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
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.
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”……
i just found a great interactive tool that allows you to place model data over the oil spill with other current conditions through google maps.
I have a link at the top of my Northeastern Ohio Weather site:
http://sabolscience.blogspot.com
Scott Sabol
WJW FOX 8 Morning Meteorologist
When will the pograms begin?
Here is a link to the BBC story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10370955.stm
Wow! I had no idea that it was so clear and there was so little expertise out there.
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.
Danny Lee says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:33 am
Did anyone hear the BBC Radio 4 this morning? 22 june
On the BBC at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10370955.stm
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!!”
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
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.
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.
I’m crushed. They missed me!
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?
“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.
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.
I read the PNAS article but could not find the list. Anyone know where it is located?
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”.
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 ?
This… black list is an edited copy from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
The American liberal left-wing green establishment (“Khmer Vert”) is showing very real fascist tendencies. In this context this list is no surprise.
” 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.
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.
“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?
I am Spartacus.
Paranoia. Captain Queeg is counting strawberrys on the Caine.