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
Link to the larger image works but WordPress rejected the flicker img scr.
It is interesting to note, after my initial angry reaction over this, that the trolls are not even trying to defend this disgraceful attack on free thought.
Where are the usual trolls? Surely they should be rejoicing at the publication of this important “scientific” paper and defending vociferously one of their heroes.
I think it is fair to say that the environmental/fascist/misanthropic, ( take your pick ), has sunk to a new low.
Who stole their plot?
The evidence is certainly not “convincing” so I have to wonder what is so unusual about this climate science field that makes 97% of its top researchers so convinced.
I’m struck by the amount of support for “Realists” that this paper and the blogs that have reported it has produced. Also, since when is 900-odd out of 1400-odd equal “98%”? Oh yes, he’s counting “peer-reviewed” papers in a world where peer-review is nearly impossible for a Realist. If you counted blog articles, I would bet that percentage is reversed.
For a badge: I nominate a nice white Stevenson Screen over a patch of green grass.
Why be angry? This is the ultimate own goal. When anyone says that there is a ‘consensus’, or that ‘all serious scientists agree with AGW’, refer them to this list. It contains some of the most eminent names in science. Freeman Dyson, Thomas Gold, Frank Tipler, Fred Singer…. those are just a few I recognise from astrophysics and space science.
see John from CA says:
June 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm
For everyone on the list, I hope you like the perceptual play of the absurd image. I felt it reflected an equally absurd situation.
Let me know if you’d like to change the copy and I’ll post another version.
Best Regards,
John from CA
Ever so easy.
All they have to do is publish incontrovertible, reliable, verifiable, actually measured and analysed data showing the direct and obvious link between CO2 (or has that “changed” too?) and temperature rise of catastrophic (heck maybe even meaningful would be sufficient) proportion and effect.
I guess we know why they are resorting to lists and name-calling.
I rest my case.
This paper may not be a bad thing. It could prove to be a wonderful teaching tool about the “logic” used by some to preach climate change, the sad state of our peer reviewed system and confirmation of systematic attacks on skeptics shown by the Climategate emails.
Schneider may have finally “jumped the shark.”
Re: Jack Simmons says: June 22, 2010 at 9:16 am
I notice Jim Prall, who presumes to rank scientists in their suitability as references, is proud to proclaim his astrological sign on his blog.
—
Worse than that, he’s an auditor-
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html
“I also get the opportunity to enroll in or to audit whatever courses catch my interest. I usually select one course per semester. Even when I’m just auditing, I try to do all the assigned readings.”
but no doubt he’s a decent boy at heart, and is only following orders. He’s a Virgo, and likes brown shirts.
I’m hoping there is a “grandfather clause” as I did not make their list. Perhaps I can be listed as “head of a local skeptics chapter”!!! Constantly amazed at the childishness and and finger pointing without substance from the opposing view. Wonders, apparently, never cease. It would be unnecessary for wordpress to include a laugh-track feature, as I sense an abundance of laughter from most people posting here. Their desperation is palpable.
I would be greatly honored to be on any list with so many distinguished names. I would cheerfully buy and wear a pin to show my support for these heroes of science.
JB says:
June 22, 2010 at 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. Is that really all there are? only 750? Really? I think your are proving this PNAS paper’s point….
______________________________________________________________________
Given the blackballing of AGW skepticism in peer reviewed journals it is darn good.
Excerpts from Climategate emails:
email 0926031061
I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the US—but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing is important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.
email 1047388489
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by [skeptics] Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
….Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
….This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! ….
…So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
Eventually the targeted editor was forced of the journal.
Gary says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:07 am
…. 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…..
___________________________________________________________________
“Those who can do, those who can’t teach, and those who can’t teach teach the teachers!” Congratulations you make the “A” list – those who actually do something useful.
“How can some very intelligent people be so incredibly stupid”
Re-examine the premises. That question, by itself, illuminates a conflict of [italic] expectations [/italic].
There are no conflicts in reality.
1- the stupidity is totally credible
2- they are not very intelligent (they only need to confuse those who are stupider)
but most of all:
3- you should not wish to deny reality
the practical uses of a correct evaluation are:
1- you know that you can’t explain to a moron even that he is a moron – because he’s a moron.
2- you don’t debate a mugger. He has no use for your tongue. He is a mugger and does what muggers do.
3- if you agree to the negotiation, you’ve agreed to the outcome. The outcome was always pre-determined to be ‘negotiate until you submit’, which was the reason you were faced with the discussion in the first place- it was just step #1 of the recipe.
4- you learn to do NO – as opposed to talking about it.
Scott says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:20 am
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….
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
___________________________________________________________________
Scott, unfortunately you are correct. That is why a lot of the outspoken “skeptics” are older or retired. Being black listed because of your honesty and integrity is very unfair but also very very real. Both I and my Uncle were black listed so it does happen and is more common than most think. Universities and Corporations want “Team Players” That is why small businesses, who will hire the mavericks, produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.
Silly me I thought there were only a handfull of sceptical scientists,
turns out there’s a whole bunch of them. 🙂
Calling all science whistleblowers!!!!!
Now is the time to alert your friendly Attorney General or Inspector General to all that you know!!!
Your already marked as a skeptic, what can it hurt.
Your livelihood is at stake.
JT
Richard Courtney, I second the badge with a white Stevenson screen on a green patch of grass. Simple. Recognizable. Positive. Relevant. Conversation-opener. Steers the issue back to real science. Revelations of the flaws in the most basic record claiming to show AGW, only a sentence or two away.
This is so anti science it’s unbelievable. What has happened to climate science? This is really really bad from an epistemological standpoint. PNAS credibility down the sink.
@Andrew30
June 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm
‘DandyTroll says: June 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
“People should only be on lists they choose to sign on to, otherwise it’s STASI.”
“Opening it up to just any scientist that wanted to sign up would also be a very heavy load on their server and the backups could take hours. Also they need to keep it to a manageable size, not everyone has high speed broadband access.”‘
I’m not sure if I understand your point, but still it sounds fun enough. If any scientist wanted to sign on to some list then they ought to be able to sign, and if the hobnobs of the list haven’t procured enough bandwidth, shame on them, and then don’t forget to make fun of ’em for being such stupid academic smartass’ for not understanding the ramification of failure. :()
Friends:
Thankyou for all the suggestions for a lapel pin. At present, I favour the suggestion of a white Stevenson screen on a green patch of grass. But I look forward to other suggestions.
This could be fun.
Richard
Mr Prall, repeat after me:
McCarthyism is wrong regardless of whether it is done by the Right or by the politically correct.
Maybe there is a way to sign up to get the list over 2500 scientists 🙂
Well I thought that I checked all of the NZ flag entries; anbd I didn’t find any mention of Dr Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland; who is a very well known Skeptic .
Of course I wasn’t on the list; but then I have made it quite clear; I am NOT a skeptic.
I’m quite convinved that the science is quite wrong.
Well no; not all of it; just that part that deals with CO2 controlling the mean temperature of the earth. That has to be such a joke.
Anyone who believes that should spend a night out under the stars either in the Mojave Desert, or maybe the Gobi Desert; and just experience for himself how much surface warming he receives from CO2 induced downward LWIR radiation; when there isn’t much water vapor around to do the job.
And the big joke about that black list is that the Authors all declared they had no conflict of interest in publishing this piece of ad hominem debate losing strategy hay. In this instance of course the hay has already been once through the horse. A lot of people will settle for that kind of hay.
But it’s good to know that I am keeping a low profile; it’s more fun watching the game while travelling incognito.
And this is what passes for research by that august body; the National Academy of Sciences; or is it academies of science ? They are not known for publishing any minority reports on the concerns of those of their members who do from time to time disagree with the opinions of the majority.
But the President, and the Congress, are not kept informed of the concerns of those dissenters.
It’s not unlike the Mensa organisation; a clatch of self appointed, self selecting authorities that taxpayers are supposed to feed.
“If you are not guilty you have nothing to fear…”
As to the scientific value of the paper? – Nil.
If one were to list all authors on Alien Abduction or Crystal Healing the vast majority would be believers, despite the subject being hokum.