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
Any list Freeman Dyson is on is the place to be for me.
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.
Don’t complain, guys. This gentleman just exploded the idea of a consensus! And gave us beautiful source document.
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.
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.
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) …
Looks like someone has to much time on his hands and this is funded with tax-payer money, right?
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?
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.
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
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.
Be careful on comparisons. As the papers released after the fall of the Soviet Union proved, McCarthy was actually right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.