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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John A

I think I should join. Nobody invites me to these kinds of party anyway.

wws

The Left’s new motto:
“McCarthyism – it’s only wrong when the other guys do it.”

David L

It’s a sign the skeptics are on the right track, otherwise no need for this type of bullying. Look back in history. I can’t think of a time these tactics were used and the people using them were ultimately “right”. The church vs scientists such Galileo come to mind.

Bill Anderegg apparently knows next to nothing about Google Scholar since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author’s name in quotes or advanced search operators such as “author:”, Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author “Phil Jones” with the search word “climate”, you get almost 5000 results! The study is worthless.
As for skeptics, they have extensively published,
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

INGSOC

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.

James Sexton

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.”

John A

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.

Beware the distinction between PNAS “contributed by” vs. “communicated by” papers. It’s explained here:
http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml#submission
This paper is listed as “contributed by”, which means that one of the authors is an “esteemed” member of the National Academy of Sciences (the publisher of PNAS). Historically the “contributed by” papers have always been very low bar for peer review. I think it was once true (you’d have to check), that at least in the olden days, a “contributed by” paper could be assured publication with essentially no peer review. I’m not sure if that’s true anymore, you’d have to check — but notice in the description of the review process for “contributed by” papers, states “Members must select referees who have not collaborated with the authors in the past 48 months” — i.e. the author of the paper, if a member of the National Academy of Sciences — gets to choose his own reviewers.
Not sure that this counts as peer review literature in the strict sense.

Now we see just how sick the alarmists are getting, and to what extreme they are taking science. Welcome to academia!

Blacklist-gate!

Mike86

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

Interesting , just a quick thought….
How can some very inteligent people be so incredibly stupid

Alan McIntire

This appears to be a reincarnation of Nixon’s “Enemies List”

Jack Maloney

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?

JB

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?

rc

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.

JB

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….

Adolf Balik

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

Julian Droms

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.

WillR

I am not on the list.
I am like so totally hurt!

“I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member”
-Groucho Marx-

Sean Peake

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.

Ed Fix

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.

R. de Haan
Roy UK

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.

Jimmy Mac

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

Grant

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.

Ed Caryl

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

MattyS

Interesting also to see his other list,
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
Looking at a few of these authors, the dominance of experts in biodiversity and oceanography is striking. I wonder what would happen if you went through both lists and removed those whose speciality is not in physics, modelling, atmospheric chemistry etc.

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.

R. de Haan

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.

Craig

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) …

Robert

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

JB

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?

Amino Acids in Meteorites

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.

Crispin in Waterloo

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’.

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.

Can we get an Email or Physical address to send our names and our particulars too?
I need to be added to the list too.
Max

Amino Acids in Meteorites

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.

PFWAG

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

populartechnology

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.

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.

ShrNfr

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.

Alex the skeptic

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.

populartechnology

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.

JB

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?

This paper is very valuable, it’s like a who’s who of competent climate scientists. Pretty much the opposite of something like this;
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/list-of-signers.html
which is a list of key Warmist advocates who signed this:
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/index.html

populartechnology

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.”

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?

James Sexton

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.