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
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1]
R. de Haan says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:29 am
The global Warming Inquisition has begun.
And a few Monks from that inquisition use to visit these pages too, though sometimes in disguise, but always showing an unquenchable stubborness about their petty theories.
Well, what do you expect? Rewind to March 5 and the Washington Times was reporting:
‘In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind…
Mr. Schneider said Mr. Inhofe is showing “McCarthyesque” behavior in the mold of the Cold War-era senator who was accused of stifling political debate through accusations of communism.
“I don’t want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior…” ‘ [said Stephen Schneider]
No, Schneider doesn’t like McCarthyesque behaviour when he fantasizes that he might be on the receiving end. But to “fight back in kind” means that it’s OK for him to dish it out. It’s OK for him to be the gatekeeper editor, who bends the rules, and makes sure publications are firmly shut to those who are skeptical. McCarthyism is fine, just so long as it’s Schneider and his mates practicing it. Otherwise, it’s a very bad thing.
So, a blacklist. And a paper “Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010” with Schneider’s name on as author – a household name, no less – that will be cited again and again by CAGW fanatics to try to prove not only that climate skeptics are not credible, but also that they should not be afforded any credibility.
Of course, if the CAGW thesis could stand on its own two feet, none of this would be necessary. But it can’t. It can prevail only by deception, coercion, blacklisting, gatekeeping, character assassination and the like.
It is ever the same with lying narratives.
The topic does beg a question, what percentage of Scientists support AGW?
2004-2007 Published Papers
source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/29/less-half-published-scientists-endorse-global-warming-theory
“Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.”
“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.””
Note: given all the IPCC screw-ups, I wonder if the support has fallen even lower today.
Roger Pielke Jr, Steve McIntyre and Judith Curry debate the alarmists,
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/21/the-climate-experts/
Scott says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:29 am
At Stanford University !, Wow!…..however this “RESEARCH” misses to point out that this research was made “under the guidance of one of Gaia predilect sons: Peyote and of one of her favorite daughters: Marijuana”.
Friends:
I write to ask a favour.
Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?
Richard
Enneagram says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:34 am
“The late Prof.Theodore Landscheitdt has been included in that list.”
Proof positive of the quality and veracity of Prall’s work/input and a further indictment of the “peer-review” process. No, the list wasn’t attached to the paper, but obviously, Prall’s rankings were used as the metric. Yet, the paper was published and by using Prall’s rankings, he gets a feather in his cap for his help in publishing a flawed paper. Very nice. I wonder if these people think about their circular arguments and hypocrisy? For instance, Prall show’s us his list of 500 published scientists who defy the consensus? How many scientist have to disagree before it is determined that no consensus exists? Prall whines about the lack of properly qualified and credible skeptics and yet there he is with his list and name on a paper exalting the virtues of alarmism. From his page “I am a system administrator and tech support contact for all research computing within ECE….” It turns out, I’m as qualified as he is, in that I hold the same position with my company. It would almost be comical if the implications weren’t so extreme.
Wow
‘And what also floats? A duck! Precisely. Therefore…’
Fiction, funny as it may be, becomes the new truth, sad.
I’m obviously a bear of very little brain.
This guy has produced a massive list of skeptics, so long that I would have thought he might just be struggling to find a list of warmists that is equally long. Yet he still doesn’t seem to understand that, even if science is not being a matter of who is in the majority, there would seem something a bit amiss in his thinking. I mean, if there are that many …
Or am I missing something vital, here?
Congratulations to the only argentinian nominee!
Eduardo Ferreyra
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/ENGLISH.html
As Gilbert and Sullivan’s Lord High Executioner put it,
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
FYI – some background on the “Jewish Physics” blacklist of old: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018-6,00.html
I want to offer my thanks to the denizens of this blog. You are American heros.
If it’s any consolation in considering this nasty turn of events, the “debate” is likely only to get uglier from here.
But they can’t defeat science itself.
No one has mentioned how the ranking is computed, it’s clear a lot of it has to do with publishing papers, but even non publishers made the list. That should be part of the supplemental report, but I haven’t gone looking yet.
I submit his ranking system is flawed. While looking at the number of citations of papers instead of number of papers published is good, a lot of often cited papers represent some basic data gathering, e.g. Keeling’s Mauna Loa CO2 papers. However, there is a an aspect of a popularity contest. However, perhaps that would be a better metric!
More difficult to measure would be how influential papers and other media are. For example, Steven McIntyre’s tireless work on the hockey stick curve proved the merit of digging into the back story of the subject, and that directly influenced the flurry of flaw finding in the IPCC’s AR4. However, McIntyre ranks way down at #302. I suspect he’d be happier if he were ranked even lower, but clearly he is one of the most influential people on the list.
Boy, and I though I was obsessed over climate stuff. I stand in awe. Not admiration, just awe!
Rather odd that on his c.v. Prall lists “books read.”
No, Climategate: the CRUtape letters was not among them.
Eeef you sbeeg against zee settled science, you veeel be shot! Heil Gore!
The Royal Society in 2006: “We have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one”.
“Any known skeptics” – now they have a convenient black list.
Over at Bishop Hill you can see from emails recently released under FOI how the IPCC and Royal Society conspired against ‘skeptics’ before publication of AR4.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/22/the-wisdom-of-solomon.html
RS = Rachel Garthwaite of the Science Policy Unit of the Royal Society.
SS = Susan Solomon, IPCC Working Group 1, Fourth Assessment Report.
The email dates from 2006, nearly 9 months before the release of the Fourth Assessment Report. Garthwaite was organizing speakers to attend a Royal Society lecture to coincide with the report’s publication.
RG: Thank you for calling last week and my apologies for having taken so long to get back to you. I am out of the office all of this week but wanted to reassure you that the Royal Society is still very keen to hold an event to showcase the WG1 report and we have taken your comments regarding the potential content of the meeting very seriously.
SS: thanks – I think it was very helpful.
RG: In terms of ensuring there are no climate sceptics present at the meeting, obviously this will be difficult to ensure if the meeting is open to members of the public.
SS: I didn’t say anything along these lines. I fully expect some to be present in the audience.
RG: However we have no intention of inviting any known sceptics to the meeting, and certainly would not have invited representation on any discussion panel should we decide to have one.
SS:Yes, that is the point – they should not be invited to take the podium as speakers or panelists because that is simply not an appropriate representation of the state of understanding and uncertainty. The public has been confused enough by one side says this, the other that. This issue has gone far beyond that and this meeting should reflect that.
Just posted this on his blog…
“Please add my name to your list. I’m no expert in climatology but I have a science degree and would be honoured to count myself as one who looks critically at politico-scientific orthodoxy. Keep up the good work – it’s very entertaining (almost satirical)to real scientists.”
We’ll see if it get past moderation.
It might be interesting who if anyone honors the black list.
populartechnology says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:00 am
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
Actually I was referring to this one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/abs/nature08955.html
WGAS anyhow though…..
Richard S Courtney says: June 22, 2010 at 10:02 am
“Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”
I suggest something small, clear and simple.
A round silver lapel, tie pin or broach with the word “Real” at the top, an image of a glass alcohol thermometer (red bulb, black outline) in the middle, and the word “Data” at the bottom. Using two simple words will simplify the translation into other languages and the glass alcohol thermometer is recognizable by any school aged child. You might choose to curve the letters to match the rounding but that makes it less legible, also putting the words beside the image would cramp the image.
The purpose of the pin is to get people to ask you about it, not to make a proclamation.
Avoid using anything with a red slash (NO) as it is a negative presentation, be positive and show your support for what is the crux of the issue at hand.
Get them made up and mail them out to the member of the list, and request a donation to cover the costs of the production and mailing.
Small, clear and simple.
Fergus Mclean says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:14 am
“I want to offer my thanks to the denizens of this blog. You are American heros.”
Not only American: Global…
Actually it’s all very charming. If only I could have continued in academia I might yhave been able to get my name on the same list as Bob Carter, Nir Shaviv, S. Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen!
Richard S Courtney says:
“Can any of you think of an appropriate badge for those of us on the list to wear so we can proclaim that we have received the honour?”
This may not be exactly what you have in mind, but Ms Weasel also does requests.