A Black Day For Science – PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist
It doesn’t get much uglier than this. A stasi-esque master list of skeptical scientists and bloggers, with ratings put together by a “scientist” that rants against the very people he rates on his blog. Meet the author, Jim Prall here. And he uses this for a peer reviewed paper. What next? Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?
We don’t need no stinking badges. Here’s a sample of coverage:
Scientists who believe in man-made climate change are more esteemed than those who actively oppose the concept, according to a new paper. But experts said the paper divides scientists into artificial groups, does not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists, and is inherently biased due to the nature of the peer review process.
…
Judith Curry, a climate expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology – who was not part of the analysis – called the study “completely unconvincing” while John Christy of University of Alabama claimed he and other climate sceptics included in the survey were simply “being blacklisted” by colleagues.
–Nick Collins, The Daily Telegraph
So what does this new paper measure exactly? Hell if I know. But it is clear that in the climate debate there are good guys and there are bad guys, and to tell them apart, it is important to have a list. A black list. — Roger Pielke Jr at his blog
It is a blacklist. It’s also hilariously wrong. It is a black day for science and shows that there are people more stupid than Ken Cuccinelli. — Thomas Fuller, Environmental Policy Examiner
I think I should join. Nobody invites me to these kinds of party anyway.
The Left’s new motto:
“McCarthyism – it’s only wrong when the other guys do it.”
It’s a sign the skeptics are on the right track, otherwise no need for this type of bullying. Look back in history. I can’t think of a time these tactics were used and the people using them were ultimately “right”. The church vs scientists such Galileo come to mind.
Bill Anderegg apparently knows next to nothing about Google Scholar since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author’s name in quotes or advanced search operators such as “author:”, Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author “Phil Jones” with the search word “climate”, you get almost 5000 results! The study is worthless.
As for skeptics, they have extensively published,
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Does one have to be a scientist to get on the blacklist? I wanna join up.
Let me get this straight, you are surprised that there is an actual list of skeptics? What was that line from Casablanca? You think these fraudsters are capable of remembering such an enormous list? They can’t even remember the contradictory results from their own research, let alone a list of their scientific superiors.
I would be honoured to be included in any list of those that are smart enough to disagree with their outlandish conclusions.
An appeal to authority, that upon slight scrutiny, condemns the authority they appeal to. That drivel was peer-reviewed? And one of the criteria to determine expertise is the quantity of peer-reviewed papers published. What? Did he need one more paper to make the A-list? How about the number of peer-reviewed papers that had to be corrected, amended, or rewrote because the authors were errant in their conclusions or methods? In other words, the authors of this paper assumes quantity is equal to quality. Why? Well, because the paper was peer-reviewed and published.
On a side note, this kinda blows that whole consensus bs out of the water. 500 peer-reviewed, published, and cited climate scientists expressing “skepticism of the IPCC’s findings, of climate science generally, of the “consensus” on human-induced warming, and/or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.”
It’s a Tim Lambert-wannabe: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html
I expect Lambert to embrace this fellow as a kindred spirit.
Beware the distinction between PNAS “contributed by” vs. “communicated by” papers. It’s explained here:
http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml#submission
This paper is listed as “contributed by”, which means that one of the authors is an “esteemed” member of the National Academy of Sciences (the publisher of PNAS). Historically the “contributed by” papers have always been very low bar for peer review. I think it was once true (you’d have to check), that at least in the olden days, a “contributed by” paper could be assured publication with essentially no peer review. I’m not sure if that’s true anymore, you’d have to check — but notice in the description of the review process for “contributed by” papers, states “Members must select referees who have not collaborated with the authors in the past 48 months” — i.e. the author of the paper, if a member of the National Academy of Sciences — gets to choose his own reviewers.
Not sure that this counts as peer review literature in the strict sense.
Now we see just how sick the alarmists are getting, and to what extreme they are taking science. Welcome to academia!
Blacklist-gate!
If there’s a list of non-consesus scientist, we dont have a consesus? There’s still hope for the science?
Interesting , just a quick thought….
How can some very inteligent people be so incredibly stupid
This appears to be a reincarnation of Nixon’s “Enemies List”
Whatever the author’s purpose, he has only brought shame and embarrassment on his fellow AGW proponents. Will the folks at RealClimate distance themselves from this Climate McCarthyism? Or will they revel in it?
What are they being black listed from? Sounds a little alarmist. The paper basically just looks at the publications and citations of researchers, whom they categorize as convinced or unconvinced…
Do you not agree that publications and citations are a a viable means to assess one’s “expertise” in a given area of study?
The First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
All they’re doing is losing more and more of the general public with these methods.
Poptech, some of the papers on your list do not support AGW skepticism, but even so, 750 papers in 20+ years is such a small amount of papers compared to the overall number published. Is that really all there are? only 750? Really? I think your are proving this PNAS paper’s point….
Soviet academic Lysenko had such a black list too. Then why climate Lysenkist shouldn’t have the same black list?
Re: Beware the distinction between PNAS “contributed by” vs. “communicated by” papers.
IF the authors really think that “credibility” in the science field is prerequisite, and the “contributed by” review process is what it appears to be, you would have think they would have chosen a more rigorous peer review process for their publication.
You would also think that if “credibility” is the real issue here, and the peer review process is as described, they would have included a disclaimer at the top of the paper declaring, “the reviewers of this article were chosen by one of the authors.”
Am I right here? Please verify.
I am not on the list.
I am like so totally hurt!
“I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member”
-Groucho Marx-
Why is anyone surprised by the liberal fascists? They are only showing themselves for what they are and have have always been—suppressors of free speech.
Congratulations to Dr. Pielke, Sr. Top of the list!! Way to go, sir. Keep up the good work.
Also, it is with a great sense of national pride I note an apparent preponderance of US flags.
What kind of mind could convince itself that this might be a good idea? Apparently, someone whose main criteria for determining “truthiness” is to “consider the source.” Most rational thinkers, on the other hand, strive to first consider the data, analysis, and evidence, whatever the source.
Sadly, I haven’t made the list. Have to work on that.
The global Warming Inquisition has begun.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/the-global-warming-inquisition-has-begun/
Reminds me of that quote from Greenpeace “Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
“If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. ”
Their use of the term “Denier” associated with skepticism.
That list.
Accompanied by this “Peer” Reviewed load of cr@p.
Stasi-esque indeed. Maybe you are correct, they will want us to wear a badge next so “they” can easily identify those of us in need of “Climate re-education”, maybe a one way train journey.
I just wonder what the trolls will say, and how they will defend this.