Ugliness – The blacklist of climate science

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

About these ads

246 thoughts on “Ugliness – The blacklist of climate science

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

  5. It’s a Tim Lambert-wannabe: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html

    The ‘Who’
    I’m not an academic, but I appreciate science and I consider myself “scientifically literate.” I minored in math at CWRU (B.A., political science & philosophy, 1980). I read Scientific American basically cover-to-cover from high school until around the time the internet started to take off. Now I get my science fix online.
    Thanks to my job as computer support staff at University of Toronto, I have access to electronic and/or print copies of most major journals, and a very extensive library collection of print works. I also get the opportunity to enroll in or to audit whatever courses catch my interest. I usually select one course per semester. Even when I’m just auditing, I try to do all the assigned readings. In this way I’ve benefited from courses on global climate change, climatology, future energy supply and demand, the physics of the greenhouse effect and planetary radiation balance, and climate politics and policy options. I also take advantage of many excellent guest lecture series, particularly those hosted by the Centre for Global Change Science in the Physics department, just across St. George St. from my office.

    The ‘Why’
    I’ve been studying climatology and the science behind global warming in my spare time for several years now. Through my studies, I’ve come to recognize the names of the top authors and research institutes. Through following this issue online and in the media, I’ve also grown all too familiar with the tiny minority of ‘climate skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action.
    I’ve gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online. Many media reports aimed for a false ‘balance’ by interviewing one mainstream scientist followed by one ‘skeptic.’ On the web, it’s even crazier, with numerous sites promoting “climate denial” by collecting names of skeptics, “quote-mining” for skeptical or ambiguous statements, and producing dodgy climate-denial ‘petitions’ claiming numerous “scientists” as signatories. Most of these skeptics/deniers/petition signers have little to no academic credentials in this specific field, although a handful stand out as widely published in this or a somewhat related field.

    I expect Lambert to embrace this fellow as a kindred spirit.

  6. 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.

  7. If there’s a list of non-consesus scientist, we dont have a consesus? There’s still hope for the science?

  8. 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?

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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….

  12. Soviet academic Lysenko had such a black list too. Then why climate Lysenkist shouldn’t have the same black list?

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. One would have thought, with the extent of his reading and listening, his access to ‘electronic and/or print copies of most major journals, and a very extensive library collection of print works’ Mr. Prall would have produced something along the lines of a scientific paper that demonstrated his understanding of the subject. Unfortunately Mr. Prall has embarrased himself and expanded the list of Toronto prats.

  18. Don’t complain, guys. This gentleman just exploded the idea of a consensus! And gave us beautiful source document.

  19. JB says @6:13 am:

    “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.”

    Sorry, but you fail at Warmist Propaganda 101. Better work on your misdirection and your impotent appeals to authority.

    The overall number of papers published has nothing to do with PopTech’s list. The 750 papers must be compared directly with the number of papers advocating climate alarmism, not the number of papers submitted in all categories. So, what number would that be? Please provide a list, like PopTech did. If you are able. Also, identify the papers in PopTech’s list that you claim do not take a skeptical view. If you can.

    It must be kept in mind that an ongoing, concerted effort is being made to block skeptical papers, a fact that is made very clear by the Climategate emails. The entire climate science peer review process has been hopelessly corrupted by a small clique that has insinuated itself into gatekeeper positions. The process is crooked. If it were not, the number of skeptical research papers would be doubled and squared.

  20. I don’t think it’s a bad thing when the opposition puts their sick ideas in writing.
    It disqualifies the author and with it the PNAS and shows how desperate the warmists really are.

    Cheers.

  21. The Church of Global Warming is just trying to pick up where the Catholic Church left off after abolishing the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) …

  22. Looks like someone has to much time on his hands and this is funded with tax-payer money, right?

  23. Right Smokey, the usual baseless claim that journals don’t publish skeptical papers simply because they are skeptical.

    I’ve been rejected at many a journal, I guess instead of re-working my paper/addressing the reviewers comments etc, re-submitting, I should have just assumed it was because the journal editor was biased against me…makes sense….

    The AR4 alone has more publications supporting AGW than poptech’s list. There is one paper on his list about the Archean period and albedo, how does that relate to the current observation of AGW?

  24. The worst of it all is the fact that Stephen Schneider lent his name to this travesty.

    Stephen Schneider has made a career of things that are a travesty. Of course he did that.

  25. JB says:

    >…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?

    +++++++++

    It only takes a few words to tell the truth.

    It obviously takes a LOT of words to imagine, speculate, re-phrase, adjust, butt-cover, hide, deflect, promote and ‘alarm’.

  26. Ed Carly is correct. And it’s a list that will grow and grow and grow.
    It’s all a well orchestrated collective smear effort. They’re doing a good job showing who they really are.

  27. It’s a travesty. Stephen Schneider, how could you lend your name to this garbage?

    Maybe this is an epiphanal moment for Thomas Fuller of what people who have been pushing global warming science from its beginning really are.

  28. Be careful on comparisons. As the papers released after the fall of the Soviet Union proved, McCarthy was actually right.

  29. Even better they cherry picked away skeptics “we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher”. So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an expert. They did this intentionally as they noted “researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group.” Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define experts.

  30. JB:

    “The AR4 alone has more publications supporting AGW than poptech’s list.”

    You’re referring to ‘papers’ like the WWF and other NGOs? Keep digging.

    And if you missed Michael Mann’s underhanded scheming exposed in the Climategate emails to get journal editors fired for not toeing the CAGW line [and succeeding in at least one instance], and conspiring to marginalize journals for not playing his game, then you’re talking through your hat.

  31. As a historical tidbit, the yellow stars of David that Hitler used were derived from the identifying badges that dhimmi were forced to sew on their clothes by the Muslim rulers of the countries they were in. The dhimmi (people of the contract) were people of the Pentateuch who were ruled by Muslims. There were all sorts of stuff that involved them including having to live in ghettos, wear this sort of identifying clothing with a badge (the Christian one was a pig), paying the jizya (head tax) and getting slapped across the face when they did so, not having weapons, etc. etc. The reason the were called “people of the contract” is that if you did not do all the above, it was open game for a Muslim to kill you.

  32. Can I call this list “Galileo’s List”?
    Galileo was blacklisted by the Pope, but in truth, the Pope was prodded on by the mainstream scientists of that time.
    Einstein was also blacklisted by the Nazi scientists.

  33. JB says:

    “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….”

    They all support skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of it. The PNAS paper used the search word “climate” not AGW. The PNAS paper has no point outside of propaganda.

  34. And Smokey, if Potech’s list is papers skeptical of AGW why does “my list” have to be alarmist papers only, and not simply papers non skeptical (in support) of AGW?

  35. JB says: June 22, 2010 at 6:46 am

    “The AR4 alone has more publications supporting AGW than poptech’s list. There is one paper on his list about the Archean period and albedo, how does that relate to the current observation of AGW?”

    Why not read the paper?

    The DMS-cloud albedo feedback effect: Greatly underestimated?
    (Climatic Change, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 429-433, August 1992)
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    “There are a number of ways by which the biosphere may counter any impetus for global warming that might be produced by the rising CO2 content of earth’s atmosphere. Evidence for one of these phenomena, the DMS-cloud feedback effect, is discussed in light of recent claims that it is not of sufficient strength to be of much importance.”

  36. JB says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:46 am
    There is one paper on his list about the Archean period and albedo, how does that relate to the current observation of AGW?

    There are umpteen papers on the Alarmists list covering weighty matters such as the weight loss of whales. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

  37. JB says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:09 am

    “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?”

    JB, what need has been demonstrated to have such a list? If you can’t see the historical parallels to “lists”, then I suggest you catch up on some reading. And, no, I don’t agree that publications and citations are any measure of one’s competence. As I’ve stated earlier, I’ve seen several papers published only to be corrected, amended and entirely rewrote because the conclusions or methodologies were in error. So, by the view of this paper and apparently you, for getting it wrong and then correcting obvious errors is doubly as competent as one that gets it right the first time. Great logic. Further, the “area of expertise” blather is a misnomer. I know of no university that offers a doctorate in climatology. Are the authors now weighing the value of degrees? Where does an astro-physicist rank in comparison to a biologist? As stated by one of the recent white-wash panels, climate science is basically statistics and so then where do you rate a statistician?

    I’d be real interested in your answers to my last 2 questions.

  38. They have picked sides for a win-loose battle and have identified their enemy. They choose agenda driven subjective research. True scientific research is objective. There are true and false prophets. The changing climate will separate the sheeps from the goats and it wont be looking at name tags or counting publications in “climate science”.

  39. Our parents’ generation fought, and in too many cases died, so the majority of my generation (70s+) could live through a golden age freed from going to war. This blacklist is absolutely abhorent to anyone who values the freedoms that are a hard-won component of any democracy. The old truism that ‘evil triumphs when good men do nothing’ proves the value of the sceptical argument – without it, there is no democracy and, ultimately, no freedom. Anthony, this blacklist proves (if proof were needed) of the essential nature of what you and the team at WUWT do.
    Every group in a democracy must treasure intelligent dissenting views from their own – these authors have no idea of the totilitarian darkness they wish to usher in.

  40. This list is insane – insane it was even conceived of by someone what’s more published. It was published! In a science journal! What’s next? What new level of triviality can we possibly sink to?

  41. If they’re more diligent about their list than they are about their “science” perhaps they’ll find they’re in the minority. Not that it proves they’re wrong, but “consensus” seems to be important to the CAGW club.

    Inclusion on the list should be taken as a badge of honour. Can I volunteer?

  42. JB, how does the number of papers supporting or rejecting AGW establish anything?

    Borrowing from Einstein, ‘No amount of papers can ever prove you right; a single paper can prove you wrong.’

  43. Einstein was blacklisted by the Nazi scientists. He proved to be the greatest scientist of all time The ones that blacklisted him have been buried together with their name and today nobody cares who they were.
    The Pope had condemned Galileo, but actually the Pope was prodded on by the Galileo’s contemporary ‘scientists’. Again Galileo became history while his (anti) peers fell into the gutter of history.

    May I recommend that this list be referred to as the Galileo List.

  44. So, does this mean I can’t read this blog anymore? I mean, I don’t want to be tainted “black” by association. If there’s gonna be lists, I’m gonna want all of them, so I’ll know who’s a threat.

    All that aside, Anthony, I’m disappointed that you scored so low. I guess you’re not skeptical enough. You should try harder to more appropriately fit into “their” lists. After all, it’s all about fitting in and looking good among your fellows. This is the reason I have no accreditation of my own. I could never discipline myself to fit into the spirit of the academia. I’ve been kicked out of some of the greatest classes this side of the Mississippi.

    My IQ was high. My aptitude was off the charts. My ACT and PSAT were massive. But my spirit was wrong. I will never give up my right to be wrong, my right to argue with those who sit above me and deem what is what. As history has proven over and again, those people who sit among the lofty are quite often WRONG. (wow… I think I just painted myself a hypocrite…)

  45. GregO says: June 22, 2010 at 7:02 am

    “This list is insane – insane it was even conceived of by someone what’s more published. It was published! In a science journal! What’s next? What new level of triviality can we possibly sink to?”

    Exactly they cannot deny they are published anymore in peer-reviewed journals so they subjectively try to redefine who an “expert” is.

  46. “Glen Shevlin says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:05 am
    Interesting , just a quick thought….

    How can some very inteligent people be so incredibly stupid”

    Ask Richard Dawkins – he’s the “expert” on everything from biology to theology these days…

  47. Smokey, of course paper get corrected if needed, or new papers come out to replace what may be outdated knowledge, that is how it is supposed to work….

    Climate science as a whole is obviously comprised of many different areas, glaciology, oceanography, physics, geology etc….Are you saying that people cannot be “experts” in these areas? I do not see how you think the authors are weighing the importance of degrees?

    As far as lists go, are you trying to say that this is going to snowball into another Nazi Germany? Sounds rather alarmist…

  48. I want to join the list too. Is there some sort of web site where those of who want to join the list can sign up, and ask to be added?

    I am reminded of something that happened in the USA towards the end of the Vietnam war. There were weekly protests all over the USA. Both the police and the protestors wanted to ensure that the protests were peaceful. So they opened a joint headquarterws for each protest, manned by the senior people from the police and the protestors. The police wanted to be easily identified when they were not in uniform. So they needed an icon to wear, which would immediately identify them as police. They chose a lapel pin. What was this lapel pin?

    A silver pig.

    I would be proud and honored to be put on a list of deniers and contrarians.

  49. Well the IPCC has already admitted that there is no consensus, in a round about sort of a way. Their head welcomes “scientific debate” on global warming, thus admitting that there is debate and I do believe that this means that there cannot be consensus if there is still debate… I wonder if anyone has told Al Gore that the debate is not “pretty well over?”

    He goes on to say that the consensus side have nothing to fear from debate.

    Get your head around that logic, because I cannot!

  50. Be proud that you are on the list. Add it to your resume. Take their stigma and use it as a badge of honor.

  51. Alexander K says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:02 am
    “….. – these authors have no idea of the totilitarian darkness they wish to usher in.”

    Some would say they do, indeed, know of the totalitarian implications and yearn for it.

  52. JB says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:09 am

    As far as lists go, are you trying to say that this is going to snowball into another Nazi Germany? Sounds rather alarmist…

    Why write the list in the first place? Why get it reviewed in a “scientific” journal? Why not debate the science? Why block publication of papers from skeptics? Why always alarmism in the MSM regarding sea ice, polar bears, temperatures (record hot of course), extinctions, conflict, migration, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow etc…

    I thought this was supposed to be about Global warming caused by human CO2, (sorry climate change caused by human CO2).

    So give us your thoughts instead of trolling or trying to count numbers. Let us know your position on all this.

    Why a peer reviewed paper showing a list of sceptics?

    Are you in favour of it? And to what end?

    Have you designed a badge for sceptics to wear yet?

    There is no point to producing this piece of cr@p other than to achieve political ends, and probably generate/retain grant money.

  53. Did anyone hear the BBC Radio 4 this morning? 22 june

    At 6.10 or thereabouts they reported a ‘peer reviewed’ paper that showed that 98% of the most active climate scientists with the most papers to their name supported the idea of mankind affecting the climate.

    By 7.30 that had morphed into, ‘A huge majority’ of scientists and experts agree that mankind is altering the climate, so there is no disagreement among scientists, as is often claimed by scepticks. No mention of blacklists there.

    Sorry its not verbatim but that was the way the item was reported today.

  54. Black lists are made when a retaliation or a revenge it has been already planned.
    Though historical references make those included in these end being the winners in the long run, in the near term they will more probably suffer because of this selection.
    Take it more seriously as the UN will probably define any acts contrary to the health of Gaia (the earth) as an prosecutable offence against humanity and against human rights; be conscious that there is an already constituted International Criminal Court

    ICC – Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law
    http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/ 7D6FC7F6-6F3E-45DA-8C15-9895F5CC5033.htm- 13.0KB

  55. A list of potential interviewees for Roger Harrabin. (If journalistic integrity could stretch that far).

  56. 2268: Anthony Watts
    srufacestations.org and WattsUpWithThat website operator

    Yes, it says “srufacestations”.

    Say what you will, but at least they are consistent with the integrity of their data.

  57. I could agree with the simple criterion of: denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (which is basically what most skepticists do).

    But this: “and/or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions” puts me entirely off.
    For clarity: blacklisting can be done sometimes. At the mathematics department we blacklist people who think the square root of two is a rational number, for instance.
    Like many skepticists, this guy seems to think that being convinced of AGW automatically implies being convinced of a ‘need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions’. Interestingly this puts ‘The Cardinal of Global Warming’, that is me so entitled by Anthony, on this blacklist :)

  58. I want to sincerely congratulate all of WUWT regulars who have been HONOURED by being selected in this Black List.

  59. Off track a little:
    A couple of posts have brought up comparisons to Galileo, and I thought I’d bring up a few points .
    A jesuit, Scheiner, obserbed sunspots and published papers on his observations.
    A second jesuit, Grassi, observing comets, discovered that they orbit the sun.

    If Galileo had been more diplomatic, he could have stated that Scheiner’s observation of sunspots were a confirmation of his own observations. Galileo could have argued that Grassi’s comet observations were a confirmation of the Copernican theory. Instead, being a jerk and bully, Galileo publised articles accusing Scheiner of being a liar, stealing Galileo’s sunspot idea as his own, and accusing Grassi of being a drunk, and hallucinating about the comets, which Galileo assumed were atmospheric phenomena.

    Naturally, Scheiner and Grassi were ticked off, and used Galileo’s speculations on the theory of atoms to go to the pope and accuse Galileo of heresy for not believing in trans-substantiation. After the accusations came the house arrest and the trial. Galileo brought on the whole problem by himself by acting like a jerk- sort of like some
    CAGW bloggers we’re familar with.

    I originally learned this reading the SF/Historical fiction novel “The Galileo Affair”, by Eric Flint and Andrew Dennis. After reading the story, I checked out google to verify the background.

  60. Nature and Science Mag. pluss the other HockeyTeam-magazines might use this list when Peer Reviewing?

    If you are on the list, send the paper to a HockeyTeam-member for review.
    With a little footnote; “This is a REFUTNIK”……

  61. Darn! I am so disappointed — I didn’t make the list. I even signed the Oregon Petition. Is there an “honorable mention” list or a “gray list” perhaps? I want a badge of honor too, or at least a tee shirt with “skeptic” printed on it. I feel so left out.

  62. Hi all – I caught up with this over at Collide-a-scape – I recommend a visit. I was first to comment. Michael Tobin described my views on the “Galileo” List (like it!) as “bluster”, which I thought was a bit rich, coming from someone who was championing a paper that amounted to little else. I responded:

    “MT you were unfortunate enough to accuse me of bluster before your peers (I’m feeling generous) responded far more ably than I could. As they have pointed out, your claim that “The paper is not in itself an appeal to authority” is patently absurd. The paper, “in itself”, is pabulous nonsense, indeed as Judith [Curry] has said, the very idea behind it is wrong-headed. Its purpose is clearly to persuade people that anyone who knows what they are talking about subscribes to CAGW. Its only value lies in the disservice it and your bizarre claim to the contrary do to your cause, by shedding further light on the grotesque furniture of its practitioners’ minds. When are you guys going to figure it out? Stop piling on the Adverse Inference!!”

  63. Examples like this illustrate why I hide behind anonymity when posting at this blog and commenting elsewhere. It’s also why I stay quiet about the topic when it comes up among my peers. As an up and coming scientist, making my skepticism clear, especially to certain individuals, would be career suicide. It doesn’t matter that I have well above the average number of first-author publications while still a grad student, the politics of AGW are such that I wouldn’t be able to find an academic position at most institutions if my skepticism were known.

    That said, I commend everyone who posts here under their real name, because they have a lot of ballscourage. But to me it’s not worth the risk to do so because it could literally ruin the rest of my life, and the list described above is evidence of that.

    -Scott

  64. What is the purpose of a list like this outside of increasing tension within the climate change debate? What is the gain? Who is the intended audience? When I viewed the comment sections of the author’s web site I think I came to the reason for the need of publicity…..NOTE birdbrainscan is the author Jim Prall.

    birdbrainscan said…
    I’m not doing so well at attracting interested readers to my blog yet. So far, comments to this post have been a string of chinese link-spams, plus this one from way in left field touting someone’s pet theory of the origin of planet Earth (a Velikowsky wannabe?)
    Sigh. Oh well.

    Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:51:00 AM EDT

    Perhaps Mr. Prall confuses shouting the loudest with people listening.

  65. Really fascinating. This demonstrates how strong the religious and faith aspects of global warming are and the people who so desperately want to be counted as believers. There’s so much more wrapped up in “global warming” than just the physics of radiation balance of the CO2 molecule. I believe for people like this poor soul Jim Prall there is a desperate desire to change society into some kind of idyllic fantasy land where cars run on pomegranate juice and hydro carbons are outlawed. It’s not sufficient for these folks to stay on the science debate of the climate system, they must have a good guy / bad guy list so they can identify villains and project blame on the bad guys for everything in their world that frustrates them. It is a mental disorder.

  66. Prall’s publication is total dreck. The editors of PNAS should hide their faces in shame for printing such drivel. Who are these PNAS heads, anyway? What are their names?

  67. “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. ””

    That’s one of my favorite Greenpeace quotes.

    I live in a castle doctrine state. I have friends with earth moving equipment. I’m on the list. If my lawyers have a problem with any sorts of nuisances, I’ll have to resort to the first two items mentioned.

  68. I looked at your link to the author- Jim Prall’s page wants us all to know his astrological sign is Virgo. AN ASTROLOGIST IS RATING SCIENTISTS!!!!!. And it gets published in PNAS! That would be really funny- except for $80billion bill and climbing for this joke.

  69. A number of humorous thoughts crossed my mind for a microsecond or two…. But there actually is NOTHING funny about this “list”. It is beyond ugliness as it is the kind of list a loser, coward and a thug would create hoping others with fewer brains but more guts might use as means of identification of those to be “attacked” in any number of negative ways. In other words, as a “hit list”. I would suggest that everyone on the list now or that might be added in the future make note of the author and publisher(s). Hopefully no action will ever be called for on your (anyone on the list) part due to this pathetic and unwarranted act of desperation. But it is always best to be prepared. No matter which side of this issue (human caused climate change) you are on now, if you truly and honestly are seeking the truth then you KNOW this kind of thing (the list) is at best, despicable and at worst could very well result in long-term dire consequences for many if not ALL of us living on this planet. This is nothing less than premeditated discrimination couched in the form of “a study”.

  70. Ah yes…

    The list of heretics that are to be burned at the stake.

    Tis a necessary list for all faithfull followers to possess, no ?

  71. The American liberal left-wing green establishment (“Khmer Vert”) is showing very real fascist tendencies. In this context this list is no surprise.

  72. ” Jimmy Mac says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Any list Freeman Dyson is on is the place to be for me.”

    The bloody idiot puts one of the most intelligent people of the planet on the list and thinks he will achieve exactly what? Oh come on, that blows his cover, Prall obviously works for the skeptics.

  73. Seems like a useful resource to me. Not only that, it would seem to contradict the notion that the “science is settled.”

    Aside from this, your reference to yellow badges is tasteless in the extreme. Analogies with the HUAC would be more appropriate.

  74. “The worst of it all is the fact that Stephen Schneider lent his name to this travesty.”

    Why is this the worst of all? Its only as expected, if you ask me.

    If censorship is needed in order to reach the “Greater Good” you need blacklisting.
    You will also need a federal agency to follow up the censorship.
    Because people arent surpressed willingly.

    This has been understood by all socialist regimes so far.

    So why not in Schneiders new world order?

  75. With apologies to Mahatma Gandhi.
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
    then they draw up lists!
    These guys just ain’t funny any more

  76. Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, et al. Do they really want to pick a fight with those guys? Anyone of them could bury the writers of that insipidly stupid, morally repugnant, flaw-based paper.

  77. Just got back from Alaska and I’m happy to report that the glaciers surrounding the Aialik Glacial Basin and Resurrection Bay are still there and doing quite well.

    The black list seemed harmless until I ran across the following paragraph. I find it odd that he thinks Scientists who adhere to a skeptical view of the IPCC propaganda are a “tiny minority”. It is a sad day when the Scientific Method becomes the basis for a black list.

    The ‘Why’
    source: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html

    “I’ve been studying climatology and the science behind global warming in my spare time for several years now. Through my studies, I’ve come to recognize the names of the top authors and research institutes. Through following this issue online and in the media, I’ve also grown all too familiar with the tiny minority of ‘climate skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action.”

    “I’ve gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online. Many media reports aimed for a false ‘balance’ by interviewing one mainstream scientist followed by one ‘skeptic.’ On the web, it’s even crazier, with numerous sites promoting “climate denial” by collecting names of skeptics, “quote-mining” for skeptical or ambiguous statements, and producing dodgy climate-denial ‘petitions’ claiming numerous “scientists” as signatories. Most of these skeptics/deniers/petition signers have little to no academic credentials in this specific field, although a handful stand out as widely published in this or a somewhat related field.”

  78. Jim Prall uses his time at U of T to play his gestapist game. In fact it takes priority from his IT job there. Totalitarian little helper.

  79. The defenders of the flame are noting that there is no list attached to the paper. They are right.

    But this begs the question – Do you need a physical “list” to be black-listed???? History would say “no”.

  80. The enviros’ black list is “McCarthyism”?

    Socialist Uncle Joe used “Liquidation”.

    That became knows as Stalinism.
    …-

    “I.V. Stalin
    “On Defects in Party Work and Measures for the Liquidation of Trotskyists and Other Double-dealers”
    A report and concluding remarks at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 3-5 March 1937.
    Editor’s Introduction”

    http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/s-m-intro.html

  81. I guess schneider, who is notorious in the “jesus paper” incident has found out what we already knew. “skeptic scientists” don’t publish much. I guess schneider, who makes the decision about who to publish doesnt see that the numbers support the hypothesis that the journal system has been corrupted

  82. I notice Jim Prall, who presumes to rank scientists in their suitability as references, is proud to proclaim his astrological sign on his blog.

  83. From the paper “From the ∼60% of researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect alone.”
    Meaning that older scientists (mean must be in their fifties) with a wider range of experience of papers (less mention of the word climate) and less need to get published and stick with the herd are more sceptical.

  84. It would be an honor to find one’s name alongside Lindzen, Spencer, Singer and so many other respected scientists!

  85. Apparently too many people are unaware that “climatology” is a newly created “discipline”. Anyone can call themselves a climatologist. Getting published and peer reviewed is essentially meaningless, except that it indicates you are “in” with the others calling themselves climatologists. The net result is that you’re either “one of them”, or you’re not. Now we have a list of who is not.

    Unfortunately, people rely on the fact that someone calling themselves a “climatologist” can be expected to be an expert in climate, which is an incorrect assumption. There are also “cosmologists”, and although I have a lot of respect for what they do I hardly believe they “know” all of the answers.

    There are also “cosmetologists”, and from what I’ve seen these last ten years the average cosmetologist has more real world knowledge of their field than does the average climatologist. At least the cosmetologist has immediate feedback and a provable worth. Can you imagine a cosmetologist who claims their work will only be validated in 100 years?

  86. This is an interesting tactic. By listing climate researchers who believe in AGW (but might be straying) and mixing them up with those who are true skeptics, the NAS will cause their funding to be in jeopardy. This forces these climatologists who are borderline Believers to shut up. It has a chilling effect on climate researchers, it keeps them in line. They cannot stray any further since their name is already on the Blacklist, one more wrong move and they are done. Amazing. I would not have expected this kind of behavior from the National Academy of Science, but when it comes to AGW I’ve seen everything over the last few years. The NAS is truly grabbing at straws, they are going down with the ship. I think it’s time the Directors of the NAS had a good reviewing.

  87. Don’t take it lightly, this is serious. Just consider how furious GWrs. will feel when their beloved Gaia does not warm but cools down. It will enrage them against “deniers”.
    Kind of a mommy’s and daddy’s kid complaining: “Those bad guys are telling me ugly things”

  88. Northern Exposure says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:35 am

    “…The list of heretics that are to be burned at the stake.”

    Oh, we don’t want any of that. Think of all the CO2….

  89. wws says:
    June 22, 2010 at 5:34 am

    “The Left’s new motto:

    “McCarthyism – it’s only wrong when the other guys do it.” ”

    Projection is an ugly thing. So is the death of a Cult…

  90. Since when any science has to be exclusively done by certified scientists? Anyone with a brain and knows how to use it can become a scientist… as long as he (she) can follow the simples rules of science and research. Great inventions have been developed by people that never set a foot in a university.

    Climate science does not belong to certified climate scientists.

  91. R. de Haan says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:29 am
    The global Warming Inquisition has begun.

    And a few Monks from that inquisition use to visit these pages too, though sometimes in disguise, but always showing an unquenchable stubborness about their petty theories.

  92. Well, what do you expect? Rewind to March 5 and the Washington Times was reporting:

    ‘In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind…

    Mr. Schneider said Mr. Inhofe is showing “McCarthyesque” behavior in the mold of the Cold War-era senator who was accused of stifling political debate through accusations of communism.

    “I don’t want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior…” ‘ [said Stephen Schneider]

    No, Schneider doesn’t like McCarthyesque behaviour when he fantasizes that he might be on the receiving end. But to “fight back in kind” means that it’s OK for him to dish it out. It’s OK for him to be the gatekeeper editor, who bends the rules, and makes sure publications are firmly shut to those who are skeptical. McCarthyism is fine, just so long as it’s Schneider and his mates practicing it. Otherwise, it’s a very bad thing.

    So, a blacklist. And a paper “Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010″ with Schneider’s name on as author – a household name, no less – that will be cited again and again by CAGW fanatics to try to prove not only that climate skeptics are not credible, but also that they should not be afforded any credibility.

    Of course, if the CAGW thesis could stand on its own two feet, none of this would be necessary. But it can’t. It can prevail only by deception, coercion, blacklisting, gatekeeping, character assassination and the like.

    It is ever the same with lying narratives.

  93. The topic does beg a question, what percentage of Scientists support AGW?

    2004-2007 Published Papers
    source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/29/less-half-published-scientists-endorse-global-warming-theory

    “Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.”

    “Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.””

    Note: given all the IPCC screw-ups, I wonder if the support has fallen even lower today.

  94. Scott says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:29 am

    At Stanford University !, Wow!…..however this “RESEARCH” misses to point out that this research was made “under the guidance of one of Gaia predilect sons: Peyote and of one of her favorite daughters: Marijuana”.

  95. Friends:

    I write to ask a favour.

    Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?

    Richard

  96. Enneagram says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:34 am

    “The late Prof.Theodore Landscheitdt has been included in that list.”

    Proof positive of the quality and veracity of Prall’s work/input and a further indictment of the “peer-review” process. No, the list wasn’t attached to the paper, but obviously, Prall’s rankings were used as the metric. Yet, the paper was published and by using Prall’s rankings, he gets a feather in his cap for his help in publishing a flawed paper. Very nice. I wonder if these people think about their circular arguments and hypocrisy? For instance, Prall show’s us his list of 500 published scientists who defy the consensus? How many scientist have to disagree before it is determined that no consensus exists? Prall whines about the lack of properly qualified and credible skeptics and yet there he is with his list and name on a paper exalting the virtues of alarmism. From his page “I am a system administrator and tech support contact for all research computing within ECE….” It turns out, I’m as qualified as he is, in that I hold the same position with my company. It would almost be comical if the implications weren’t so extreme.

  97. Wow

    ‘And what also floats? A duck! Precisely. Therefore…’

    Fiction, funny as it may be, becomes the new truth, sad.

  98. I’m obviously a bear of very little brain.
    This guy has produced a massive list of skeptics, so long that I would have thought he might just be struggling to find a list of warmists that is equally long. Yet he still doesn’t seem to understand that, even if science is not being a matter of who is in the majority, there would seem something a bit amiss in his thinking. I mean, if there are that many
    Or am I missing something vital, here?

  99. As Gilbert and Sullivan’s Lord High Executioner put it,

    As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
    I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
    Of society offenders who might well be underground,
    And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!

  100. I want to offer my thanks to the denizens of this blog. You are American heros.

    If it’s any consolation in considering this nasty turn of events, the “debate” is likely only to get uglier from here.

    But they can’t defeat science itself.

  101. No one has mentioned how the ranking is computed, it’s clear a lot of it has to do with publishing papers, but even non publishers made the list. That should be part of the supplemental report, but I haven’t gone looking yet.

    I submit his ranking system is flawed. While looking at the number of citations of papers instead of number of papers published is good, a lot of often cited papers represent some basic data gathering, e.g. Keeling’s Mauna Loa CO2 papers. However, there is a an aspect of a popularity contest. However, perhaps that would be a better metric!

    More difficult to measure would be how influential papers and other media are. For example, Steven McIntyre’s tireless work on the hockey stick curve proved the merit of digging into the back story of the subject, and that directly influenced the flurry of flaw finding in the IPCC’s AR4. However, McIntyre ranks way down at #302. I suspect he’d be happier if he were ranked even lower, but clearly he is one of the most influential people on the list.

    Boy, and I though I was obsessed over climate stuff. I stand in awe. Not admiration, just awe!

  102. Rather odd that on his c.v. Prall lists “books read.”

    No, Climategate: the CRUtape letters was not among them.

  103. The Royal Society in 2006: “We have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one”.

    “Any known skeptics” – now they have a convenient black list.

    Over at Bishop Hill you can see from emails recently released under FOI how the IPCC and Royal Society conspired against ‘skeptics’ before publication of AR4.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/22/the-wisdom-of-solomon.html

    RS = Rachel Garthwaite of the Science Policy Unit of the Royal Society.
    SS = Susan Solomon, IPCC Working Group 1, Fourth Assessment Report.

    The email dates from 2006, nearly 9 months before the release of the Fourth Assessment Report. Garthwaite was organizing speakers to attend a Royal Society lecture to coincide with the report’s publication.

    RG: Thank you for calling last week and my apologies for having taken so long to get back to you. I am out of the office all of this week but wanted to reassure you that the Royal Society is still very keen to hold an event to showcase the WG1 report and we have taken your comments regarding the potential content of the meeting very seriously.

    SS: thanks – I think it was very helpful.

    RG: In terms of ensuring there are no climate sceptics present at the meeting, obviously this will be difficult to ensure if the meeting is open to members of the public.

    SS: I didn’t say anything along these lines. I fully expect some to be present in the audience.

    RG: However we have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one.

    SS:Yes, that is the point – they should not be invited to take the podium as speakers or panelists because that is simply not an appropriate representation of the state of understanding and uncertainty. The public has been confused enough by one side says this, the other that. This issue has gone far beyond that and this meeting should reflect that.

  104. Just posted this on his blog…

    “Please add my name to your list. I’m no expert in climatology but I have a science degree and would be honoured to count myself as one who looks critically at politico-scientific orthodoxy. Keep up the good work – it’s very entertaining (almost satirical)to real scientists.”

    We’ll see if it get past moderation.

  105. Richard S Courtney says: June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am

    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    I suggest something small, clear and simple.

    A round silver lapel, tie pin or broach with the word “Real” at the top, an image of a glass alcohol thermometer (red bulb, black outline) in the middle, and the word “Data” at the bottom. Using two simple words will simplify the translation into other languages and the glass alcohol thermometer is recognizable by any school aged child. You might choose to curve the letters to match the rounding but that makes it less legible, also putting the words beside the image would cramp the image.

    The purpose of the pin is to get people to ask you about it, not to make a proclamation.

    Avoid using anything with a red slash (NO) as it is a negative presentation, be positive and show your support for what is the crux of the issue at hand.

    Get them made up and mail them out to the member of the list, and request a donation to cover the costs of the production and mailing.

    Small, clear and simple.

  106. Fergus Mclean says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:14 am
    “I want to offer my thanks to the denizens of this blog. You are American heros.”

    Not only American: Global…

  107. Actually it’s all very charming. If only I could have continued in academia I might yhave been able to get my name on the same list as Bob Carter, Nir Shaviv, S. Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen!

  108. Richard S Courtney says:

    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    This may not be exactly what you have in mind, but Ms Weasel also does requests.

  109. “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

    ~ Mohandas Gandhi ~

    First they ignored us, and then they derided us, now they are fighting us …

  110. Smokey says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I see on Ms Weasel’s blog it is mentioned that each spruce tree soaks up 11 lbs of CO2. Well, I planted over a million of them in Scotland back in the eighties so I reckon I’ve done my bit.

  111. Richard S Courtney says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am
    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    ====================
    Maholy created a striking image of an out of focus letter “Q” questioning a focus on Quality for his students.

    Perhaps an out of focus satellite image of the Earth to honor Scientific exploration and an honest focus on the question Earth?

    Tongue-in-Cheek might be fun as well, how about a “not symbol” over a question mark to symbolize the Alarmist tendency to not question the assumptions.

  112. A magnificent list of open-minded scientists from around the world. A list one should be proud to be on, (no matter one’s views), and I only wish I was clever enough to be included.
    I would love to wear a discrete lapel pin to show my allegiance with those on the “list”, a golden sun or a glistening water droplet perhaps. Anthony could sell them on his site to help with finances!

  113. I believe that similar peer-reviewed work was done in Germany in 1939. It showed that less than 1% of published scientific papers had been produced by Jewish scientists in the previous three years.

    Actually I made that up but in order to produce a reasoned paper it would have been necessary to consider the number of papers submitted but rejected as well. Even that would not produce a valid statistic, since a number of scientists who might have submitted a contrarian paper could have been put off doing so in the knowledge that it (a) would not be accepted for publication and/or (b) might damage their chances of obtaining funding and/or promotions.
    While the paper’s authors, William R. L. Anderegga, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider may all hold senior posts in the scientific world, it is clear that while they do not understand statistics. It would be useful to remind them that no statistics are valid unless the sample from which they are derived is an unbiased selection of the whole population being studied.
    As an essay in statistics which is what this paper purported to be it should have been reviewed by statisticians and would have been rejected by any competent statistical reviewer.

  114. I am thrilled and honoured to be on the list. I agree with the point that it explodes the consensus argument, but IPCC member Mike Hulme recently confirmed this was always a myth. The question is why didn’t he speak about it earlier when it was being used to sideline skeptics?

    I don’t know about others but there are errors and omissions in my entry. For example, I am listed as being with the National Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), but this organization was not a think tank as listed, lasted less than two years and has been defunct for a few years now. I am listed with a PhD, which is correct, but no date (1982) when it exists for others. A simple search of the University of London doctoral candidates would have provided this information.

    The most egregious idea is the limitation of 20 for publications to qualify as a climate researcher. It is an extension of the consensus argument. Quality is not in quantity and consensus is not a scientific fact. There are other reasons why it is wrong and clearly chosen to push pro-AGW people above skeptics. One of the practices of publications by people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was listing multiple authors on each paper to the point where it was clearly contrived to pad resumes. (They were not alone in this practice as it has become part of the academic promotion and advancement game.) Look at the 42 people Professor Wegman identified in his investigation as a coterie all of who had published with Michael Mann and how many of them appear on these multi-authored papers.
    A second problem made abundantly clear by the CRU emails was the degree to which they controlled the peer review process to guarantee publication of their own work, but also to ensure skeptical works were rejected. They did this to the point were they had editor- in- chief of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) James Saiers fired for publishing an article they did not like. (1106322460). This is interesting to me because I recall when GRL came on the climate scene. Up to that point there were very few journals publishing climate articles and very few universities offering courses or programs in climate. The only centres of climate were Reid Bryson’s at Wisconsin and Hubert Lamb’s at East Anglia. Climate was ironically a subset of meteorology when the reality is it is the other way around. Climate data was only published by government agencies as monthly and annual summaries. Most climate articles were published in meteorology journals such the Royal Meteorological Society Journal. The first mainstream climate journal was Climatic Change whose editor, Stephen Schneider, is probably among the longest surviving editor in any journal. Neither “Science” nor “Nature” were interested climate research or publishing climate papers. GRL was important because it was interdisciplinary, an essential item that acknowledges the generalist nature of climatology.

    I am not complaining because I am on the list but in my early career climate publishing opportunities were limited because it was not a subject of concern. The when it became of concern the ability to publish was controlled by those who took political control and manipulated the process.

  115. All this fuss for a guy who clearly gets his kicks by pulling the wings off flies.

    Much ado about nothing.

  116. Why the focus on a single list? Prall has several:

    all 619 IPCC AR4 wg 1 contributing authors

    3000+ climate scientists and signatories of public declarations on climate (including AR4wg1, skeptics, and others; stats done on over 2300)

    246 female climate authors (includes 79 AR4wg1 authors; 93 activist and 6 skeptic signers)

    496 climate skeptics who signed any of twelve skeptics declarations, or appeared in TGGWS

    40 listed authors of the 2008 ‘summary for policymakers’ and/or the 2009 report from the so-called “Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change”

    Within the lists it’s clear which side Prall has assigned people to, and the bad colors in things like “IPCC AR4 wg 1 contributing authors” certainly stand out. (E.g. Landsea, with special mention at the top, and Christy.)

    Ultimately, it may be that the black list / white list nature of the tables is really just how Prall has assigned people as skeptic/warmist and the ranking discloses little information.

  117. Thats quite a master list, but I thought that no scientists felt that way, how is it there is such a huge list of skeptics? Climate activists are amusing especially this guy, I read that blog and Romm for comedic relief lol

  118. The number of publications on a topic tells you nothing about the scientific “consensus.” It is really revealing a bias in funding…he who has money can publish. The paper also make mention in the conclusions about ‘cliques’ as a source of bias. If the authors had read the Wegman(?) report they would know that this has been shown by accomplished statisticians to be the case with climate scientist.

  119. Extraordinary list. I thought there would be maybe 10 names on it. There are almost 500. It completely debunks any notion that there was ‘ a consensus about the science’.

    Amazing. Whenever someone says that there’s the science is settled and that there’s a consensus, I’ll send them to that site.

  120. The National Academy is just America’s science lobby (their specific lobbying arm is the AAAS). This kind of organization is bound to view science in terms of keeping the funding flowing. Cogent arguments that AGW is not a “problem” threaten the funding stream, and must be silenced.

  121. I just read http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html and find it a remarkable piece of back-patting. They consider Number of Publications and Number of Citations as their sole metrics for scientific credentials.

    Good scientific research includes looking at all possibilities, but this group did not consider two well discussed ones, namely funding available for research, and obstacles on the path of publishing. Without looking at these and others, then Judith Curry’s summation “completely unconvincing” is the only reasonable conclusion.

    In other words, they’re just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

  122. I think the pressure is being applied through the UN is by the OIC. All I can see now is Jizya by ‘globull warming’ stealth. Many folks are now waking up to the islamofascism alliance with our marxofascists (Greenologists).

    From Dr. Roy’s link about the Inquisition…
    “But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences. ”

    Now traditional muslim belief {snipits}
    “There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

    The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:

    1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:

    Ritual Purification (Wudu)
    Prayers (Salah)
    Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
    Charity (Zakat)
    Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)

    2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:

    Financial transactions
    Endowments
    Laws of inheritance
    Marriage, divorce, and child care
    Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
    Penal punishments
    War and peace
    Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)”
    ====
    “It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad’s time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered.”

    “Islam’s persecution of non-Muslims is in no way limited to jihad, even though that is the basic relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. After the jihad concludes in a given area with the conquest of infidel territory, the dhimma, or treaty of protection, may be granted to the conquered “People of the Book” — historically, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The dhimma provides that the life and property of the infidel are exempted from jihad for as long as the Muslim rulers permit, which has generally meant for as long as the subject non-Muslims — the dhimmi — prove economically useful to the Islamic state. The Quran spells out the payment of the jizya (poll- or head-tax; Sura 9:29), which is the most conspicuous means by which the Muslim overlords exploit the dhimmi. But the jizya is not merely economic in its function; it exists also to humiliate the dhimmi and impress on him the superiority of Islam.”
    ===

    Green is also the colour of islam… How convenient.

    It’s perfect, a ‘science’ that islam can embrace because it hits all the requisite sharia marks.

    A tax on our society for doing better because we are non-muslim. An effective religious science that purports apocalyptic visions in keeping with traditional religious views. An effective attack on our infrastructure which, as the enemy, we deserve because we are disbelievers.

    The push for Cap and Trade and the acquiescence to building a mosque at Ground Zero are not coincidence.

    The Maldives practice al-taqiyya by crying to the West.

    Do you really trust the information coming from countries that must hate us?
    We can’t even trust the information coming from our own government institutions anymore.

  123. Wow, I’m honoured to see my name on that list. Now what do I need to do to raise myself from #460 to somewhere a bit higher? :D

  124. Just another sign of increasing desperation as the science, public opinion, and even the politics move against proponents. More to come.

  125. Richard S Courtney says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am
    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    ===============
    Hope this works Richard, first time attempting to post an image.

    Larger Version

  126. DandyTroll says: June 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
    “People should only be on lists they choose to sign on to, otherwise it’s STASI.”

    Opening it up to just any scientist that wanted to sign up would also be a very heavy load on their server and the backups could take hours. Also they need to keep it to a manageable size, not everyone has high speed broadband access.

  127. It is interesting to note, after my initial angry reaction over this, that the trolls are not even trying to defend this disgraceful attack on free thought.

    Where are the usual trolls? Surely they should be rejoicing at the publication of this important “scientific” paper and defending vociferously one of their heroes.

    I think it is fair to say that the environmental/fascist/misanthropic, ( take your pick ), has sunk to a new low.

    Who stole their plot?

  128. The evidence is certainly not “convincing” so I have to wonder what is so unusual about this climate science field that makes 97% of its top researchers so convinced.

  129. I’m struck by the amount of support for “Realists” that this paper and the blogs that have reported it has produced. Also, since when is 900-odd out of 1400-odd equal “98%”? Oh yes, he’s counting “peer-reviewed” papers in a world where peer-review is nearly impossible for a Realist. If you counted blog articles, I would bet that percentage is reversed.

    For a badge: I nominate a nice white Stevenson Screen over a patch of green grass.

  130. Why be angry? This is the ultimate own goal. When anyone says that there is a ‘consensus’, or that ‘all serious scientists agree with AGW’, refer them to this list. It contains some of the most eminent names in science. Freeman Dyson, Thomas Gold, Frank Tipler, Fred Singer…. those are just a few I recognise from astrophysics and space science.

  131. see John from CA says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    For everyone on the list, I hope you like the perceptual play of the absurd image. I felt it reflected an equally absurd situation.

    Let me know if you’d like to change the copy and I’ll post another version.

    Best Regards,
    John from CA

  132. Ever so easy.

    All they have to do is publish incontrovertible, reliable, verifiable, actually measured and analysed data showing the direct and obvious link between CO2 (or has that “changed” too?) and temperature rise of catastrophic (heck maybe even meaningful would be sufficient) proportion and effect.

    I guess we know why they are resorting to lists and name-calling.

    I rest my case.

  133. This paper may not be a bad thing. It could prove to be a wonderful teaching tool about the “logic” used by some to preach climate change, the sad state of our peer reviewed system and confirmation of systematic attacks on skeptics shown by the Climategate emails.

    Schneider may have finally “jumped the shark.”

  134. Re: Jack Simmons says: June 22, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I notice Jim Prall, who presumes to rank scientists in their suitability as references, is proud to proclaim his astrological sign on his blog.

    Worse than that, he’s an auditor-

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html

    “I also get the opportunity to enroll in or to audit whatever courses catch my interest. I usually select one course per semester. Even when I’m just auditing, I try to do all the assigned readings.”

    but no doubt he’s a decent boy at heart, and is only following orders. He’s a Virgo, and likes brown shirts.

  135. I’m hoping there is a “grandfather clause” as I did not make their list. Perhaps I can be listed as “head of a local skeptics chapter”!!! Constantly amazed at the childishness and and finger pointing without substance from the opposing view. Wonders, apparently, never cease. It would be unnecessary for wordpress to include a laugh-track feature, as I sense an abundance of laughter from most people posting here. Their desperation is palpable.

  136. I would be greatly honored to be on any list with so many distinguished names. I would cheerfully buy and wear a pin to show my support for these heroes of science.

  137. JB says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:13 am

    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….
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Given the blackballing of AGW skepticism in peer reviewed journals it is darn good.

    Excerpts from Climategate emails:
    email 0926031061
    I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the US—but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing is important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.

    email 1047388489
    Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by [skeptics] Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
    ….Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …

    I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

    ….This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! ….

    …So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

    Eventually the targeted editor was forced of the journal.

  138. Gary says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:07 am

    …. After all, it’s all about fitting in and looking good among your fellows. This is the reason I have no accreditation of my own. I could never discipline myself to fit into the spirit of the academia. I’ve been kicked out of some of the greatest classes this side of the Mississippi…..
    ___________________________________________________________________
    “Those who can do, those who can’t teach, and those who can’t teach teach the teachers!” Congratulations you make the “A” list – those who actually do something useful.

  139. “How can some very intelligent people be so incredibly stupid”

    Re-examine the premises. That question, by itself, illuminates a conflict of [italic] expectations [/italic].
    There are no conflicts in reality.
    1- the stupidity is totally credible
    2- they are not very intelligent (they only need to confuse those who are stupider)
    but most of all:
    3- you should not wish to deny reality
    the practical uses of a correct evaluation are:
    1- you know that you can’t explain to a moron even that he is a moron – because he’s a moron.
    2- you don’t debate a mugger. He has no use for your tongue. He is a mugger and does what muggers do.
    3- if you agree to the negotiation, you’ve agreed to the outcome. The outcome was always pre-determined to be ‘negotiate until you submit’, which was the reason you were faced with the discussion in the first place- it was just step #1 of the recipe.
    4- you learn to do NO – as opposed to talking about it.

  140. Scott says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Examples like this illustrate why I hide behind anonymity when posting at this blog and commenting elsewhere. It’s also why I stay quiet about the topic when it comes up among my peers. As an up and coming scientist, making my skepticism clear, especially to certain individuals, would be career suicide….

    But to me it’s not worth the risk to do so because it could literally ruin the rest of my life, and the list described above is evidence of that.

    -Scott
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Scott, unfortunately you are correct. That is why a lot of the outspoken “skeptics” are older or retired. Being black listed because of your honesty and integrity is very unfair but also very very real. Both I and my Uncle were black listed so it does happen and is more common than most think. Universities and Corporations want “Team Players” That is why small businesses, who will hire the mavericks, produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

  141. Silly me I thought there were only a handfull of sceptical scientists,
    turns out there’s a whole bunch of them. :-)

  142. Calling all science whistleblowers!!!!!

    Now is the time to alert your friendly Attorney General or Inspector General to all that you know!!!

    Your already marked as a skeptic, what can it hurt.

    Your livelihood is at stake.

    JT

  143. Richard Courtney, I second the badge with a white Stevenson screen on a green patch of grass. Simple. Recognizable. Positive. Relevant. Conversation-opener. Steers the issue back to real science. Revelations of the flaws in the most basic record claiming to show AGW, only a sentence or two away.

  144. This is so anti science it’s unbelievable. What has happened to climate science? This is really really bad from an epistemological standpoint. PNAS credibility down the sink.

  145. @Andrew30
    June 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    ‘DandyTroll says: June 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
    “People should only be on lists they choose to sign on to, otherwise it’s STASI.”

    “Opening it up to just any scientist that wanted to sign up would also be a very heavy load on their server and the backups could take hours. Also they need to keep it to a manageable size, not everyone has high speed broadband access.”‘

    I’m not sure if I understand your point, but still it sounds fun enough. If any scientist wanted to sign on to some list then they ought to be able to sign, and if the hobnobs of the list haven’t procured enough bandwidth, shame on them, and then don’t forget to make fun of ‘em for being such stupid academic smartass’ for not understanding the ramification of failure. :()

  146. Friends:

    Thankyou for all the suggestions for a lapel pin. At present, I favour the suggestion of a white Stevenson screen on a green patch of grass. But I look forward to other suggestions.

    This could be fun.

    Richard

  147. Well I thought that I checked all of the NZ flag entries; anbd I didn’t find any mention of Dr Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland; who is a very well known Skeptic .

    Of course I wasn’t on the list; but then I have made it quite clear; I am NOT a skeptic.

    I’m quite convinved that the science is quite wrong.

    Well no; not all of it; just that part that deals with CO2 controlling the mean temperature of the earth. That has to be such a joke.

    Anyone who believes that should spend a night out under the stars either in the Mojave Desert, or maybe the Gobi Desert; and just experience for himself how much surface warming he receives from CO2 induced downward LWIR radiation; when there isn’t much water vapor around to do the job.

    And the big joke about that black list is that the Authors all declared they had no conflict of interest in publishing this piece of ad hominem debate losing strategy hay. In this instance of course the hay has already been once through the horse. A lot of people will settle for that kind of hay.

    But it’s good to know that I am keeping a low profile; it’s more fun watching the game while travelling incognito.

    And this is what passes for research by that august body; the National Academy of Sciences; or is it academies of science ? They are not known for publishing any minority reports on the concerns of those of their members who do from time to time disagree with the opinions of the majority.

    But the President, and the Congress, are not kept informed of the concerns of those dissenters.

    It’s not unlike the Mensa organisation; a clatch of self appointed, self selecting authorities that taxpayers are supposed to feed.

  148. “If you are not guilty you have nothing to fear…”

    As to the scientific value of the paper? – Nil.
    If one were to list all authors on Alien Abduction or Crystal Healing the vast majority would be believers, despite the subject being hokum.

  149. Smokey says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Richard S Courtney says:

    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    This may not be exactly what you have in mind, but Ms Weasel also does requests.
    ___________________________________________________
    Smokey, I went to that site and notice this comment

    “Oh, now this is rich. German greenies calculate that a blog which gets 15,000 hits or more a month pumps out 8 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

    So what you’re supposed to do is, you write a blog post about this, you put a link to them in the sidebar using their “my blog is carbon neutral” graphic, they plant a tree in your name, it soaks up 11 pounds of CO2, and — violoncello! — your blog IS carbon neutral.”

    Well, I have planted about fifty acres of trees that I now dedicate to WUWT. Anthony can now declare he is a Carbon neutral blog (snicker)

    So that kills that particular dart – blog away my friends.

  150. #
    #
    Lucy Skywalker says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Richard Courtney, I second the badge with a white Stevenson screen on a green patch of grass. Simple. Recognizable. Positive. Relevant. Conversation-opener. Steers the issue back to real science. Revelations of the flaws in the most basic record claiming to show AGW, only a sentence or two away.
    ____________________________________________________________
    I like the idea but I am afraid most people would not recognize a Stevenson screen if it bit them on the …. That is why I think I like the thermometer better.

    This is my favorite: A Climate Scientist holding a burning lighter next to the bulb of a thermometer I sort of liked this Cartoon Thermometer by Michael Ramireztoo or a take off of this Polar bear ate my data

  151. Lawrence Solomon’s take on the Black List and its author:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/lawrence-solomon-google-scholar-at-the-academy/

    “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.”

  152. How do I get on the list? It seems like all the cool kids are there… where do I sign up?

  153. Andrew30: June 22, 2010 at 10:29 am
    “A round silver lapel, tie pin or broach with the word “Real” at the top, an image of a glass alcohol thermometer (red bulb, black outline) in the middle, and the word “Data” at the bottom.”

    How about this for a start then:

  154. Perhaps skeptics are older because they they began their career in an age before climate science was a social and political issue.

  155. RR Kampen says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:51 am
    “I could agree with the simple criterion of: denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (which is basically what most skepticists do).”

    Typical. You have set up a straw man. Most skeptics grant that CO2 is a GHG. They just think there is not sufficient data to reach firm conclusions on the sensitivity of climate to the CO2 effect nor do we know all the other factors that influence climate and to what degree and how they interact. If you read the literature you will see all types of statements affirming uncertainty on these issues in papers written by true believers, but somehow when they got together for IPCC, AGW suddenly becomes unassailable, robust, and unequivocal.

    I was amazed that Phil Jones stated in an interview when asked why he was so sure that AGW was correct, he said basically that we can’t think of anything else that could account for the warming. Wow!

  156. I’m not fond of ad hominems, so this is meant to be taken in jest:

    Jim Prall – a prime candidate for Captain on the Golgafrincham B Ark.

    (note: joke requires in-depth knowledge of the Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy).

  157. jeef said on June 22, 2010 at 9:26 pm:

    I’m not fond of ad hominems, so this is meant to be taken in jest:

    Jim Prall – a prime candidate for Captain on the Golgafrincham B Ark.

    (note: joke requires in-depth knowledge of the Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy).

    An acceptable substitute for in-depth knowledge these days (at least for this) would be Wikipedia.

    But who would and how would they decide who the “useless” people are for placement on such an ark, if they would/could do such for current-day Earth?

    Oh look, they already made one list…

  158. Unfortunately for the badges, a Stevenson screen would be too much of an “in joke” to work. The use of “Real” on the idea with the thermometer would be objected to by Real Climate so they can stay fully distanced from us smelly ignorant uneducated unscientific denying pigs.

    Thus I propose a simpler version. Start with the heart of the contention, CO2, with a simple molecular model using three spheres (circles actually), a slightly-smaller Carbon atom flanked by two Oxygen atoms. Over this goes the internationally-recognized circle with a diagonal slash, the No/Forbidden/Verboten symbol. This symbolizes we don’t find CO2 to be a problem, and as such badges are chosen by oppressors to represent their own beliefs it will appear to say “No!” to CO2, thus it will appeal to our self-appointed masters, these Keepers of the Holy Scientific Truth, to use us moronic unwashed flat-earthers as walking advertisements of their faith.

    For some reason at this time I can find no comment from R. Gates about the matter. Therefore I will go with his previous postings and presume he would like only 75% of the badge that shall be normally required. Unfortunately 0/1, True or False, with-us or against-us logic was used, so one is either 100% committed or on the “Gaea-raping CO2-polluting waste-of-resources” list. However with careful designing using appropriate amounts of computer modeling, we can achieve a badge that has 75% less area, extent, and volume by leaving out one Oxygen atom. If R. Gates, or any of the other 25% skeptical fence-sitters, wish to complain against possibly being mis-identified as denying that carbon monoxide is a problem, they are free as usual to comment about such here. To keep the thread tidy, I shall suggest they do so in the same posting where they vehemently denounce the mere existence of this detestable inflammatory list. :-)

  159. EW:

    At June 23, 2010 at 3:12 am you say:

    “It hasn’t warmed since 1998 (literally true, but in context of climate, wrong)”

    Wrong?!
    No, it is factually correct and of great importance to any consideration of how global climate is changing and why.

    Please explain how the fact – that you agree is “literally true” – is “wrong”.

    And please do not let your explanation amount to,
    “It is an inconvenient fact that challenges your assumptions so you choose to dismiss it”.
    Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).

    Those of us on the blacklist want to know how and why global climate is changing. We reject assertions that facts that can be investigated to assist that understanding (and are “literally true”) must be “wrong” because they do not fit some prejudice. Instead, we assess the accuracy, precision, reliability and validity of those facts.

    So, I look forward to your explanation.

    Richard

  160. John from CA says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    That’s very funny Gail but I think you mean the polar bear ate chicken little ; )
    _________________________________________________________________
    The polar bear ate chicken little is the original, I was thinking of something similar with only the polar bear eating the CRU, GISS data…. Unless the artist would agree to us using the original.

  161. jaymam says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Or maybe lower case would be better:

    _________________________________________________________
    Nice and simple and easily understood from a distance. I like all caps best.

  162. John from CA says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Smiley White Stevenson Screen on Grass [lawn]

    __________________________________________________________________
    I like that better than a straight smiley face. However I still think most lay people would not understand what a Stevenson Screen is. If this just makes them ignore the lapel pin – bad, if it makes them ask questions – Good.

  163. Searching for Climate Patents?

    A recent peer-reviewed paper “Expert credibility in climate change” was published in the PNAS, apparently demonstrating the computer illiteracy of it’s authors and PNAS reviewers. Their “results” were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”. By default Google Scholar is set to search both “articles and patents” yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word “climate” a relevant “climate publication”?

  164. jorgekafkazar says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Regarding a badge of honor for listed skeptic scientists: I favor as most appropriate the image of Nikolai Vavilov:

    http://www.vir.nw.ru/history/vavilov.htm

    May he never be forgotten.
    __________________________________________________________________
    His story certainly serves as a sharp reminder of what happens when politics is allowed to trump science, especially when the story is so recent. He is a contemporary of our Fathers and Grandfathers.

  165. Richard S Courtney says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am
    “Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”

    I suggest a round button showing slanted hockey stick slashed through with a standard red “NO” line (forming an X-shape). Simple and clear.

  166. Richard Courtney, I suggest a lapel pin that has a gold question mark (?) On a green background. Questioning is the essence of being a skeptic. I haven’t read all the comments so I apologize if this has already been suggested.

    John

  167. I’ll do a few more versions of the button. I like kadaka’s “No CO2″ idea. Its a simple icon that quickly conveys the message but I’ll try a version with the word CO2 as well.

    I’ll also change the smilie and try a few more versions. Sorry Gail, I misunderstood your comment about the Polar Bear joke. I have several Polar Bear images from the Anchorage Zoo and will try a rotoscope version later today.

    Artists hate censorship. Michael Ramirez as well as many other Artists are likely to be willing to create art for publication that highlights the Blacklist and IPCC censorship nonsense. I can send some emails today but we should get Anthony’s response first.

  168. Richard S Courtney says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Friends:

    I write to ask a favour.

    Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?

    Richard

    The Norwegian “Klimarealistene” (Climate Realists) is using the this symbol.

    There is also a small pin (same symbol, no text) to wear on a jacket.

  169. Button concepts have been uploaded to the following link. Let me know if I missed any or if you’d like one of them refined.

  170. PFWAG says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Be careful on comparisons. As the papers released after the fall of the Soviet Union proved, McCarthy was actually right.

    It is not whether you are right, or whether you are wrong. It is how you conduct yourself.

    The Inquisitors may well have been right that those they suspected were losing a little faith in God, especially during the torture stages, but that does not excuse their behavior.

    As for the list itself. Oh. My. Word. The journal has destroyed itself. This is not something that you can apologise your way out of. When the tide turns – and the natural variation of the climate will ensure it does – the NAS will be stranded, and no one will let them forget their actions.

  171. I added the raised eyebrow idea (included a globe for the iris) and the request from 899 on a different blog.

    Button concepts version 2

  172. John for CA:

    I write to thank you for your designs and to thank all others for their suggestions.

    Personally, I prefer the smiley Stevenson Screen but I look forward to learning the preference of others. Perhaps we can find a consensus (if that is not a dirty word).

    Richard

  173. You’re welcome Richard — the ideas are a lot of fun and I tried to execute a mock-up of most suggestions. They are just mock-ups so feel free to be critical and suggest changes and some additional versions.

    I could do a version with the word Blacklist instead of Skeptic for the eye version. Then again, the blacklist is so absurdly juvenile, it may not be worth the effort to further publicize it.

    I’ll leave the decision up to you.

    Best Regards,
    John

  174. Wow, this is a giant list of sceptical scientists. We no longer have to go along with the idea of a concensus! Whose side is this guy on? Clearly with dire forecasts falling into the ice and snow their is nothing else to publish on the agw side. Indeed, it would be interesting to tally the papers published by alarmists by year. It would show that even they are changing their tune. Any gems from Mann, Jones, and the rest of the hockey team lately? Remember fellows, it’s publish or perish! This list as a peer rev’d paper shows they are getting to the stage of pulling the wool over their own eyes.

  175. I suggest a revision to my initial slashed-hockey-stick button: a horizontal hockey stick, with an upward-pointing blade on the right, slashed through with a standard red “NO” line.

    But a much more powerful and aggressive idea has occurred to me: a pair of upraised hands decisively snapping a hockey stick (with its blade upturned at the right) in half. It is based on the well-known (to warmists) logo of the War Resisters League, in which the hands are snapping a rifle. It would be a witty conversation-starter — and annoying to warmists who caught the allusion.

    Here’s a link to an image the rifle-breaking WRL logo:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pritsky.net/WRL.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.pritsky.net/bio.html&usg=__yRVFM37HwNKtIptZsFNfyhQFlFY=&h=130&w=200&sz=3&hl=en&start=2&sig2=-fNpo9NZTh2l8GrFUfuEmg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=RixDTj5-rc6X0M:&tbnh=68&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwar%2Bresisters%2Bleague%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=NlkiTJP5AsqHkAXIz6T8BA

  176. Richard S Courtney

    Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).

    You can get statistically significant trends with shorter timescales but 30 years has been the generally accepted period so I’ll stick with that purely for argument’s sake. That doesn’t mean you only get one data point every thirty years – you can have as many datapoints as you like, it just means that when looking at trends you have to look at datapoints thirty years apart. But 1998 until present is not sufficient to give a statistically significant trend and, of course, 1998 was an outlier for reasons not connected to AGW so starting from that year is always going to give a false impression, especially over shorter periods (which is why people do it).

  177. @John from CA:

    I’ve looked at your button list #2 ( http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1313/4728913330_006b1f42bd_b.jpg ) and like the one that shows a slashed hockey stick.

    The one that shows a slashed hockey stick temperature chart is unfortunately ambiguous: It could be interpreted as expressing a desire to suppress the rising temperature trend that it illustrates.

    Here’s a suggestion for a better Stevenson screen graphic: The eyes should be the sort of X’s that are conventionally used to indicate befuddlement or drunkenness, and the mouth should be down-turned to indicate an unhappy face. The message conveyed would be that the temperature stations are in an unhappy, messed-up state.

    I hope you can create a button showing the graphic I suggested a few posts just above: a pair of upraised hands snapping a hockey stick or the hockey-stick temperature chart. (In this case I think it’s unambiguous that the anger is directed at the chart, not the rising temperature.)

  178. Hi Roger,
    I’ll add both of the suggestions and post a new version for review tomorrow.

    John

  179. Here’s the Polar Bear Version for Gail. Eating pages of data didn’t seem to work. Hope you get a kick out of it.

  180. Hello! It’s Stoaty from sweasel, sometime reader and professional artard. I’ve been asked to pinch your ideas and graphicalize them, with a view to…I dunno…putting the best on stuff, probably. If you want to drop by and claim your idea (this is a long old thread and I didn’t take names) or point out that I missed yours or throw popcorn or whatever, feel free.

    I’ve redrawn some, I’ve just reposted your graphics some (nice work, John from CA) and I’m sure I’ve totally missed others. Remember, if you want to create artwork that will hold up for print, it needs to be about 900×900 pixels for a 3″ button.

  181. At one time leaders of the CAGW movement (excuse me, the CACC movement) claimed: “the overwhelming majority of the people believe in CAGW (damn, CACC).” As the general public became increasingly aware of the despicable tactics employed by the leaders of the CACC movement, the phrase “overwhelming majority of the people” had to be abandoned. The current claim is: “the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable climate scientists believe in CACC.” My reading of the tea leaves is that it’s just a matter of time before the phrase “overwhelming majority of knowledgeable climate scientists” will also have to be dropped. What’s next? Maybe their new claim will be “the overshelming majority of scientists who believe in CACC believe in CACC.” At least that claim can’t be refuted.

  182. I don’t think that Stephen Schneider could have done more to damage his image than use his postition at NAS to push through this non peer reviewed “paper”.

  183. Reed Coray says:
    June 25, 2010 at 9:41 am

    “… it’s just a matter of time before the phrase “overwhelming majority of knowledgeable climate scientists” will also have to be dropped. What’s next?”

    “overbearing majority of knowledgeable climate scientists”

  184. If yellow badges are required to be worn by skeptics, I will wear mine with pride.

  185. Surely this is a good thing. When Anyone cites a concensus, we now have a list of emminent scientists, conveniently brought together from many sources, who break that concensus.

    Some a’hole sells you a lemon, sell him lemonade.

Comments are closed.