The publication this week of a paper titled ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change’ in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences will certainly do nothing to raise the credibility of the authors, those attempting to defend the paper in the media, or climate science itself.
The paper itself is junk science. It attempts to define climate scientists by their belief in global warming as a potential disaster and then attempts to see just how expert they are by looking at how many papers they’ve published and how many times other scientists cite those papers.
The project failed miserably, getting incorrect names, scientific specializations and numbers of citations. Scientists all over the internet are having an ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment, saying that if they are going to get lumped into the skeptic camp, at least the study could have accurately got their names and number of publications correct.
Spencer Weart, author of The History of Global Warming, rejected the paper decisively, saying a first reading showed so many defects that the paper should never have been published. He was not alone.
The second worst thing about this paper is the evil it has the potential to unleash. In the course of preparing this paper, the authors collected the names of signatories to various petitions regarding global warming. Some of them were of a skeptical nature. Some were pretty innocent–saying that the signatories agreed that there was no consensus on global warming’s ultimate effects and scope. But now, this list exists in one place and has a title on it–and no matter how they pretty the title up, it’s essentially ‘Damned Global Warming Denialists Who Should Never Get a Job or Get Published Ever Again.’ And that is how it will be used, despite the pious protestations of some who don’t want to be around to see the dirty work get done.
But by far the worst thing about this paper is what it will do to Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, listed as co-author of the paper, and the man who eased this garbage into print by virtue of being a member of the NAS (which meant he could publish without peer review).
Stephen Schneider has authored or co-authored more than 450 papers (although the data used for the study says 683), mostly about climate change, and he is an expert on the subject.
Schneider started his career boldly. Back when scientists were actively trying to prevent the threat of nuclear war, a group of them (including my personal favorite communicator of science, Carl Sagan) advanced the concept of Nuclear Winter, saying that a nuclear war would result in a prolonged period of blocked sunlight, destroying agriculture and meaning that the survivors would envy the dead. Very dramatic picture and their campaign was effective politics.
But Schneider found the data (and my hero) was wrong, and showed that what had been called nuclear winter would in fact be more like nuclear autumn. Going against the mainstream and many respected scientists, Schneider made his bones.
He did it again. In 1971, he co-authored a paper that suggested that aerosols could cool the atmosphere enough to usher in the next ice age, although he was clear that it would take a lot of time. But by 1976 he had come to the conclusion that CO2 would not only counteract the aerosols, but that it was warming the atmosphere.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”” richard telford says:
June 25, 2010 at 12:44 am
If producing a list of scientists unconvinced by the evidence for global warming is so dangerous, why did nobody warn Morano when he made his list of 650 “dissenting” scientists? A list compiled with on flimsy evidence and without consulting those included. I personally know one scientist who objects to being included as it completely miss-represents his work and views. “””
Well Richard; so you know one person whose name appeared on Marc Morano’s
“list of 650” who objects to it being there; and misrepresents his views. I’m sure that could happen; but don’t use that to mischaracterize the list or those on it.
As you know (I presume) that list was initially put together as a list of 400 “scientists” or at least persons concerned with the global warming issue; whose names came to Morano’s attention while he was working as an aide to Senator Inhofe; who is the ranking Rebulican on the Senate Cimmitte on Energy and Public Works; which now has California Senator Barbara Boxer as its chairman.
Senator Inhofe was interested in knowing what other scientists thought about the global warming issue which was being promoted by the AGW crowd; mainly Dr James Hansen. Anyone on that list would presumably be contactable by Senator Inhofe’s office, if he wanted to get some specific input.
So my name for example; is on that original 400 list, largely as a result of comments I had made in various places; one of which was a letter to “Physics Today” published Jan 2005 commenting on a review by somebody (now deceased) named Morrison; of a Book by Spencer Weart, on the “Discovery of Gobal Warming”. My comment was on Morrison’s book review (in Physics Today); not on Weart’s book; but PT sought and got a retort from Weart himself; not from Morrison. I was not given an opportunity to respond to Weart; and Weart himslef declined to discuss it.
So Marc Morano contacted me; and noted he had read several of the things I had posted in different places; I think Tech Central station was one such place. He asked me for clarifications or elaborations on some points (of mine) he had read; and he also asked me “who the hell are you anyway”; Well no he didn’t use those words; so he specifically asked me about my educational credentials and pertinent background; something he could use to “identify me” in some scheme of relativity to the issue; preferably already published public information; not any self promotional input from me. The only thing I had of that nature I could point him to; other than US patents for example, was a single article put out by the University of Auckland Society; essentially the University Alumni Association, in which they reported my receipt in November 2000 of the Society’s Distinguished Alumni Award in Science; they jokingly call them their “University Knighhoods”; from Dr John Hood; who was then Vice Chancellor of the University; and now Chancellor (I believe; but maybe vice) of the University of Oxford, in England. I think I was perhaps the 21st recipient, and maybe the fifth in “Science”.
So I gave that reference to Marc Morano; and also warned him that the actual article had some erroneous statements; in the nature of exaggeration, that were the work of the then Director of the Society; who had translated my non-existent Resume, into her own words.
So Morano, quite specifically asked me, If he could include my name in such a list, and explained why Senator Inhofe was interested in having such a listing. Mortano agreed, that some people he had on the list; were not actuals scientists in the usual sense of the word; but had been vocal in various ways relating to the climate issue. I made it clear to him; that I was in no way a skeptic; that I had no interest other than to see that they “Get the science” correct; had no ties to energy or resource industries; nor being a recipient of any kind of grant funding from anybody on either side of the issues; well I’m not on either side of the issues; Just on the side of getting the science correct; and not actually working in any way in the field; but possessing the basic Scientific skills to evaluate the available reported science.
So Morano had my permission, that he directly asked me for, to include my name on the list; and I also told him, that I would and could give him any assistance he might want in informing Inhofe; of specific SCIENCE issues, should he want that. And I made sure that the posted itmes he had in my “dossier” were really my actual writings; and that I was still supportive of whatever positions I had represented. And that he had adequate menas to retrace my academic history to verify anything; he might need or want to.
And my understanding was that he followed that procedure pretty much in most cases.
Inhofe’s first report was issued, when Morano, had 400 names; and yes it is possible that some on the list had misunderstood what the list was for; and I am sure there were some who realized that “coming out” might jeopardize their academic institutional positions; so wanted their names removed.
Your friend, I am sure can easily get his name off that list by simply contacting either Senator Inhofe’s office; or Marc Morano himself.
Once the list was included in the Committees procedings; there was a sudden inrush of requests form people who wanted to “get on the list”; and that is how it eventually became a second listing with arond 640 names; about the time that Marc Morano left Inhofe’s office.
So there was in fact nothing at all sinsister or underhanded in any way; about that compilation; but their certainly could have been instances; where Morano may have misinterpreted the true positions of some of the people. The list was based on people who womehow had come to attention by publishing somewhere some comment related to the global warming issue; adn I am sure there were some who felt a bit vulnerable to unwanted attack from peers; but Morano attempted as best he could to see that nobody was on their unwillingly or misrepresented. But yes I agree that some could have slipped through the cracks. But they can always have their files removed or corrected if they wish; I didn’t attemppt to have Morano correct some of the exaggerations that were in my “bio” since the UofA Society publication already had that in print. I think there was some nonsense thing that I “invented” LEDs; which originally was that I had invented some specific examples of LEDs (1996 Ford Thunderbird Tail Light); that got editorially garbled.
I’m sure that anyone can look up the original listing filed in the Congressional Committee reports; and see my whole file as Morano put it together; and yet it is quite provable;w ith the caveat, that those were NOT my own words in the Society publication; but they are essentially true; for what it is worth.
To present an image of Morano misusing the published works of some unwitting, or unwilling scientists, and misrepresenting their real views; is simply not a true statement.
George E. Smith,
Thanks for that explanation. Although some just can’t see it, there is a big difference between the EPW list and a hit list put out by someone who arbitrarily presumes who should be on it without asking them.
Hank Hancock is right, it is simply brattish behavior, indicative of the alarmist mindset.
Carrot – what you don’t (or won’t) see is this: this list associated with the PNAS article doesn’t just put people into lists, along with the article it seeks to discredit those on the “denier” side of the list. So they are using the status of NAS to further marginalize a group that has already been, to some extent, shut out of the grant money/publishing process by the CAGW’s who are the gate keepers. So unlike the other lists, this one actually has the potential to further silence those with dissenting views. If you don’t see this then you don’t want to.
Without looking it all up, this cretin’s absurdly and o.b.v.i.o.u.s. willingness to deny any, and A.L.L. scientific law, is the stuff of legend; and, if there are indictments handed down for funding/money/government influence improprieties, he will almost surely be on the list.
Schneider is the loon who published the now hilariously ridiculed “The answer’s blowin in the wind, my friend” paper,
in which he asserted, that
(1) all the thermometers used to detect accurate temperature up just a few miles, don’t work
(2) he himself wrote a PROGRAM, that
(3) IS MORE ACCURATE than ALL the SATELLITE,
ALL the RADIOSONDE,
ALL the AIRCRAFT THERMAL SENSORS
of the WORLD
and that YEP: IT’S HOTTER’N HELLFIRE UP THAR
and that NOW,
FINALLY, we HAVE the EVIDENCE that will FINALLY, SHUT UP those stupid deniers.
CAN you BELIEVE that? Well, it’s true.
Now: the OTHER bit of UTTER INFAMY and actually probably, legally actionable thing that he did
was remember, the KEVIN TRENBERTH Email where the idiot trenberth was nearly apoplectic, moaning and mourning the fact that what HE had been for YEARS preaching was APOCOLYPTIC HELLFIRE in the SKY
– the C.E.R.E.S. graphs showing the amount of radiation coming and going from the earth’s atmosphere –
was actually more and more obviously just the standard typical weather for the times –
ok well the THING ABOUT that EMAIL
is that it was ABOUT, a BBC REPORTER who had SAID that, “it hadn’t warmed since 1998, and that it was time(about now, this was said just a month before the release of the emails by someone in disgust at the criminality going on)
for the oscillation to swing to the cooler side –
in that email where TRENBERTH was CRYING and MOANING – because he RECOGNIZES that THEY’RE CAUGHT –
MICHAEL MANN was seen ORGANIZING a COMBINED GOVERNMENT MET OFFICE,
PRIVATE unreal climate WEBSITE ATTACK,
and
STEVEN SCHNEIDER
was seen saying to them all, “You might want to do what my student suggests, below. Such fun, CHEERS.
What the ‘STUDENT SUGGESTED was aTELEVISION CAMPAIGN to DENY what that reporter said.
Now ALL this went on, on WORK SERVERS as they COMBINED to try to SUPPRESS the FACT,
THAT – what ?
What Phil Jones had said on the SAME WORK SERVERS some years before:
“The SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY would COME DOWN ON ME in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS IF I SAID THE WORLD HAD COOLED SINCE 1998.
Ok it HAS, but it’s ONLY BEEN SEVEN YEARS OF DATA (every year since) and it isn’t statistically significant.
Now; Phil Jones’ name is on the LIST of people receiving the string of emails.
What all this leads to gentlemen is that there is NO QUESTION that the entire group of people on a small list of email addresses
who are almost SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for the ENTIRE SCAM
KNOW
that it hasn’t warmed at ALL: not one IOTA for almost 12 years –
and people there are more crimes going on than someone can shake a stick at: they are actually ON WORK SERVERS SAYING they KNOW IT HASN’T WARMED any.
Now
THESE PEOPLE
are making assertions of NINETY PERCENT ASSURANCE
THESE PEOPLE
are making assertions of TRUTHS and STATISTICAL LIKELIHOODS.
These are the SAME people who were too STUPID to KNOW that the “Mannian ‘Climate Math” they were furiously spamming papers, using –
ISN’T EVEN REAL MATHEMATICS.
These people: SCHNEIDER being one of the MAIN AGITATORS in this EXTORTION SCAM that was a small-time funding scam till Al Gore shined a light on it and they all had to keep actually defending the FRAUD they had SPAMMED to get some funding
are a SMALL band of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
CRIMINALS.
They have committed more breaches of ETHICS and DISCLOSURE and just plain CONTRACT of EMPLOYMENT regulations
not to MENTION
the FEDERAL FUNDING FRAUD CRIMES
than anyone so far has even been able to sort out, where to even start counting.
SCHNEIDER is one of the MAIN elements responsible for the sheer SOCIOPATHY – indeed as is VERY easy to see what he does is effectively, CRIME:
using these government employees’ claims that they’re so smart no one is qualified to check on their work,
and LITERALLY destroying people’s lives and using GOVERNMENT GRANTS to FUND the EXTORTION and OTHER CRIMES they – like i said this ISN’T a large number of people, just about 14 to MAYBE 20
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ARE STILL committing.
Schneider and Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth, Jones, Hansen,
These people are all criminals.
That’s what they are, there isn’t any question about it because there isn’t any question where Jones got his
“has just cooled a tiny bit, not even statistically significantly” REAL TEMPERATURE:
The raw data posted online each month SPECIFICALLY to CATCH PEOPLE MASSAGING DATA to SPIN POLITICALLY CONVENIENT or FINANCIALLY CONVENIENT messages;
and there was NO ONE who TOLD PHIL JONES – “but WAIT PHIL – it HAS warmed and STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY…”
They KNOW they have been doing CRIMES
and they – SCHNEIDER AMONG the most HARDCORE of the CRIMINALLY MINDED AMONG THEM
are trying to spread what?
more
TERROR
so no one has the guts to call them, what they all know, they’ve been REVEALED as:
criminals.
This was a TERRORISM SCAM to EXTORT FUNDS that GOT out of CONTROL when Al Gore lost his MIND
and shined the bright light of the world on the SCAM.
and NOW they have all TRIED to KEEP UP the EVIL
and make it COW
orderly governance
and the rule
of
LAW.
And it’s up to the PEOPLE of the WORLD
to PUT them where they BELONG:
The PILLORY POST
and then JAIL.
CARL SAGAN was your hero?!? Tell us if he still is. Espouser of aliens, all rubbish.
Vincent and others,
See
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1203&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
You do have to from time to time support your claims with evidence. The display there shows that the Northern Hemisphere was warm this winter… even consider looking at the temperature scale and how regions (like where I am from) were 6.4 degrees warmer yet the coldest were only 5.4 degrees colder and covering less area. Insulting GISS’s method is not evidence either, it is counterproductive. If you do not agree with their methods, then make your own method. Clearclimatecode has already gone through GISS’s source code and has validated it so you have to do better than just to insult their coding. The data stations are available and certainly if anyone here is willing to do a northern hemisphere temperature analysis and reconstruction it would most definetely help to understand the real changes taking place, but unless you’re willing to make a constructive effort to improve things, you can’t sit back and snipe at those who try (whether effective or not)…
Secondly, there’s no need of ignorance like whoever sent me a wikipedia link to the globe. As a GIS analyst I think I know a little about maps so lets try and avoid being uncharacteristically rude because I do not agree with your opinions.
Thirdly, see http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
or
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
for the near surface layer and you will see that globally up to now temperatures measured by satellites are still the warmest over this measurement period (even including 1998) and that it wasn’t even close…
Funny that
In Pralls list on http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html
He cites my title as doctorandus (rank number 397) which is strictly correct but the international equivalent is MSc Geoph. Apparently somebody in the past did not read my online CV.
He also cites my areas of research as “Arrhenius was wrong” yup that is the title of one of my online pages, so why didn’t he choose:
Homogenisation of Uccle and De Bilt based on census data
A processing aliasing artefact in the early Quelccaya ice core record
Langley infrared observations (1890) revisited
The debatable European summer temperature since 1500 of Luterbacher et al.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/index.html
His google scholar failed to find:
Dietze, Peter and Hans Erren, 2003. The Greenhouse effect should not be redefined, Energy and Environment Vol.14, No 6, pp. 921-922, December 2003
So the conclusion is that I spend at least equal time in bashing cranks as criticising alarmist fairy tales.
Furtermore I do think that scientific authors should publish their data, that’s science isn’t it? I thought everybody was convinced about that, apparently not. Schneiders scary scenarios are the tenet of ACC. But I stopped believing false prophets a long time ago. It’s a well known fact that the IPCC is severely biased.
We lukewarmers don’t share the IPCC alarmistic views, there are many shades of grey between black and white.
“”” Smokey says:
June 25, 2010 at 12:21 pm
George E. Smith,
Thanks for that explanation. Although some just can’t see it, there is a big difference between the EPW list and a hit list put out by someone who arbitrarily presumes who should be on it without asking them. “””
Smokey; Marc Morano did not just pick people’s names from some source, and out of the blue call them to see if they wanted to be on a list. The people he contacted (including me) had already indicated, in some published or public statement fashion, that they had an opinion; apparently contrarian to the AGW mantra TO SOME DEGREE. These people ; many of whom I have personally exchanged notes with, ranged from being just not convinced beyond all doubt that humans were the cause; or maybe even that there was any warming; to every range of skepticism that CO2 from man’s activities was the cause. But they were all people who had themselves, unsponsored; made some public statement on the subject. And he then started to follow up on such writings as he found them; to determine the individual’s level of interest; and agreement or disagreement.
Some on the list are clearly NOT deniers; and barely even skeptics; they maybe were just not convinced that global warming was a serious issue, and man was clearly the cause.
There are certainly some on the lits who would fully merit the “kook” label; and I won’t name any, because their spirit is in the right place; they are just somewhat misguided by erroneous understanding of some of the Physics. And you can believe that Marc Morano, knows that; because in some of the more blatant cases, I personally cautioned him, that he (and the Senator) could easily get a lot of egg on the face by promoting some of these more extreme view points.
Marc after all is not a scientist; he’s a reporter , and an inquisitive rock turner. And he still kept some of these people on the list because he did not want to be judge and jury; he was interested in all levels of dissent with the propagandist view. And I have also exchanged conversations with some of those “weirdos” which I don’t mean in any derogatory sense at all; to try and point out to them, where it didn’t help their own cause to take an extreme position which clearly couldn’t be supported by any facts or theory.
I have always believed that ignorance is NOT a disease; we are ALL born with it. But stupidity has to be taught; and there are plenty willing to teach it for their own ends. I’ve felt it to be worthwhile to try to explain to the “far out” types why their positions were untenable and try to point out in ways they could easily understand with whatever level of knowledge they do have. Some times it works and sometimes it doesn’t; but there are some very enthusiastic non-conformists; who don’t seem to want to learn some new viewpoint; they are quite happy where they are; and sometimes quite defensive too. The only stupid questions are those that people never ask.
Mis application of the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics is a common way of getting out on a collapsing limb.
Even here at WUWT; the spectrum runs the range; and I just assume that people come here to learn or to explain; or just comment; and even to support the AGW position. The saddest part of the latter; is that those folks mostly just cite links to the well known practitioners of that view; that we already know about.
How often do you see any AGW strong supporters come here and actually present any of their own Scientific arguments for their point of view. We are all certainly better off, because Anthony and the referees post the whole range of sentiment that isn’t libellous; I’m sure I learn a lot from the positions of some of those posters although they don’t present much Science.
I don’t fully understand what position Phil takes; and I suspect he might have some institutional links that could curtail his inputs; but I have always found him informative; and in fact quite gracious; including throwing me a rope when I was personally digging in a deep hole that was leading me over a precipice. I’m here to learn as much as I can too.
George
Schneider is a disgrace. I recall his attitude at Copenhagen when a journalist asked him about “climategate”.
carrot eater says:
June 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“So if you go out of your way to sign a public declaration of some sceptic viewpoint…thats okay”
The list is in published by the ‘National Academy of Science’.
Obviously, we live in a country where anyone is free to have an opinion, and to even compile lists of those they like and don’t like. I’m sure James Hansen has a list of people he doesn’t like and Marc Morano has another list and Joe Romm has yet another list. Individuals are entitled to their opinion.
The National Academy of Science was created by Act of Congress in 1863. It is the nations ‘official adviser’ on Science Policy.
Jimmy Prall is a good pal of Canada’s Deepclimate -btw Who is deepclimate? McKittrick seems to know…-.
All the Winnipegers who are posting on deepclimate, Joe Romm are best friends with Prall. They criticize the Edmonton Journal except when it publishes their own rubbish twice last winter… Funny how some guy who left blogging his tail between his legs is now so arrogant under the “Maple Leaf” pseudo…
Mike Haseler says:
June 25, 2010 at 1:54 am
“The irony is that real scientists care about the science and will have nothing but contempt for the idiots who dream up these PR stunts to try to support bogus pr-science”
====
Hmmm … suggest there might be a typo in the above: should this not read “… to support bogus prescience”?! … or alternatively “… to support post-[modern/normal]science 😉
Forgive me, mods, for I have punned.
well first of all Energy and Environment is not a real journal… loehle 2007 even got it through there and was absolutely demolished later by real climate removing any credibility E & E has that they did even any moderate fact-checking and reviewing from that article.
Robert,
You are a fool.
I thought Loehle 2007 was fine; this condescension towards E&E is wearisome, given the terrible papers published in ‘reputable’ magazines in favour of AGW:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-a-note-from-cohenite/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
Robert fails to see that this “publication” is an obvious smear attempt to put both the Pielkes in the “denier” camp.
Hans,
Curious, you would think you would favor having such people on your side?
which people are you referring to Josh?
You know I like bashing physics ignoramuses as well a doomsday prophets.
I admire your work on G&T.
Unfortunately there can be major repercussions.
Dr Calzada has just been sent a bomb.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/
“…Says Calzada:
Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.
Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.
The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:
This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.
Dr. Calzada added:
[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.
The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated”
One idea, paper, or patent by some unknown could change the world tomorrow! If academia insists on suppressing thought then it will fail all together. Everyday Americans are getting fed up with sending there kids to universities to be taught by arrogant hacks who don’t care about anything, but their fame and funding. People just aren’t going to send their kids to overpriced (California!) institutions.
Global warming is not caused by human excesses. It is big business conceived by its proponents.