Not that long ago I believed in AGW, at least to some extent. Having read such excellent blogs as this and others such as WUWT, I have received an excellent education in climate science. An education that really makes sense. I now don't believe in AGW.
Those scientists on the list need to be applauded.
Reply to CBDunkerson
How shallow does a person have to be to give up the American dream and all that young Americans have died for and continue to die for to support a completely bogus agenda?
What have you ever personally done to support this country? Did you serve in the military? Did you serve in the Peace Corps?
It sure is great to have the freedom of speech that you green liberals bask in but never serve a day to support the freedoms we enjoy.
Look at the paper filed by the state of Texas against the EPA and maybe you might learn something of the leaders of the IPCC.
You have zero standing in my book. Scince is not consensus. When has science ever flourished under consensus?
Open your eyes and maybe, just maybe, you will not be a lemming.
Motivation to create such a list; creation of the list and publication reveals more about the creators of said list than makes any kind of statement or reveals anything useful about those on the list. What new or novel knowledge has been added by creating the list? It appears to be an attempt to apply some kind of political/religious(?) litmus test.
Tom, there is nothing to criticize here. I read the PNAS article and I don't see any problem with it. This paper looks at the credentials of climate scientists in two ways: number of papers published and number of times their papers are cited by others. This is often done in all fields of science to establish credentials and reputation. The PNAS article then correlates scientific reputation with those who are convinced (ie, who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century)and those who are not convinced. In both reputation and number, climate scientists support what has become known as the consensus position. Someone has needed to confront the claims that there is no consensus position.
CBDunkerson, like many other climate alarmists, likes to put quotation marks around the word skeptics. Those who do that are disingenuous.
Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. Scientific skeptics are in fact the only honest kind of scientists, and as we have seen, many scientists are dishonest, trading their professional ethics for money and notoriety.
Those who denigrate scientific skepticism by putting quote marks around an esteemed term like skeptics are simply promoting their catastrophic AGW agenda. They lack the necessary facts, so they resort to such polemics.
Scientific skepticism is what got us past witch doctors. Those who are bothered by skepticism simply don't like the fact that catastrophic AGW is only an unproven conjecture. Its adherents border on religious fanaticism, as this blacklist shows.
Wouldn't it be more useful to compile a list of every idiot who has cited Rahmstorf, Mann or Jones in their work? All three have been shown to make remarkably stupid mistakes, if not outright fraud. Any scientist who wasn't smart enough or thorough enough to figure out how bad their work is should be deemed incompetent. Especially if they cited the work of these fools after the major mistakes were already exposed.
I don't understand why anyone would seek guidance from a group of scientists who have demonstrated repeatedly that they are incapable of quality work.
This article in PNAS is excellent evidence that the wheels are coming off the AGW hoax. They are really getting desperate. How does that go, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win". Yep, looks about right.
In addition, PNAS has really sunk to a new low publishing a paper that used the phrase "climate denier". PNAS now stands for; Political, Not About Science.
Tom Fuller has sunk to ne lows...
"Stephen Schneider, how could you lend your name to this garbage?"
Hmmmm - - because he agrees with it?
Not only is this not a "blacklist", it's not even a list. I read the paper and the supporting materials, and they don't name anyone. There are only links to petitions and other documents voluntarily signed by climate change denialists. If that's what you think a blacklist is, you need a dictionary.
I also tried to find the notorious list, but could not. This clamor is much ado about nothing.
To those commenters who say that it is not controversial to show who has most citations, you are correct. In fact it is done all the time. What is contemptible is to use subjective opinion to indicate who is a 'denier' and who believes the 'tenets' of the global warming consensus. The idiot who did this is not an academic and as marty notes below, he got a lot of details wrong. And anybody who really believes Roger Pielke Sr. is a skeptic has obviously got it wrong.
This is a contemptible blacklist.
Where is the list?
<cite>Not only is this not a "blacklist", it's not even a list.</cite>
This begs the question.... Do you need an actual physical "list" in order to be "black-listed"?
Owen,I'm confused. You say you have read the paper and yet you ask for the list of the accused? It really isn't that hard to find, but comments here don't accept links. Go to Roger Pielke Jr.'s weblog. It's on there.
Area Man,
The devil's best scam is to trick fools like you into asserting that he does not exist.
Tom, is the portion of the list covering AGW proponents ALSO a "blacklist"? Or are you just being ridiculous?
As to the evil person who chose to classify Pielke for this study... that would be... Pielke. A list of people who have published articles on climate science was created. People on that list were then identified by (amongst other things) whether they had signed on to things like the 'OISM petition' which question the mainstream view of AGW.
DavidS, yes every honest scientist is a skeptic... and the vast majority of those calling themselves climate skeptics fail that test. Hence the quotes.
"Go to Roger Pielke Jr.'s weblog. It's on there."
Um no, it's not. There is a link to someone's personal webpage that has a list, but this is not a publication of the NAS. You claimed that "the National Academy of Sciences has now published a list." Would you care to show us where the NAS published a list? Or would you care to issue a retraction?
For those who like to deal in ACTUAL reality rather than 'blogger reality' (aka: fiction);
The NAS study can be found here;
www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
And its supporting documentation here;
www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/list_sources.html
Note that the only lists are those which scientists put THEMSELVES on.
"well, it looks like Tom Fuller will not admit and correct the errors he made, based on North/Leake"
Shame on you for spreading a lie that deceived the public.
Leakegate.
The Sunday Times can make a public retraction.
Why can't you?
Tom, I read the paper a second time, following links to supplemental materials. Still no list. The paper was clear on the criterion they used to categorize. On a link found within another link to supplemental materials they give many links to lists of scientists who have signed this or that initiative, but no single summative "blacklist" Pielke does point to a web site by one of the authors that contains his own partial list of those for and against - is that what you mean to be the blacklist?
Tom, You first paragraph is just plain wrong. PNAS did not publish a list or a blacklist, and there is no non-academic blogger cited or involved in the article. Those assertions are just nonsense. You are hyping, and owe PNAS an apology.
"What is contemptible is to use subjective opinion to indicate who is a 'denier' and who believes the 'tenets' of the global warming consensus."
In case the point hasn't been made forcefully enough, inclusion in the dataset was on the basis of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE petitions and position statements. Not only does this not fit the definition of "subjective", it underscores what a silly lie it is to call this non-existent list a blacklist. All of the names were already on lists published by climate change denialists who were very eager to publicize them. Help, help, we're oppressing ourselves!
Area Man, your argument fails. There are errors of fact in the list. Prall has jobs wrong, specialties wrong, he includes scientists who have worked for the IPCC as skeptics.
The future chilling effect of this on honest expression of opinion is obvious. Will anyone sign a petition in future knowing it may be used to deny him a grant, a job or a voice, as is already being advocated by Romm?
Owen, the PNAS deserves nothing from me except contempt, of which I have more than an adequate supply.
Tom, yes, contempt appears to be your strong suit.
Owen, I am extremely lucky in that there are for more people for whom I have respect than those for whom I feel contempt. Quite sadly, a good number of those I find contemptible are those who are attempting to suppress opinion on this issue, either by ridicule and libel on weblogs, characterizations by public figures of those who disagree as Holocaust deniers or flat earthers, or by insititutional attempts to intimidate dissenters.
It is McCarthyism.
Area Man,
The devil's best scam is to trick fools like you into asserting that he does not exist.
Judy points out that she doesn't think this is a peer reviewed paper, that the NAS publishes papers by members without review, and she's compared this to a 'vanity press'.
So, it appears that the one who should appear on a list is Stephen Schneider, the only NAS member among the authors. But how to characterize the list's color? Maybe rainbow colored for all the shades of disinformation the alarmists are capable of.
==================
"Area Man, your argument fails. There are errors of fact in the list."
You still seem terribly confused about the existence of a list. There is no list anywhere in the PNAS publication or its supporting materials. There is a list on someone's personal webpage, but it does not use the same criteria as the dataset in the PNAS publication. That dataset is based entirely on petitions and letters where people VOLUNTARILY lent their names to the denialist cause. The only way there's a mistake is if someone sneaked their names on without their knowledge, which seems pretty unlikely (and since they aren't even named, would be without consequence).
Sit back for a minute, pause, and think of just how stupid it is to declare that someone has been blacklisted because they voluntarily signed a petition.
What I find funny in this is how the list of "skeptics" is 496 names long. Kinda makes the repeated accusations of a "half a dozen" or "only a few dozen" skeptics worldwide sound kinda stupid. First you denied they existed, but now you can name them and say they don't really matter. As for the "not climate related" notes they assign, it seems to me from reading climate research that they could use a lot of help from real scientists with real expertise. It really makes me wonder how you can write off people like Dyson who have shown they have a superior grasp of the physical world again and again. But you put all your faith in people who hide their research and admit they lose all their data or just simply don't even know how to use simple mathematical methods. Shameful.
"The future chilling effect of this on honest expression of opinion is obvious."
Okay, please explain, in detail, how being included in an anonymous dataset on the basis of publicly available information (which the people in question made public themselves) has a "chilling effect" on what those people say. It seems to me that if they were worried about what others thought of them, they wouldn't have eagerly declared their denialism to begin with. And I can't for the life of me imagine how the publication of this paper changes anything. If anyone wanted to know what these people believed, they could have checked with the denialist organizations that are eagerly pimping their names.
Speaking of chilling effects, you seem perfectly happy to make baseless accusations of McCarthyism and blacklisting, so maybe you're so worried about people having their reputations smeared after all.
Where is the list?
Tom, yes, contempt appears to be your strong suit.
Sorry, when I hit refresh it resubmitted my earlier messages. I'll try to avoid that in the future.
I was wrong about the blogger in your first paragraph - he is an author, James Krall. He was listed as having academic credentials from University of Toronto, and he is not a climate scientist but apparently an IT person. His inclusion in the paper may be questionable, and is certainly not helpful. Nonetheless the list in question is published on his personal website - it is not published in the PNAS article.
"assignation to a list?" Surely you meant assignment.
Somebody help me out. Which step in the scientific method is "consensus?"
For the truly faithful, it's number one, obviously. Somebody they worship announces the "consensus" and all inquiry and independent thought must come to a halt.
496 names? That is a perfect number!
Steven Schneider is probably on there, because without him it can't be published as he is a member of NAS.
Sod's comment made me bark outloud with laughter. This is a scientific study!!!!1!!one!!
Really, I'm still having trouble smothering the laughquakes.
Tom, what is this misplaced respect you have for Dr. Stephen Schneider? This is a man who, in an effort to claim nuclear power wasn't effective at reducing CO2 emissions, weighted nuclear with the global thermonuclear wars he claimed nuclear power causes every 30 years.
Think for a moment how twisted his logic needed to be, to make that argument.
p.s. I would make blacklist one word, not two.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!