SEPP on the PNAS blacklist paper

By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Artwork by Jo Nova - click to visit her website

This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of literature entitled “Expert credibility in climate” by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider that claims:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. (Boldface added)

After ClimateGate, warming advocates declared they must communicate better with the public.

Apparently, some believe they can communicate better with the public not by demonizing carbon but by demonizing those who challenge their views, by attempting to demonstrate the challengers are somehow unqualified. The keyword “climate deniers” is a tip-off – those who think that based on physical evidence, climate change is largely natural, not human caused. Already, blacklists have been drawn up with names of those who challenge the orthodoxy. Sometime in the future, it may be useful to compare the allocation of funding with names on the lists to assess the objectivity of those who control climate change funding.

By publishing this survey and its conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is approaching a low perhaps not seen since eugenics was in vogue.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John in NZ

My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy so I am right.
So there.

kim

There are two etiological mechanisms which have created this perfect storm of pathology. The politicians noted a bit of science that would increase their power and the scientists noted a bit of politics which would further their search for the truth. The unfortunate synergy of these two mechanisms has produced the dying man on the litter, an AGW paradigm with an unstable cardiac rhythm and poor vital signs.
H/t Robert.
======

Betapug

Maybe the future money is in thought control research: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_last_experiment/
With lots of chatter about “denialism” being a psychological illness, no doubt there will be a little green pill to cure or control it.

dr kill

Dean Easterling has informed me that the final Mann report from PSU will be issued no later than 01 July.

Betapug

Meant to append this quote from the article:
“One needs social science at the absolute center of the strategic decisions being made in this area. It has to be on an equal footing with the natural sciences, with engineering, with economic analyses,” Fischhoff argues. “If it’s at the end, then it’s too late to shape the policies in ways that will have any meaningful impact.” To fix this, Fischhoff envisions an NIH-like social-science corps, a “substantial institution that would provide social-sciences resources for people willing to take these issues seriously.” If legitimate and properly funded, it could finally attract more top scientists, the kind of people who are “more concerned with making this work than publishing another limited disciplinary paper,” as he puts it.

Cassandra King

Oooh dear its not looking good for us sceptics is it? Lets hope and pray that nature and reality rain on their parade before they can enact their fiendish plans.
The sad truth is that governments want this and the scientific establishement seem bent on supplying them with the desired cover whether that means moving the goalposts,fixing the data and models and going all the way down the road to hell and blacklisting enemies of the consensus and in so doing enabling a denial of funding to the sceptics.
It looks like nature and reality can rain on their parade and all it will do is force them to put the umbrella up and carry on regardless.

John from CA

I raised the question, “who actually supports AGWhatever?” in the original Blacklist post and, after doing a bit of searching, posted a link to an article stating that only 7% of scientists publishing papers on climate science in 1997 actually openly supported the idea. 6% opposed and the rest were undecided (didn’t support or oppose).
If 97% now support and given the blacklist of only 500 of the 30,000 science signatures opposing, then the definition of climate researcher must now be very narrow.
We live in a crazy world : \

R. de Haan

Without any doubt we are in a typical propaganda war.
That alone is a comforting conclusion.
History tells us that most propaganda based doctrines are bound to fail.

Ed Caryl

The cracks in the propaganda facade are slowly getting wider and more frequent. I just hope the whole thing falls apart before our economy is destroyed beyond repair.

Gneiss

“This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. ”
As alarmism goes, that’s just off the scale.

[snip – religion issues are not discussed here]

John

“97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC …”
Hmmmm. Interesting use of the word “tenets” there. As in: “belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion” (OED)?
What was it Michael Crichton was saying five years ago? http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-studentsandleaders-question1.html

rbateman

The Sacred Models predict trend without end, Amen.
The man on the street is wondering what the Predictors have been smoking.
Didn’t we just get over a very long winter?

John Q Public

None of this is science. It’s Tricky Dick spin, politics and propaganda. What these “sceientists” don’t understand is that they have just abdicated the thrown for all science.
Now scientists have no more credibility than politicians.

[SNIP]
[Referring to others as ‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ is not acceptable here. ~dbs, mod.]

rbateman

Apparently, some believe they can communicate better with the public not by demonizing carbon but by demonizing those who challenge their views, by attempting to demonstrate the challengers are somehow unqualified.
When all else fails, Shoot the messenger. Ad Hominem argumentation.
Instead of coming clean after the scandal of Climategate, the preferred choice is to run attack ads.
Swiftboat politics are currently a big turn-off.
So why the choice that makes the AGW Proponents appear as the problem rather than the solution?
My guess is that isolation has taken it’s toll on them.

Fritz

Let’s suppose the skeptics turn out to be right – that current changes in climate are not primarily caused by human activities. Further let’s suppose that we are now entering a cooler period with shorter growing seasons and higher energy bills. Would it not make sense for the vindicated skeptics to demonize the pro-warming cultists. Do we really want people running and working at our scientific institutions who have clearly demonstrated that they put AGW religion and politics ahead of long accepted standards of open, verifiable peer-reviewed science. Have not most of the AGW proponents by their words, deeds and actions shown themselves to be unfit for the jobs they currently hold?

~SNIP~
[No d-words here. ~dbs, mod.]

Peter Plail

How long before they call for the burning of non-conformist books?

Steve in SC

Not to worry. In FY 2011 the funding will be curtailed sharply.

Frazer

I completely disagree.
There hasn’t been coercion of science like this since the pope sent Galileo his room.

latitude

LOL they’ve communicated too well so far, that’s their real problem.

~SNIP~
[Repeated name-calling will get you nowhere. ~dbs, mod.]

Starting with the assumption that research funding and publication in peer reviewed journals are allocated on the basis of the quality of the science then that study proves that AGW alarmists have science on their side.
Starting with the assumption that funding from government sources and publication in journals is affected by bias toward the content of the research proposal then that study proves that AGW alarmists have the politics on their side.
This “study” is a fitting, even Zen worthy end to the Global Warming push. The IPCC started with a confusion of cause and effect between clouds and climate feedback and now crashes and burns on the confusion between cause and effect of the opinion of individual scientists.

In this age od deception and outright lies, one has to look closely at the quote:” 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Liars and deceivers qualify a deception to death, and this is no exception!
The very qualification ” 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field ” leaves out all those whose publications have been denied or rejected because their findings didn’t come to the pre-determined conclusions as the bed wetters. And considering the revelations in climategate, this is not just paranoia but the real thing. If a legitimate climate scientist has been frozen out from publishing by the falsifiers, it’s quite obvious the legitimate scientist questioning AGW will be vastly outnumbered by those marching in lockstep to the beat of the UN.

DN

Actually, I saw the PNAS piece and thought, “Meh, whatever.” That article is the equivalent of skeptics saying, “Look, guys, observed data is falsifying your thesis – got anything else?”, and the warmists replying “Yes, we do – existential radish suburban collander!”
What the heck does a CV comparison have to do with the validity of climate science? Science isn’t about comparing CVs or pubs lists. Science is about who’s got a theory that explains observed data. When the warmists come up with a thesis that explains paleological high temperatures at low CO2 concentrations, and ice ages at high CO2 concentrations, or how my Jeep caused the MWP, or why temperatures skyrocketed in the ’30s and ’40s despite flat-lined global fuel consumption, or how CO2 makes temperatures go up for 30 years then down for 30 years, I’ll listen. Until then, it’s all pointless hyperventilating – and hyperventilating ain’t science either.
Anyone whose mind is changed by an argument that amounts to “There’s more of us, so shut up!” doesn’t have much of a mind anyway. Science isn’t a show of hands – it’s about who’s right. So, all you AGW true believers out there – howzabout one of you come up with some non-obvious predictions based on your thesis and design and execute an experiment to prove them? You want to shut us up? Back your thesis up with data, folks.
Because until you do, I’m sticking with “meh.”

To Whom It May Concern:
I know that you people are thin skinned and quite unable to handle criticism of any sort and that your only hope for success on this blog demands that you engage in censorship and forbid any contrary word from reaching your audience.
Such is life for those who spend their time engaged in a lost battle against science.
Perhaps you could provide documented evidence that the government is actively engaged in a conspiracy against you. For example, during the eight years that George W. Bush was in office did the government promote or deny global warming and how did that impact funding for global warming research and the papers published in peer reviewed journals?
I would imagine that the oil and pollution loving administration of George W. Bush would prefer published scientific papers refuting global warming and the negative impacts of pollution on the environment. Certainly there were plenty of Republicans during those years who insisted that carbon dioxide is plant food and that warming would actually benefit humankind (in only it was occurring!).
Perhaps you should look into that as it might either support or refute your assumptions regarding the government funding of research and peer review process.
[Reply We don’t discuss religion here, you made a large comment full of religious issues. If that removal offends you, or makes you write all sorts of other machinations such as this, that’s just the way the blog policy is. It wouldn’t matter if you wrote about Jesus and unicorns and rainbows and happy land, it would still get deleted. Live with it or take a hike. – mod]

P Wilson

The way forward is remarkably simple.
It is not to demonise those who challenge their views, as that is not a scientific method, but to conduct and provide experimental evidence and proof that leads to a law stating that atmospheric c02 increase is the cause of atmospheric temperature increase.
This latter is what has not been done by experiment or observation, or verified. All that has been stated is on the basis of a loose correlation. It is as loose as the correlation of an increase in the number TVs has increased the long term temperature since 1979, therefore, an increase in TV transmission increases the temperature.

Actually, I’m wondering when “David” will take the (repeated) polite hints he has been offered and write something worth reading about this topic……. Other than propaganda that is.
He obviously has strong feelings about it – But how smart his strong feelings are cannot yet be determined. (Other than that he obviously cannot read nor heed warnings and policies.) 8<)

McGrats says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm
In this age od deception and outright lies, one has to look closely at the quote:” 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Liars and deceivers qualify a deception to death, and this is no exception!
—…—…
We know now that Mann is considered a “peer reviewer” for some 30+ publications. Does that in itself not prove both the quality and the “quantity” of peer-reviewed papers on climate change over the past ten years has no relation to either their value nor their accuracy?

The study they put out is bizarre. Has this ever been done in science? Probably not since the days of Galileo.

Hello RACook,
You said: “Actually, I’m wondering when “David” will take the (repeated) polite hints he has been offered and write something worth reading about this topic……. Other than propaganda that is. ”
Given that my posts have been censored perhaps you should not assume that my comments were not worth reading. Censorship usually occurs only because a post is especially worthy of reading. It is the painful messages which are refused and avoided.
Watts Up With That carefully manages the comments so that its readership may never have to listen to a contrary viewpoint. You people are living within a well protected bubble.
You people should concern yourself with the reality of censorship on this blog and its implications. It should lead you to skepticism regarding the blog’s message.
[REPLY – Oy, Sheesh, and other comments . . . We snip almost nothing. We are among the most open blogs in the climate biz. (Sometimes things go way beyond the Palatinate, however.) ~ Evan]

I see Frazer beat me with the Galileo point.
Well, that makes two of us who think it was scientifically bizarre.
They just can’t accept they’ve lost the consensus argument. Now they trying to claim they have a big enough majority.

[snip – trolling/spamming, repeating the arguments and arguing about the policy won’t help, pick a new topic or leave – mod]

higley7

This is getting depressing. My list of journals that I consider worthwhile reading is getting shorter.
How can PNAS begin to consider this paper for publication?
Time to turn over the editors of these journals and get some that have a conscience, morals, and knowledge of the meaning of science.

rw

I’ve often been struck by the fact that in behavior directed at others people tend to give their game away, whatever the content of their arguments. If this were really a scientific argument, would tactics like this be used? This is certainly not the usual method for deciding between opposing hypotheses.
In addition, there’s a strange lack of awareness of previous (relevant) history – a short while ago there was supposed to be a nearly complete consensus (928 to 0 by Al Gore’s count). Now 500 names are put up to be discredited, despite the obvious contradiction with the earlier message, and the implicit admission that it was not true. It’s like a shift in scenery in a play, but one where the players carry on as if there was no earlier act. This is far from normal science, although “post” is not the prefix I would use in this case.

jeef

Is David a climate realist by any chance?
Perhaps he’s upset that WUWT hasn’t produced a list of Warmists so he can have his day in the sun (so to speak).

Sailor

The articel shows the warmists are out of scientific argument. They are annoyed sceptics get some media attention and since they don’t want, and can not, argue back they use, as always, the “consesus” argument. Why can’t they understand that eminence does not imply correctness. Something you learn at highschool.
want to silence journalists to write any other view then theirs.
they write this

Luis Dias

This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

This is perhaps the most distasteful start of any post I’ve seen for the past years.
Disgraceful and filled with bad taste. Pretensious and disrespectful.
Puking material.

Holos

David provides a link to his flickr pages on his name
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmathew1
Looks like a biologist, or maybe just a photographer that takes pix of bugs and such. Like I see on other blogs the bio/life/photo types tend to understand climate science the least and howl the loudest.

Dave McK

Too much PNAS waving goin on. So sorry all these former institutions of science died so ignominiously. They never get tired of playing with their collective we! we!.
Universities used to have to clear out their art departments when these people became entrenched. Now they’re entrenched in the administration.
Now all quotas will be filled – the forms will say so.
Now all statistics will be faked.
ONLY gov’t employees hesitantly tow the line- and not in private where they mock the absurdity their own selves.
By this point, the sharper participants understand that it’s a doomed ship and start ‘salvaging personal effects’.
I think we’re seeing some of the anticipatory resignation/retirements now.
Plan B is, of course, blame a past administration and promise hopey-change.
That ALWAYS works on suckers no matter how many times it’s reused.

RomanM

Luis Dias

Puking material.

My feelings exactly when I first looked at the PNAS paper.

keith in hastings UK

re the list, if all they wanted to do was show how less qualified (on their ridiculous measures) sceptics were, they could use just the numbers. Listing names was quite unecessary, and so likely of malicious intent.
re david of getting-snipped fame, I have read plenty of properly argued pro AGW comments on this site, and some less well argued which are not kicked off tho’ sometimes remonstrated with. Several names come to mind. I always study what they say. And re (for example) Arctic ice, have concluded we had best wait and see what happens, but that even then it won’t be clear what it means.
I hope I speak for others that many readers are sceptical of all assertions, whether pro or anti CAGW or just plain AGW ( tho’ that always seems to drag in catastrophe somehow!)

George Turner

Hey, I think David is entertaining. Can I keep him? Pleeeease???
David, almost everyone here reads AGW propaganda all day long, taking it apart piece by piece, because the science is often shaky at best. If we were afraid of being exposed to information on climate change then we wouldn’t read through it all day, now would we?
No, we’re obsessed with climate, temperature, feedbacks, data analysis, modeling, ENSO, NAO, and every other oscillation out there. What we’re not patient with is someone stamping their feet and shouting like a five-year old who is convinced that he’s absolutely the first person on Earth to have whatever revelation just sparked in his still developing brain.
When a scientist is convinced that those finding glaring flaws in his data, methods, and conclusions are evil, he’s no longer acting as a scientist.

jorgekafkazar

rw says: “…This is far from normal science, although “post” is not the prefix I would use in this case.”
Pot-Normal Science?

Darkinbad the Brightdayler

England is out of the Football world cup despite fielding a team comprised of some of the most highly rated players in the world.
It doesn’t matter how many goals you’ve scored in the past, how impressive your CV.
It doesn’t matter how big your dick is or your bank balance.
What matters, in the end is how relevant and valid your scientific arguments are and whether they will withstand the scrutiny of scepticism and the tesr of time.

Philemon

Betapug says:
June 27, 2010 at 11:40 am
“Maybe the future money is in thought control research…”
What do you mean “future” money? Or “maybe”?
There’s always been money in thought-control research. You weren’t aware that cognitive science is largely an NSF-funded wheeze as well? Apparently, the government funders just love the idea of being able to read people’s minds and control their thoughts. Failing that, they would like people to believe they have that capability. It’s all fairly chomsky*, though.
*http://www.philosophicallexicon.com/

John Cooper

<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/sepp-on-the-pnas-blacklist-paper/#comment-418188"@ kim:
I’m so pleased that you posted about the symbiotic relationship between the “Men of Power” and the “Men of Faith”, as Nathaniel Brandon (protege of Ayn Rand) wrote about in Atilla and the Witch Doctor

While Attila extorts their obedience by means of a club, the Witch Doctor obtains it by means of a much more powerful weapon: he pre-empts the field of morality. . . . Both of them are incomplete parts of a human being, who seek completion in each other: the man of muscle and the man of feelings, seeking to exist without mind. . . . Atilla rules by means of fear, by keeping men under a constant threat of destruction–the Witch Doctor rules by means of guilt, by keeping men convinced of their innate depravity, impotence and insignificance.

. In the Middle Ages, the “men of faith” provided moral justification for the tyranny of the monarch, and in return, the monarch provided protection and grants to the religious leaders.
These days, the same relationship exists between the U.S. government and the religion of Gaia. This was exactly why our Constitution forbade the establishment of a state religion, but as we can all see, we have one nonetheless.

Robert of Ottawa

Did PNAS have suicide on its mind? To get SEPP to condemn them so roundly required high skill and robustness.
Did these folks study

Robert of Ottawa

ooops, seem to have lost my reference to Torquemada.