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
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”.
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.
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?
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?
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.’
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.
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…)
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.
“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…
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…
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.
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!
Sounds like the “Burn Book” in the movie “Mean Girls.”
Ugly indeed.
Be proud that you are on the list. Add it to your resume. Take their stigma and use it as a badge of honor.
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.
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.
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.
A black list of deniers, this sounds like global warming science with lock jaw.
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
A list of potential interviewees for Roger Harrabin. (If journalistic integrity could stretch that far).
There is an easy fix to this teapot tempest, just have everyone sign a loyalty oath.
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.
You can search at the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT web page:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Search?qt=environmental&la=en&x=16&y=10
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 🙂
I want to sincerely congratulate all of WUWT regulars who have been HONOURED by being selected in this Black List.