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
He forgot to cross his Ts
Smokey says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:32 am
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.
___________________________________________________
Smokey, I went to that site and notice this comment
“Oh, now this is rich. German greenies calculate that a blog which gets 15,000 hits or more a month pumps out 8 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
So what you’re supposed to do is, you write a blog post about this, you put a link to them in the sidebar using their “my blog is carbon neutral” graphic, they plant a tree in your name, it soaks up 11 pounds of CO2, and — violoncello! — your blog IS carbon neutral.”
Well, I have planted about fifty acres of trees that I now dedicate to WUWT. Anthony can now declare he is a Carbon neutral blog (snicker)
So that kills that particular dart – blog away my friends.
#
#
Lucy Skywalker says:
June 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm
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.
____________________________________________________________
I like the idea but I am afraid most people would not recognize a Stevenson screen if it bit them on the …. That is why I think I like the thermometer better.
This is my favorite: A Climate Scientist holding a burning lighter next to the bulb of a thermometer I sort of liked this Cartoon Thermometer by Michael Ramireztoo or a take off of this Polar bear ate my data
Lawrence Solomon’s take on the Black List and its author:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/lawrence-solomon-google-scholar-at-the-academy/
“The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.”
How do I get on the list? It seems like all the cool kids are there… where do I sign up?
Andrew30: June 22, 2010 at 10:29 am
“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.”
How about this for a start then:
http://i48.tinypic.com/idug4w.jpg
That’s very funny Gail but I think you mean the polar bear ate chicken little ; )
Or maybe lower case would be better:
http://i49.tinypic.com/281u4wh.jpg
Perhaps skeptics are older because they they began their career in an age before climate science was a social and political issue.
Smiley White Stevenson Screen on Grass [lawn]
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1118/4726354928_ffae6c528e_m.jpg
RR Kampen says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:51 am
“I could agree with the simple criterion of: denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (which is basically what most skepticists do).”
Typical. You have set up a straw man. Most skeptics grant that CO2 is a GHG. They just think there is not sufficient data to reach firm conclusions on the sensitivity of climate to the CO2 effect nor do we know all the other factors that influence climate and to what degree and how they interact. If you read the literature you will see all types of statements affirming uncertainty on these issues in papers written by true believers, but somehow when they got together for IPCC, AGW suddenly becomes unassailable, robust, and unequivocal.
I was amazed that Phil Jones stated in an interview when asked why he was so sure that AGW was correct, he said basically that we can’t think of anything else that could account for the warming. Wow!
Regarding a badge of honor for listed skeptic scientists: I favor as most appropriate the image of Nikolai Vavilov:
http://www.vir.nw.ru/history/vavilov.htm
May he never be forgotten.
I’m not fond of ad hominems, so this is meant to be taken in jest:
Jim Prall – a prime candidate for Captain on the Golgafrincham B Ark.
(note: joke requires in-depth knowledge of the Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy).
jeef said on June 22, 2010 at 9:26 pm:
An acceptable substitute for in-depth knowledge these days (at least for this) would be Wikipedia.
But who would and how would they decide who the “useless” people are for placement on such an ark, if they would/could do such for current-day Earth?
Oh look, they already made one list…
Unfortunately for the badges, a Stevenson screen would be too much of an “in joke” to work. The use of “Real” on the idea with the thermometer would be objected to by Real Climate so they can stay fully distanced from us smelly ignorant uneducated unscientific denying pigs.
Thus I propose a simpler version. Start with the heart of the contention, CO2, with a simple molecular model using three spheres (circles actually), a slightly-smaller Carbon atom flanked by two Oxygen atoms. Over this goes the internationally-recognized circle with a diagonal slash, the No/Forbidden/Verboten symbol. This symbolizes we don’t find CO2 to be a problem, and as such badges are chosen by oppressors to represent their own beliefs it will appear to say “No!” to CO2, thus it will appeal to our self-appointed masters, these Keepers of the Holy Scientific Truth, to use us moronic unwashed flat-earthers as walking advertisements of their faith.
For some reason at this time I can find no comment from R. Gates about the matter. Therefore I will go with his previous postings and presume he would like only 75% of the badge that shall be normally required. Unfortunately 0/1, True or False, with-us or against-us logic was used, so one is either 100% committed or on the “Gaea-raping CO2-polluting waste-of-resources” list. However with careful designing using appropriate amounts of computer modeling, we can achieve a badge that has 75% less area, extent, and volume by leaving out one Oxygen atom. If R. Gates, or any of the other 25% skeptical fence-sitters, wish to complain against possibly being mis-identified as denying that carbon monoxide is a problem, they are free as usual to comment about such here. To keep the thread tidy, I shall suggest they do so in the same posting where they vehemently denounce the mere existence of this detestable inflammatory list. 🙂
Nice blog has this Prall – with quotes and all that:
http://650list.blogspot.com/
I especially liked, how he comments the heresies:
It hasn’t warmed since 1998 (literally true, but in context of climate, wrong)
EW:
At June 23, 2010 at 3:12 am you say:
“It hasn’t warmed since 1998 (literally true, but in context of climate, wrong)”
Wrong?!
No, it is factually correct and of great importance to any consideration of how global climate is changing and why.
Please explain how the fact – that you agree is “literally true” – is “wrong”.
And please do not let your explanation amount to,
“It is an inconvenient fact that challenges your assumptions so you choose to dismiss it”.
Also, please do not let your explanation assert the lie that climate data are only assessed over 30 year periods: if that lie were true then we would only have 4 data points for mean global temperature from each of the HadCRUT, GISS, etc. data sets (they cover the period from ~1880 to 2010; i.e. 4 periods of 30 years and a bit of such a period).
Those of us on the blacklist want to know how and why global climate is changing. We reject assertions that facts that can be investigated to assist that understanding (and are “literally true”) must be “wrong” because they do not fit some prejudice. Instead, we assess the accuracy, precision, reliability and validity of those facts.
So, I look forward to your explanation.
Richard
John from CA says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm
That’s very funny Gail but I think you mean the polar bear ate chicken little ; )
_________________________________________________________________
The polar bear ate chicken little is the original, I was thinking of something similar with only the polar bear eating the CRU, GISS data…. Unless the artist would agree to us using the original.
jaymam says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Or maybe lower case would be better:
http://i49.tinypic.com/281u4wh.jpg
_________________________________________________________
Nice and simple and easily understood from a distance. I like all caps best.
John from CA says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Smiley White Stevenson Screen on Grass [lawn]
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1118/4726354928_ffae6c528e_m.jpg
__________________________________________________________________
I like that better than a straight smiley face. However I still think most lay people would not understand what a Stevenson Screen is. If this just makes them ignore the lapel pin – bad, if it makes them ask questions – Good.
Searching for Climate Patents?
A recent peer-reviewed paper “Expert credibility in climate change” was published in the PNAS, apparently demonstrating the computer illiteracy of it’s authors and PNAS reviewers. Their “results” were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”. By default Google Scholar is set to search both “articles and patents” yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word “climate” a relevant “climate publication”?
jorgekafkazar says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Regarding a badge of honor for listed skeptic scientists: I favor as most appropriate the image of Nikolai Vavilov:
http://www.vir.nw.ru/history/vavilov.htm
May he never be forgotten.
__________________________________________________________________
His story certainly serves as a sharp reminder of what happens when politics is allowed to trump science, especially when the story is so recent. He is a contemporary of our Fathers and Grandfathers.
I suggest a round button showing slanted hockey stick slashed through with a standard red “NO” line (forming an X-shape). Simple and clear.
Richard Courtney, I suggest a lapel pin that has a gold question mark (?) On a green background. Questioning is the essence of being a skeptic. I haven’t read all the comments so I apologize if this has already been suggested.
John
I’ll do a few more versions of the button. I like kadaka’s “No CO2” idea. Its a simple icon that quickly conveys the message but I’ll try a version with the word CO2 as well.
I’ll also change the smilie and try a few more versions. Sorry Gail, I misunderstood your comment about the Polar Bear joke. I have several Polar Bear images from the Anchorage Zoo and will try a rotoscope version later today.
Artists hate censorship. Michael Ramirez as well as many other Artists are likely to be willing to create art for publication that highlights the Blacklist and IPCC censorship nonsense. I can send some emails today but we should get Anthony’s response first.