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
I read the PNAS article, but could not find the list. Anyone know where it is located?
With apologies to Mahatma Gandhi.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they draw up lists!
These guys just ain’t funny any more
Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, et al. Do they really want to pick a fight with those guys? Anyone of them could bury the writers of that insipidly stupid, morally repugnant, flaw-based paper.
Just got back from Alaska and I’m happy to report that the glaciers surrounding the Aialik Glacial Basin and Resurrection Bay are still there and doing quite well.
The black list seemed harmless until I ran across the following paragraph. I find it odd that he thinks Scientists who adhere to a skeptical view of the IPCC propaganda are a “tiny minority”. It is a sad day when the Scientific Method becomes the basis for a black list.
The ‘Why’
source: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html
“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.”
Jim Prall uses his time at U of T to play his gestapist game. In fact it takes priority from his IT job there. Totalitarian little helper.
The defenders of the flame are noting that there is no list attached to the paper. They are right.
But this begs the question – Do you need a physical “list” to be black-listed???? History would say “no”.
The enviros’ black list is “McCarthyism”?
Socialist Uncle Joe used “Liquidation”.
That became knows as Stalinism.
…-
“I.V. Stalin
“On Defects in Party Work and Measures for the Liquidation of Trotskyists and Other Double-dealers”
A report and concluding remarks at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 3-5 March 1937.
Editor’s Introduction”
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/s-m-intro.html
I guess schneider, who is notorious in the “jesus paper” incident has found out what we already knew. “skeptic scientists” don’t publish much. I guess schneider, who makes the decision about who to publish doesnt see that the numbers support the hypothesis that the journal system has been corrupted
Appralling!
Damn!
I’m not on the Black List!
Note to self: Spend more time blogging… 😉
I notice Jim Prall, who presumes to rank scientists in their suitability as references, is proud to proclaim his astrological sign on his blog.
From the paper “From the ∼60% of researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect alone.”
Meaning that older scientists (mean must be in their fifties) with a wider range of experience of papers (less mention of the word climate) and less need to get published and stick with the herd are more sceptical.
It would be an honor to find one’s name alongside Lindzen, Spencer, Singer and so many other respected scientists!
Apparently too many people are unaware that “climatology” is a newly created “discipline”. Anyone can call themselves a climatologist. Getting published and peer reviewed is essentially meaningless, except that it indicates you are “in” with the others calling themselves climatologists. The net result is that you’re either “one of them”, or you’re not. Now we have a list of who is not.
Unfortunately, people rely on the fact that someone calling themselves a “climatologist” can be expected to be an expert in climate, which is an incorrect assumption. There are also “cosmologists”, and although I have a lot of respect for what they do I hardly believe they “know” all of the answers.
There are also “cosmetologists”, and from what I’ve seen these last ten years the average cosmetologist has more real world knowledge of their field than does the average climatologist. At least the cosmetologist has immediate feedback and a provable worth. Can you imagine a cosmetologist who claims their work will only be validated in 100 years?
Incredibly infantile.
This is an interesting tactic. By listing climate researchers who believe in AGW (but might be straying) and mixing them up with those who are true skeptics, the NAS will cause their funding to be in jeopardy. This forces these climatologists who are borderline Believers to shut up. It has a chilling effect on climate researchers, it keeps them in line. They cannot stray any further since their name is already on the Blacklist, one more wrong move and they are done. Amazing. I would not have expected this kind of behavior from the National Academy of Science, but when it comes to AGW I’ve seen everything over the last few years. The NAS is truly grabbing at straws, they are going down with the ship. I think it’s time the Directors of the NAS had a good reviewing.
Read the joke of a writeup of this at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/new-stanford-study-expose_b_620369.html
-Scott
Don’t take it lightly, this is serious. Just consider how furious GWrs. will feel when their beloved Gaia does not warm but cools down. It will enrage them against “deniers”.
Kind of a mommy’s and daddy’s kid complaining: “Those bad guys are telling me ugly things”
Scum, through to the bone. ‘Nough said?
The late Prof.Theodore Landscheitdt has been included in that list.
Owen says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:02 am
“I read the PNAS article, but could not find the list. Anyone know where it is located?”
Owen, there’s a link to the list in the story, where it says “master list”. Just click there. Or go here, http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html
Northern Exposure says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:35 am
“…The list of heretics that are to be burned at the stake.”
Oh, we don’t want any of that. Think of all the CO2….
What an Ars
wws says:
June 22, 2010 at 5:34 am
“The Left’s new motto:
“McCarthyism – it’s only wrong when the other guys do it.” ”
Projection is an ugly thing. So is the death of a Cult…
Since when any science has to be exclusively done by certified scientists? Anyone with a brain and knows how to use it can become a scientist… as long as he (she) can follow the simples rules of science and research. Great inventions have been developed by people that never set a foot in a university.
Climate science does not belong to certified climate scientists.