Expert Embarrassment in Climate Change

Guest post by Thomas Fuller

The paper ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change,’ published in PNAS by Anderegg, the late Stephen Schneider, James Prall and Jacob Harold attempts to measure the credibility of climate scientists by counting how many papers they have published and how often their work has been cited by others.

This led to the creation of a blacklist that will be used to injure the careers of those who have signed letters or petitions that do not agree with the Al Gore/James Hansen position on climate change, and to intimidate future scientists, effectively silencing dissent.

The paper is poorly done, as I’ve explained elsewhere. They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database. They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science. They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations.

As I’ve mentioned, the highly respected Spencer Weart dismissed the paper as rubbish, saying it should not have been published.

But the worst part of this is the violation of the rights of those they studied. Because Prall keeps lists of skeptical scientists on his weblog, obsessively trawling through online petitions and published lists of letters, and because those lists were used as part of the research, anyone now or in the future can have at their fingertips the names of those who now or in the past dared to disagree.

The Joe Romm’s of this world have already called for this list to be used to deny funding, tenure and grants to scientists. And it will be. It doesn’t matter that the nature of the letters and petitions they signed varied widely, from outright skepticism to really innocuous questioning of the state of the science.

The paper is tagged ‘Climate Deniers.’ Now, so are they.

This is an outright violation of every ethical code of conduct for research that has ever been published.

They violate several sections of the American Sociological Association Ethical Guidelines:
“Sociologists conduct research, teach, practice, and provide service only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, or appropriate professional experience.”

The members of the research team were operating outside their areas of professional competence.

“Sociologists refrain from undertaking an activity when their personal circumstances may interfere with their professional work or lead to harm for a student, supervisee, human subject, client, colleague, or other person to whom they have a scientific, teaching, consulting, or other professional obligation.” The subjects of their research–the scientists on the list–risk grave harm as a result of this paper.

“11. Confidentiality
Sociologists have an obligation to ensure that confidential information is protected. They do so to ensure the integrity of research and the open communication with research participants and to protect sensitive information obtained in research, teaching, practice, and service. When gathering confidential information, sociologists should take into account the long-term uses of the information, including its potential placement in public archives or the examination of the information by other researchers or
practitioners.

11.01 Maintaining Confidentiality

(a) Sociologists take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality rights of research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.

(b) Confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so. Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from
being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.

(c) Information provided under an understanding of confidentiality is treated as such even after the death of those providing that information.

(d) Sociologists maintain the integrity of confidential deliberations, activities, or
roles, including, where applicable, that of professional committees, review panels,
or advisory groups (e.g., the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics).

(e) Sociologists, to the extent possible, protect the confidentiality of student records,
performance data, and personal information, whether verbal or written, given in the context of academic consultation, supervision, or advising.

(f) The obligation to maintain confidentiality extends to members of research or training teams and collaborating organizations who have access to the information. To ensure that access to confidential information is restricted, it is the responsibility of researchers, administrators, and principal investigators to instruct staff to take the steps necessary to protect confidentiality.

(g) When using private information about individuals collected by other persons or institutions, sociologists protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable information. Information is private when an individual can reasonably expect that the information will not be made public with personal identifiers (e.g., medical or employment records).”
I think it is clear that the paper, wrong on the facts, is unethical in its intent and outcome. I call for the pape to be withdrawn and for Prall’s website to take down the Blacklist.

Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller

About these ads

79 thoughts on “Expert Embarrassment in Climate Change

  1. Thanks Tom. This is well put.

    However, I think it unlikely that your wishes will be granted, especially with respect to Prall’s website. I think the operative mentality is that “the ends justify the means.”

    As for Romm’s predictable desire to use the list as a blacklist, we can only hope that enough department heads and funding agencies are made of sterner stuff. I’m not all certain which way the chips will fall. Organizations have a natural tendency to avoid risk, and I can well imagine a hirer deciding that hiring “skeptic” X might jeopardize funding. Hiring consensus scientist Y may seem a safer choice.

  2. This paper and the shameful attempts of the team at Realclimate, Climate Progress and other rabid pro-AGW websites to justify this paper show us the nature of the beast we are dealing with. These are people without any shame, ethics or morals. They will stoop to any low levels for their agenda, which has nothing to do with science. To call any of these people as ” scientists ” any further is an insult to science.

  3. How is information that is available if you trawl the web in any way confidential? How is releasing it in different forms a breach of confidentiality? (It might be a breach of copyright, depending on how it was passed on, but that is a different issue.)

  4. Of course these morons are maddened. Angry that their pet theory is scientifically absurd. Delusional as shown by the propensity only to listen to the echo chamber. Ignorant in that many are speculating well outside their field or intelligence. These people remind me of government economists.
    Now can we get to the point where we can clean up the Chesapeake, restore the Grand Banks, reintroduce sturgeon into American rivers, , cure introduced avian diseases, regrow Chestnut forests, restore the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Florida marshes and make wild life corridors that work throughout the country, etc.? I mean real action as opposed to this silly crap that is designed to be a UN permanent tax on the world?

  5. What is the direct reference to Romm (or any of his minions) actually stating an intention to use such a list to deny funding (if such a thing exists)?

  6. No matter what the pressures of the current socio-political climate may be, I hope that this article will inspire many to reconsider the high calling of their professions as physicians, scientists, researchers, and sociologists, and remember at this time the great Western guiding principle:

    Primum non nocere

  7. Perhaps the PNAS authors of the list should study a management/recruiting problem called the “Comfortable Clone Syndrome”, viz;

    Managers who dislike conflict or who value only their own approach often fall victim to the comfortable clone syndrome, surrounding themselves with people who think alike and who share similar interests and training.

    This is a common problem in businesses and, no doubt, universities, study groups, research institutions, etc.

  8. Scientific fascism is as alive today as it was in Nazi Germany. If that offends some, then sorry, but it is patently so.

    [while this post may be offensive to some it does not target any individuals. so it is allowed ~mod]

  9. That is just a list of suggested ethics, guidelines, and really rules. The people disparaging the people on the list regard ethics as a subjective consideration. To those people, lying is ok if the objective is valued as more than the indiscretion. Cheating is less of an evil if the end result brings one to a high platitude. Life? Well, that is subjective also. Choice? Everyone has a choice!! If the proper laws are passed, you can choose to do what you’re told.———–Modern day relative morality.

  10. I don’t know much about the science of GW or AGW or Physics, etc. But when I took algebra my instructor told me to “show my work”. She didn’t care if I accidentally had the right answer – if I didn’t show my work I got a ZERO for the day. If I had told her that my data base was proprietary, or that I am a bad housekeeper and can’t find my original data maybe threw it out accidentally, etc., I earned a Zero for that day. Since reading about AGW I have never before in my life seen such a catalog of lame excuses. And for me to come back later, term after term to “adjust” my old numbers up or down in the hope of approaching a more believable answer was completely out of the question because I had already Earned my ZERO.

  11. The leftists that are at the rotten core of the AGW pseudo-science have been blacklisting skeptics for a long time.

    The PNAS paper simply places it in the open and places the Academy of Sciences seal of approval on it.

    Publishing this article was shameful act on the part of the Academy , but its corruption is now open for all to see. In time this will be seen as a watershed event.

  12. The publishers of the blacklist may suceed in getting a lot of science shut down, institutions and all, when Congress tires of defending the reasons for their existence, when $$$ is tight.
    Failure to clean house may mean no house period.
    No NOAA, GISS, NSIDC, etc.
    Such would be an unintended consequence, but possible nonetheless.
    Bad apples in barrel, toss barrel.

  13. ‘Watts up with that’ published it’s own ‘blacklist’.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/seven-eminent-physicists-that-are-skeptical-of-agw/

    [REPLY - Oh, come off it. (Or maybe you were being ironic?) ~ Evan]

    No irony, it is a list identifying people who are skeptical of Climate change, as the PNAS paper is being called a ‘blacklist’ for listing people who are skeptical AGW, how is it any diferent?

    REPLY: I agree with Evan, but since you can’t figure out the differences yourself, I’ll lay it out for you.

    1. We didn’t compile the list, Popular Technology did. We reposted it here by request.
    2. There were only seven people on the list, easily identifiable to everyone from the context of their prior discussions. It was obvious and “matter of fact”.
    3. Poptech did not make any judgments, scoring, or qualitative analysis of the scientists.
    4. Poptech did not publish the list in a journal with scores assigned to the names of the scientists.
    5. Poptech did not draw any conclusion on reliability of the scientists work or quality of their publications like the PNAS paper did.
    6. WUWT made no contribution beyond #1.

    Your comparison is a ridiculous reach. Sorry, but it won’t wash here. – Anthony

  14. Portugal is a skeptic country! 50% of the scientists here are skeptics. OK, Schneider et al. only counted two scientists here, and one was skeptic… Even these two are not commonly known, so it tells how good this BS paper really is.

    Ecotretas

  15. These people aren’t scientists, they are nothing more than playground bullies. At the moment they appear to be playing a game called how low can you go, the answer apparently being, abyssal.

  16. About the only merit I can find in the AGW theory, is its a noble lie, whose unintended consequences would be the death of millions, or maybe that is the intended consequence.
    Shouldn’t talk ill of the departed, I know.
    Saw the AGW theory lying forlorn in a field the other day, I rushed over, as you do, to see if maybe a vet could help, but it was too late.

    I knelt down and patted the poor old thing, thinking, at the least it would know it wasn’t alone.

    However it was cold to the touch, and I figured it must of expired during the night. On closer inspection, I could see that it had been terribly diseased for some time. I think, but i’m no vet, it had Galloping Hubris. Thats the old name of course, country vet lingo, these days they call it Post-Modern-Sarcoma. Along with that most horrid of conditions, I could see something like gang-green had probably finished it off.
    The rot had set in some time ago, goodness only knows how it had managed to last this long, I think it must of received some kind of pallative care. Probably those hippy kids down the road, bringing it little nuggets to nibble on, that was ultimately a misplaced kindness. It suffered unnecessarily, had the initial disease run its course, it would of passed away years ago.
    Thats the thing about propping up a dead horse, you just prolong the misery, a bit like that War-On-Terrier across the road. Barks like mad but doesn’t get anywhere with it,
    left a hell of a mess last time it got out, puking up all over the place, probably been chewing on some dead old theory floating face down in a creek somewhere.

  17. How about that: The New Inquisition.

    It’s a weak mind and a terrible constitution which sees itself threatened by serious and considered questions, all of them valid and logical.

    To what will they next resort? ‘Hunter-killer’ teams to ‘neutralize’ us?

    Shall we all be rounded up and tortured into false confessions?

    Well, as my dear Mother once reminded me: What comes around, eventually goes around …

    Everything equals out in the end.

  18. Fitzy says: (August 5, 2010 at 11:32 pm) …left a hell of a mess last time it got out, puking up all over the place, probably been chewing on some dead old theory floating face down in a creek somewhere.

    Sweet, Fitzy!
         A welcome relief to the day.

  19. JCrabbe. I don’t get your point. AW did not create these lists of skeptics and lemmings. They were published as sort of an IQ test of Who’s Who.

  20. Ecotretas says:
    August 5, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    “Portugal is a skeptic country! 50% of the scientists here are skeptics.”

    According to the papers in my country, 100% of the scientists are warmistas. The rest don’t count.

    It is a horrible paradox. Real scientists are emotionally detached from the issues, or, rather, that is a attribute they ascribe to. Yet, there are some people that call themselves “scientists” based on the field of study and level of education.

    In my view, a scientist is someone engaged in the study of a science. In the world view, a scientist is someone who has a degree and calls themselves a scientist.

    Wouldn’t it be a nice world if a scientist engaged in science and a politician, sorry a policy maker engaged in policy instead of the other way around?

  21. This is a normal outcome in Socialism :

    In this society you thrive for 100% equality and 100% safety for everyone. Now, if everyone shall be equal, you need everyone to behave according to the same standards. You need 100% control of those who wants to step out of line. You will need control of information.

    If you dont have control of information, people will read “damaging” texts.
    So, cencurship is of the outmost importance in a socialistic society. According to “them”, this is in order to protect us all against the “contra revolutionaries”.

    Are there no laws in the US to stop these forces from evolving?

  22. John Trigge says:
    August 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm (Edit)

    Perhaps the PNAS authors of the list should study a management/recruiting problem called the “Comfortable Clone Syndrome”

    Or in the case of the AGW ‘mainstream’, the “Conforming Clown Syndrome”…

  23. This black list is on the same level as the utterances of Margaret Beckett, one of our less than competent, ex Labour cabinet ministers. She said that those sceptical of AGW should be treated as terrorists and refused time on radio, TV or the press. We in the UK now have the most restrictive climate change legislation in the civilised world. Only two or three members of parliament voted against it.

  24. Global warming is now out of vogue in the academic community precisely because this kind of stupid petty “market-research” seems to be the main focus of this pseudo-pagan-semi-religious “science”.

    Academic institutions are already looking at the list of sceptics as a list of people and institutions of integrity who take their science seriously. After all science is based on scepticism and to say you are against scepticism is really to say you don’t believe in science!

  25. When all this climate nonsense is over, that blacklist will become a whitelist.
    So, all you scientists out there, if you want to invest in your future; make sure you are on that blacklist.

  26. If Romm is so sure he’s right, he’ll put some serious collateral up to justify his certitude.

    Perhaps his bag of seeds would be appropriate?

    Because as PDO etc will do zip to cause cooler climes, his risk is zip also, eh????

    Yeah right…………….

  27. I agree with David UK (10:23 pm).

    The intent of the list is to isolate and discriminate and is redolent of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (cf. Deutsche Physik + Lysenkoism).

    It’s disgraceful and disgusting and those responsible will be judged very harshly by history.

  28. The skeptic scientists now allegedly ‘blacklisted’ have typically
    signed numerous petitions to make clear their view on AGW.
    In other words they want to be known. What’s so bad about a
    collated list on a website giving more exposure to their position?
    Unless there is some time factor: that they increasingly
    feel uncomfortable with their previous comittment.

  29. I originally believed the pnas paper was just another clumsy attempt to “prove” agw must be true through the “our” scientists are “better” than yours argument. After what I’ve seen since, I have to agree that, shockingly, this awful paper is far worse. How awful too, for Schneiders family that history will recall that his last paper was this one.

  30. The Joe Romm’s of this world have already called for this list to be used to deny funding, tenure and grants to scientists. And it will be.

    The Joe Romms of this world are the progeny of the people who screamed bloody murder over the ’50s Hollywood blacklist of Communists in the film industry — because blacklists are only justified when *they* make them…

  31. Peter Stroud,

    “This black list is on the same level as the utterances of Margaret Beckett, one of our less than competent, ex Labour cabinet ministers. She said that those sceptical of AGW should be treated as terrorists and refused time on radio, TV or the press. ”

    That made me smile because it brought back memories of when Thatcher banned tv broadcasts of interviews with members of Sinn Fein. So I am imagining a future interview where Richard Lindzen appears and a reporter announces “because of climate terrorist legislation, Lindzen’s words will be spoken by an actor.”

  32. Fitzy says:
    August 5, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    About the only merit I can find in the AGW theory, is its a noble lie
    Shouldn’t talk ill of the departed, I know.

    Re the first line, the lie is not noble. Its intentions may have been, but the thing itself is diabolical.

    Re the second, why not? If said departed have done ill why shouldn’t one say so?

    But I enjoyed your post.

  33. When AGW is finally hung out to dry, those on the “blacklist” will be vindicated and become the true/first authorities on climatology. Get your name on the blacklist whilst you still can.

  34. “Now can we get to the point where we can clean up the Chesapeake, restore the Grand Banks, reintroduce sturgeon into American rivers, , cure introduced avian diseases, regrow Chestnut forests, restore the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Florida marshes and make wild life corridors that work throughout the country, etc.? I mean real action as opposed to this silly crap that is designed to be a UN permanent tax on the world?”

    Well pat I have some good news and some bad news for you on that-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/09/france-japan-ipcc-for-nature

    Perhaps the usual suspects have got the message the CO2 game is nearly over and it’s time to move on to the next BIG THING?

  35. observa says:
    August 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Oh noooooo! Just what we need more $billions wasted on an IPCC clone.

  36. “This led to the creation of a blacklist” – where is it? Who created it?

    “They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database” – Google Scholar is an academic database

    “They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science” – English is, like it or not, the international language of science. You won’t miss out on anything by only searching in English.

    “They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations” – examples?

    “As I’ve mentioned, the highly respected Spencer Weart dismissed the paper as rubbish, saying it should not have been published.” – provide a link, please.

    “The Joe Romm’s of this world have already called for this list to be used to deny funding, tenure and grants to scientists” – again, provide some links.

    “The paper is tagged ‘Climate Deniers.’” – where?

    As for the long list of complaints about confidentiality… please identify any item of confidential information that was published in this paper.

  37. “This is an outright violation of every ethical code of conduct for research that has ever been published.”
    ____________________________

    When there is no consequence to violating an ethical code (or law against _______ ) there is no code (or law). We live is a dream world and think that we are the same people our grandparents were. It doesn’t work that way. No consequence? No nothing! In many ways life today is better than ever. In many ways it’s only an illusion.

  38. Why get so exited about the list? If I want to get an impression on the reliability of a paper or an author, I also check where it’s published, what else the author published (SCOPUS, WOS, GoogleScholar), and how often the paper is cited: all public information. All I see here is complaining about the the results and a few details. However, the data support the general conclusion of the paper: the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
    substantially below that of the convinced researchers
    , even if you don’t like it.

    The paper is helpful, because nobody can be an expert in all fields (although apparently, many are ready to accept arguments they don’t understand if it fits their worldview). Anyway, why would the listed authors complain? This makes it easier for the CEI, the Heritage Institute, Koch Industries, and all other assorted oil and coal lobbyists to find and fund them.

  39. Good article, but I would be cautious of pronouncing a social science such as Sociology as being a science. My favourite description of the products of Sociology is ” obscure glimpses of the patently obvious”. One does not need to belong to any professional or special-interest group to understand and operate from an ethical and moral base.
    Academe has descended a long, long way when a nonsensical and unscientific paper such as “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” was accepted and published by PNAS.
    I have only read of Joe Romm, but he sounds thoroughly unpleasant. I would suggest that the more he recieves the oxygen of publicity the sooner he will self-combust.

  40. A scientist, or any other citizen, who is not a skeptic is necessarily a sycophant. In any human endeavour of any description, the sycophant carries with him the handicap of uselessness. He is useless to the common endeavour, to himself, and to all around him.

  41. …still trying to figure out how using public information is a violation of research ethics …. Tempest. Teapot.

  42. jcrabb says:
    August 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    ‘Watts up with that’ published it’s own ‘blacklist’.

    This is pretty laughable – so how will Anthony’s “Black List” affect the researchers involved? If Anthony offered up a list of scientists in the CAWG camp, do you think they would suddenly lose their lucrative six figure tax-payer-funded income or any of your big government Climate Ca$h awards just because their name appeared on WUWT? And, by the way, who doles out the billions in government Climate Ca$h anyway? Who gets to choose the “worthy” projects from the hundreds of proposals submitted? Hmmmm? Do you think they would find the PNAS blacklist handy?

    In any case, anyone who would publish a paper entitled ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change’ must be very worried about their own credibility…

  43. P.F. says:
    August 5, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    What is the direct reference to Romm (or any of his minions) actually stating an intention to use such a list to deny funding (if such a thing exists)?
    ______________________________________________________________

    It is not being call a black list per say but it looks like one all the same.

    To call other prominent scientists who are named on the list “… folks [who] are actively spreading disinformation, especially disinformation that has been long debunked in the scientific literature.” and then state ” As I’ve said for many years now, it is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling those who spread anti-science and anti-scientist disinformation.”
    Sure sounds like a black list to me.

    CLIMATEPROGRESS: (Joe Romm)
    “That is the conclusion of an important first-of-its-kind study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert credibility in climate change.”

    ….The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that the study “findings are consistent with a 2009 survey of scientists’ attitudes as well as a 2004 survey of the scientific literature on climate change. The Anderegg et al. paper comes on the heels of a series of NAS reports that underscore the reality of human-induced climate change and the need to respond.”…

    UPDATE: Chris Mooney writes:

    Those of us who follow this issue closely won’t be surprised–but the results mean that journalists who have given a lot of weight to climate “skeptics” have some ’splaining to do. Essentially, this paper seems to be suggesting that they got the wrong “experts.”

    Incidentally, given how closely this study hits home, I would expect it to be attacked–just as Naomi Oreskes’ famous paper “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” was.

    Duh! The disinformers are certainly upset with this study, since it exposes just how phony the entire disinformation campaign is.

    Ironically, the best defense that some of the disinformers seem to have is, “I am not a skeptic.” But that label was originally pushed by the disinformers themselves — in fact, all serious scientists are skeptics. The issue is not whether someone is skeptical of the supposed ‘consensus’ — another ill-defined term that is it not terribly useful (see “Disputing the ‘consensus’ on global warming“). The issue is whether folks are actively spreading disinformation, especially disinformation that has been long debunked in the scientific literature. As I’ve said for many years now, it is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling those who spread anti-science and anti-scientist disinformation.”

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/21/pnas-study-climate-science-media-balance-deniers/

  44. James Sexton says:
    August 5, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    That is just a list of suggested ethics, guidelines, and really rules. The people disparaging the people on the list regard ethics as a subjective consideration. To those people, lying is ok if the objective is valued as more than the indiscretion. Cheating is less of an evil if the end result brings one to a high platitude. Life? Well, that is subjective also. Choice? Everyone has a choice!! If the proper laws are passed, you can choose to do what you’re told.———–Modern day relative morality.
    ________________________________________________________
    Sounds like the infamous quote from the Ex-Governor of my state, Mike Easley (who was caught with his hand in the till) …the Governor’s representative is saying that NAIS is voluntary, like having a drivers license for driving a car.

  45. Ref – Jan says:
    August 6, 2010 at 5:36 am
    “the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
    substantially below that of the convinced researchers”
    ____________________________

    All men (generic) are created (conceived) equal but that’s where it ends, a PhD does not a Scientist make. We really do need to get rid of the title Doctor of Philosophy, it doesn’t mean a thing anymore; we don’t even do philosophy anymore, do we? Nope! We need to make the title fit the times, : Doctor of Nuclear Physics = DNP, Doctor of Ancient History = dah, Doctor of Medicine = DM, Doctor of Environmental Guesstimation = deg, Doctor of Global Warming = dgw, etc. —Oh Yes! If the individual is a Doctor of the hard sciences the title should be capitalized, if not, then it should be shown in lower case letters so as to not confuse the public.

    There is one other solution to this modern delema – Sciences = Doctor, and Liberal Arts = Wizard: Doctor of Geology – DG, Wizard of Political Science = WPS. How’s that? Takes a real wizard to fix these kinds of problems, maybe I’ll get an honorary from Hogwarts, I mean Hav’erd.

  46. Fitzy says:
    August 5, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    About the only merit I can find in the AGW theory, is its a noble lie, whose unintended consequences would be the death of millions, or maybe that is the intended consequence….
    _____________________________________________
    Unfortunately it has already had one very intended consequence.
    Oil Exec’s Wife Injured by Bomb: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7928778

    And the “unintended consequences would be the death of millions” was actually fully intended by Obama’s Science Czar according to a book he co-authored in 1973.

    “A massive campaign [Global Warming] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States….

    The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being….” Source: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t

    By John Holdern’s definition scientists skeptical of CAGW are not even human because they obviously had not been “given the essential early socializing experiences” therefore extremists of the PETA mind set could become very dangerous. Unfortunately there is a large intersection between PETA members and CAGW believers.

    PETA Throws Bomb in New Haven
    PETA was involved with arsonist Rodney Coronado of the Animal Liberation Front, who torched a Michigan State University animal research laboratory.
    vegetarian campaign director Bruce Friedrich encouraging activists to commit arson against restaurants, medical laboratories, and banks.

    PNAS, the late Stephen Schneider, James Prall and Jacob Harold have opened up a can of worms that could be very dangerous.

    Anthony and the rest of you, please be very careful.

  47. Pascvaks says:
    August 6, 2010 at 4:30 am

    “This is an outright violation of every ethical code of conduct for research that has ever been published.”
    ____________________________

    When there is no consequence to violating an ethical code (or law against _______ ) there is no code (or law)……
    ______________________________________________________
    Oh there very definitely are consequences to violating an ethical code at least for this paper.

    1. Scientists are denied publication
    2. Scientists are denied tenure
    3. Scientists are denied promotions
    4. Scientists or labs are hurt by loonies.

    All those could mean very big lawsuits and criminal action in the future.

    Here is a chilling analysis of an extremist group (PETA) in the USA who has gotten away with many crimes: http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/21-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals

  48. The confidentiality portions of those guidelines apply to patients or personnel involved in research as subjects of an experiment or study, not random third party professors outside your field. I don’t think you have a case.

  49. Jan says:
    August 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    …..Why get so exited about the list? If I want to get an impression on the reliability of a Anyway, why would the listed authors complain? This makes it easier for the CEI, the Heritage Institute, Koch Industries, and all other assorted oil and coal lobbyists to find and fund them.
    __________________________________________________
    You have got to be kidding!

    The Oil and Banking interests have been behind CAGW from the very start. And the start was the First Earth Summit – 1972 chaired by oil Mogul Maurice Strong.

    The planned end was the draft agreement called the Danish text. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank

    Maurice Strong is a senior adviser to the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundations (who funds Greenpeace and WWF) David Rockefeller (Standard Oil) hosts annual luncheons at his family’s Westchester estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors. In one way or another he has counted four of the past World Bank Presidents on his payroll.

    Political activists have been very handy tools for the Bankers and Oil execs. The nuclear power industry in the U.S. grew rapidly in the 1960s. Utility companies saw this new form of electricity production as economical, environmentally clean, and safe. The Oil and Coal industry (owned by the Rockefellers) saw it as direct competitors and organized Activists to protest even going as far as paying $10/hr (ad in Boston Globe)

    We do not have “economical, environmentally clean, and safe” power thanks to the manipulation of David Rockefeller and his former employee Maurice Strong, and Strong’s close pal of Al Gore.

    I suggest you google “Maurice Strong” “David Rockefeller” “Ged Davis” “World Bank” and “Global Governance”

    This is the Ged Davis from the Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)

    Also check out Radio for Peace International statements about Marice Strong.

  50. It started with a list, a list of people who attended a synagogue, then a list of Jewish business, a list of addresses and pretty soon a yellow identifier worn on the outside of clothing. It began with a list. Today we have a polarizing issue amongst sceptics and hoaxster. Now too we have a list of those whom we can cast as “others”, of course, not like us. Now we have quasi permission to allow further insults, impuned integrety, and open to retribution from? us of course. Hasn’t anybody learned the lesson? marginalization permits all sorts of horrors, and it all starts with a list.

  51. Is it surprising, that the same people who are after “global warming” are behind those theories of non reproductive sexual behaviors or behind malthusian theories?.
    I am not saying that ALL those who are after these ideas are really conscious of them, the majority of them are just “imitators”, mechanical robots, “useful fools”, just repeating what those who fund their wallets or their self-indulgent egos tell them to do.
    The “transmission”, though from the beginning was made through “esoteric” institutions ,where “specially qualified people” are chosen as Initiates, the echo of these deviate “principles” proceed mechanically, based on the same wrong characteristics of the human “psyche”, as self-pride, egotism, self conceit, self-indulgement, etc.etc.

  52. Discredited theories (such as the earth being flat or surrounded by ether) are generally not given the time of day by most learned people, and especially not scientists who are searching for truth. The reason being is that the theories are wrong and have been proven so, so why waste the energy.

    Joe Romm and his ilk say the same about the skeptics. Say is the operative word here. They are deathly afraid of skeptics and that is why they spend so much energy attacking the messenger instead of the message (they cannot attack the latter as they have no basis in scientific fact, theory, procedure or premise to do so).

    The reason they are using histrionics and witch hunting on the skeptics is that they know skeptics provide a viable and advancing refutation of their hypothesis. Normal science would incorporate the skeptics in the fold to ascertain the truth. AGW cannot afford the truth to come out as that would impact their pocket book.

    They know their god to be a false god, and so must demonize the non-believers because they cannot debate them in the arena of science. That they are resorting to these tactics indicates they also know they are losing.

    History will judge them, and like all the other Torquemadas, it will not be kind. It is a shame they will do some damage in the short term, but that is the way Grand Inquisitors work.

  53. I’m not a scientist of any kind.I’m a roadsweeper.How do I get on this most trendy & auspicious of lists

  54. Will people please cool it with the WUWT list. Read the comments prior before you say anything further. It has been dealt with at a great length.

  55. Unintended consequences rules !

    This list will constitute an excellent ressource for people and corporation looking for scientists that have retained a modicum of integrity.

  56. And we had come so far… so now we are back to burning witches and pogroms. Welcome to “the new normal”. If this is science, I want no part of it.

    So just how many papers and citations did Einstein have prior to is paper on Relativity?

    Look, I know it is not the cultural norm in academic circles, but publication does NOT measure worth of an idea. Ideas have their own inherent worth. In commerce, the very best ideas are never published as they give competitive advantage. Look at the large body of Trade Secrets. Coke anyone?

    Measuring “worth” by the tonnage of trees killed is just wrong. I don’t care at all about the 20,000,000 “me too!!!” papers published. I care about the 1 little paper that shows it’s all bunk, and with elegance. Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and Alfred Wegener in 1912 did more to advance the understanding of continental drift than all the “consensus” that dumped tons of paper on them for 400 years.

    The only thing the mass of the paper is good for is determining the size of the fire it would produce for burning witches at the stake…

  57. Ko Ko: As sometimes 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 never missed,
    Chorus: He’s got ‘em on the list- He’s got ‘em on the list….( The Mikado.)

  58. Vince Causey: well said. I remember Margaret Becket`s outburst about banning `sceptics` from the media. At the time I took it as code for `when shall we burn the books`. Don`t forget this is still the credo of the British Labour Party and it looks like the new coalition is going the same way. Again, not a single scientist in the cabinet. Is it true that we have reached 2010?

    Back to the PNAS paper: would Galileo, Eistein, Feynmann and Popper have laughed or cried?

  59. E.M.Smith says:
    August 6, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Bravo!

    PhilJourdan says:
    August 6, 2010 at 8:53 am
    Discredited theories (such as the earth being flat or surrounded by ether) are generally not given the time of day by most learned people, and especially not scientists who are searching for truth.

    Of course the earth it is not flat however IT IS permeated by the ether. If you are blind it does not mean that the rest is blind: Among men there are much more differences than between mice and men, believe me!
    What is the WORD then?, what is it the Taboric light?.

  60. I think this is silly. Who made these lists? The sceptics did, Inhofe did.
    By mobilizing for petition after petition all these names were common
    knowledge. And the sceptic scientists wnated it to be so, because their
    impact through normal scientific work was minimal. That’s what the PNAS
    article established and perhaps that is the real grievance you have?

  61. Just an honest man speaking out (non-anonymously) in independent judgment of any false science is the only antidote against it. Only.

    John

  62. As I am on Prall’s list as number 397, I consider it highly unprofessional that they did not verify the correctness of the information with the persons who are on this list.

    “Dear sir/Madam
    I have this information about you in this database on which I plan to write a scientific paper, can you please confirm that the following information about you is correct?”

  63. On the plus side of this :

    One day that “denier” list will be referred to as the list of names of unsung heroes… those who dared to stand up and speak out, against all odds.

    If your name is on that list, stand up and be proud.

  64. Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 6, 2010 at 10:34 am
    I think this is silly. Who made these lists? The sceptics did, Inhofe did.
    By mobilizing for petition after petition all these names were common
    knowledge. And the sceptic scientists wnated it to be so, because their
    impact through normal scientific work was minimal. That’s what the PNAS
    article established and perhaps that is the real grievance you have?

    ——————-

    Mikael Pihlström,

    You assume that the estimation of the worth of a scientist(s) by another scientist(s) with respect to a contested piece of nature has any merit. No.

    Nature decides. The PNAS article is adolescent hormone-esque posturing.

    John

  65. @ Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 6, 2010 at 10:34 am
    I think this is silly. Who made these lists? The sceptics did, Inhofe did.
    By mobilizing for petition after petition all these names were common
    knowledge. And the sceptic scientists wnated it to be so, because their
    impact through normal scientific work was minimal.

    —————

    I would say the impact of the most acclaimed climate scientists “through normal scientific work” was minimal, too. Because their work generally isn’t normal science. It’s advocacy, religion, a power grap, unethical (check out Climate Audit with an open mind, if you still can), etc.

  66. This is great! Let them lump everyone into the same boat. Let them organize a lynch mob. Let them indiscriminately sweep up the moderates with those crazy deniers. In the end, the minority… the underdog… the oppressed, will get the upper hand on the p.r. front. Let these radicals play dirty. It exposes their blind hatred and is likely to cause moderates to take a serious look at what they believe.

  67. RW says:
    August 6, 2010 at 4:17 am

    “This led to the creation of a blacklist” – where is it? Who created it?

    “They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database” – Google Scholar is an academic database

    “They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science” – English is, like it or not, the international language of science. You won’t miss out on anything by only searching in English.

    “They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations” – examples?

    So what? Assuming that the information is accurate, it doesn’t address the problem of suppression of dissenting voices.

Comments are closed.