By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The PNAS article is just one in a long list of despicable publications. But let’s be grateful because now we now have a database of the who-is-who in climate-related science. And it is somewhat an honour to be on it as a skeptic.
I have put together a hall-of-shame of those warmists who openly have been on the propaganda wagon. http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/hall_of_shame.htm
Read it and weep and imagine for a moment how the minds of our children have been corrupted with fear for the future. Lest we forget.
“David” bags on Republicans for insisting that CO2 is plant food.
“David” needs to revisit his high school biology text if he thinks the Republicans are wrong. CO2 isn’t just “plant food”. It’s their ONLY food. Everything else they need except for water is used in very small quantities analogous to “vitamins and minerals” for animals.
Hey, Galileo was big enough to recant his errors.
Who among us is so small minded and stubborn that he will not mend his ways and stop shilling for big oil? I would be the first to decry my skepticism, given enough of a grant.
Meanwhile, honest scientists are blackballed. The next real President America gets should look seriously at some targeted budget cuts, starting (after the EPA, of course) with the NAS.
Wren says:
June 27, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“By publishing this survey and its conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is approaching a low perhaps not seen since eugenics was in vogue.”
======
What’s false about the survey and its conclusions?
Mainly the idea that it lends anything to the credibility of the CAGW “tenets”, its obvious purpose. Which kind of…er…backfired?
David, if you are so unhappy about censorship perhaps you should, take yourself over to Gavin’s place – that’s Real Climate to you. The breadth and depth of the warmist propaganda…er…censorship of sceptics over at RC is breathtaking. It will be interesting to see you take them to task over it. But then, I suspect there is censorship and then there is acceptable warmist censorship…
Some commenters are entertaining the idea of what to do with the alarmists once this scam is finally exposed for what it is.
I REALLY ENJOYED Inglurious Basterds. The forehead…the CO2 sign
I have just returned from an International scientific meeting dealing with past environmental reconstruction. Interestingly, most of those asked thought that while human CO2 production might have some influence on climate, this influence was minimal compared with other factors. Since these are prominent research workers, leading research groups, the only conclusion is that the authors of this PNAS article misunderstand or misrepresent the situation.
Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:37 pm “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”.
Spelling error. When you get to my age, you will understand the correction “the scrutiny of sceptism and the testosterone of time”.
Regarding the black list, I notice that Peter Webster, the man who actually got Phil Jones’s data, has a post on Roger Pielke Jr’s blog saying he is very unhappy to be on the believers list based on something he signed in 2007. He says his views are changing.
But there are better ways to decide which camp has the better scientists than to just look at the number of papers written. Most of the scientists listed in the believer’s camp have written papers which touch on global warming but do not go to the heart of the issue. The world warmed during the second half of the 20th century and so scientists wrote papers on how warming oceans are changing the habitant for sea animals. These scientists are earth scientists and may have written good papers but they have not looked into the issue of natural climate variability or attribution between natural and manmade climate change. Often, they were looking at the effects of climate change and not the causes.
I prefer a look at the matchups between the leading lights of the IPCC group and the leading lights of those who have criticized the IPCC. Based on scholarship and integrity, who do you think wins these matchups?
1. Michael Mann or Steve McIntyre – McIntyre won the Hockey Stick Controversy hands down.
2. Phil Jones or Roger Pielke Sr – Both are concerned with surface station temps. Jones hid his data (and/or destroyed it before leaving UEA). Pielke’s papers, and his inspiration of Anthony Watts, has done far more to improve the surface station quality. Have to go to Pielke.
3. James Hanson or Nicola Scafetta. Hansen has made a number of climate predictions including “we have four years left to save the world” which have been proven wrong. Scafetta has made a number of contributions to science including phenomenological theory of climate change predicting cooler temps for 30 years. Scafetta easily wins this matchup.
4. Gavin Schmidt or Roy Spencer – Both have worked at NASA but Schmidt runs a disinformation blog RealClimate while on the government payroll and Spencer makes actual contributions to science and has proposed a new theory on clouds and the PDO. Have to go with Spencer.
5. James Annan or Stephen Schwartz – When it comes to calculating climate sensitivity, I have to go with Schwartz, the man who says he there is cause for concern but we have time to find a solution. Note: if there is a warming bias in the surface station record, the sensitivity estimate by Schwartz is greatly exaggerated.
I think it is pretty clear, the best scientists have not bought into IPCC alarmism.
Careful dear friends, “The Great Inquistion” approacheth. The AGW Flat Earthers will have their pound of flesh. They will have the children report their parents to the authorities. They will torture the truth out of all who dare to deny any tenent of The Faith of Global Warming. They will burn non-believers at the stake. They will have them devoured at half time during football games by ravenous lions and wolves. There will be no escape. Run! Hide! Move into the wilderness! Death comes to all who deny them. You have been warned! All is lost!
Wren: June 27, 2010 at 9:51 pm
What’s false about the survey and its conclusions?
How about pointing out one lie for starters?
Their criteria is suspect. “Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.”
That was their sole criterion for determining who had “climate expertise” — the number of papers on climate research each had written. Nothing about content. No independent peer review. Not even a requirement that the paper addressed new material.
Expertise was only based on the *number* of papers each had written — using that logic, Stan Lee of Marvel Comics is a better writer of fantasy fiction than Poul Anderson was.
“Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published in any field by each scientist — not just climate science publications — and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers. Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.”
Note that they said “frequently cited” — that means that even if the citation was for “Look what this idiot wrote,” the citation counted towards making the author “prominent.” And, unlike the authors here, who are pretty eclectic in their choices, those authors on the AGW side cite each other so often it’s downright incestuous.
And it turns up in Science Daily:
Scientific Expertise Lacking Among ‘Doubters’ of Climate Change, Says New Analysis
For the leftist, or those of a totalitarian bent, all things are political. Their premise is that the masses of ordinary people would be better off if the elite were to rule their lives. On every issue, the side which give more political power to the elite is the good side. The uniquely American ideal of the sovereign individual is the natural enemy of the left.
Scientists with leftist instincts argue with Lysenkoism (a distortion of evolutionary theory convenient to Marxism that became scientific dogma in Stalinist Russia) only in the particulars. They love the process of Lysenkoism. They would impose it with respect to AGW, subordinating all of our lives, through government control by asserting as dogma a phony science.
******
evanmjones says:
June 27, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Nature is fang and claw. Even the plants get in on it.
******
Yes. A short walk into forest from my lot, there are two 1 ft dia+ trees growing very close — a Sugar maple that looks healthy & a Black walnut that seems in poor health. Looking at the ground, I can see the maple has grown a massive surface root across the root-crown of the walnut, cutting deeply like a knife into the base of the walnut trunk. By chance or design, the maple is slowly strangling the walnut.
Many such extreme-slow-motion battles between plants are apparent in the forest.
Pascvaks says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:01 am
Careful dear friends, “The Great Inquistion” approacheth. The AGW Flat Earthers will have their pound of flesh. They will have the children report their parents to the authorities. They will torture the truth out of all who dare to deny any tenent of The Faith of Global Warming. They will burn non-believers at the stake. They will have them devoured at half time during football games by ravenous lions and wolves. There will be no escape. Run! Hide! Move into the wilderness! Death comes to all who deny them. You have been warned! All is lost!
___________________________________________________________
ERRrrr, I hate to tell you but that type of stuff has already started.
“Third parties, such as veterinarians, will be required to report “sightings” of animals who do not have ID numbers. (Standards, p. 25.) In other words, if a farmer or rancher calls a vet to their property to treat an animal, and the vet finds any animal without the mandatory 15-digit computer-readable ID, the vet may be required to report that non-compliance.” The NAIS Story
“US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies
The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties groups. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report “suspicious activity”. Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage earlier this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive, large-scale investigations of US citizens. Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers are being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access to homes, businesses or transport systems. Letter carriers, utility employees, truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as targeted recruits.” Spies Like Us
Unfortunately government surveillance is no longer a laughing matter.
Per my earlier comments,
Wren:
your disingenuousness regarding the basic issues here gives your game away.
(That is, you’re blandly giving countenance to an action that is clearly outrageous. [The NAS publishing blacklists – nothing to see here …])
Well, what outcome can be possibly expected of a opinion collected among the most published researchers in the field of anthropogenic effect in the global warming? Jee, who would have thought.
On the other news: 98% most published practitioners of homeopathy are convinced that homeopathy is a valid treatment and the arguments of its critics do not hold water.
95% of the palm readers swear that palm reading is the most reliable forecast instrument.
100% of pickpockets are convinced that they are upstanding members of the community.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:49 am
Wren: June 27, 2010 at 9:51 pm
What’s false about the survey and its conclusions?
How about pointing out one lie for starters?
Their criteria is suspect. “Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.”
That was their sole criterion for determining who had “climate expertise” — the number of papers on climate research each had written. Nothing about content. No independent peer review. Not even a requirement that the paper addressed new material.
Expertise was only based on the *number* of papers each had written — using that logic, Stan Lee of Marvel Comics is a better writer of fantasy fiction than Poul Anderson was.
“Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published in any field by each scientist — not just climate science publications — and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers. Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.”
Note that they said “frequently cited” — that means that even if the citation was for “Look what this idiot wrote,” the citation counted towards making the author “prominent.” And, unlike the authors here, who are pretty eclectic in their choices, those authors on the AGW side cite each other so often it’s downright incestuous.
================
The criteria is not a lie. It is reasonable to assume there is a positive relationship between number of papers written by scientists on a subject and their expertise on the subject.
Re the Lee and Anderson comparison, a comic book is not a novel, so the comparison is apples and oranges. Perhaps Lee draws better than Anderson, and Anderson writes better than Lee.
JoNova
Learn how not to reason at the University of Western Australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/learn-how-not-to-reason-at-the-university-of-western-australia/
k winterkorn says:
June 28, 2010 at 8:27 am
For the leftist, or those of a totalitarian bent, all things are political. Their premise is that the masses of ordinary people would be better off if the elite were to rule their lives
They are taught, when they are conveniently”initiated” that this is so, for the sake of humanity, that they are the chosen ones to spread all these “blessings” to mankind. The fact is that they are and have been manipulated and fooled to believe this by their masters.
However the history of humanity it is not written by those who believe themselves “gods” or “semi-gods”, really self-indulging morons, but, fortunately, by hard working people. individuals making the real breakthroughs.
As for their masters, they are all crazy, for what is it to ambition billions of dollars for them and for their progenie?. Are they inmortal?, NO, so that’s utterly stupid.
BTW, GAIA PRIESTS, ENVIRONMENTAL BELIEVERS, GREEN ADEPTS, GLOBAL WARMING FANATICS, SHOULD MAKE A VOW OF POVERTY
Only then we could believe them!
Oh, sure, that’s easy to have a huge list of those climate researchers most actively publishing in the field, who had “expert credibility in climate,” and supported the tenents of AGW outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But here’s the list of scientists who had “expert credibility in climate” AFTER they supported the tenents of AGW:
.
🙂
Wren says:
June 28, 2010 at 9:42 am
The criteria is not a lie. It is reasonable to assume there is a positive relationship between number of papers written by scientists on a subject and their expertise on the subject.
Only if you don’t think Scientifically, Wren, which appears to be your main problem. Or else, and since you’ve ignored my previous response, tell us where your above criterion exists in the Scientific Method.
I’ll wager you can’t even bring yourself to write “Scientific Method”, unless, of course, you dismiss it out of hand – also = arguing fallaciously like Ravetz for “Postnormal Science” as necessarily transcendent, blah blah blah – which then leaves you right back with my original response to your question, i.e., that your criterion lends nothing to the Scientific credibility of CAGW, and in fact even tends to contradict it – in that the criterion is not found in the operation of the Scientific Method, so why is it even being proffered?
Attention: DAVID
Please review the following google document, and get back to us.
(There will be a quiz)
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
97% is a redundant statistic in matters of science and human behaviour and in any case can be reversed in meaning.
97% of composers are not as great as the possible 3% of musical genius. 97% of mathemeticians are not as illustrious as the 3% who profess to the highest level. To what extent the 3% will sell their integrity is a question of administrative pressure.
It makes one wonder if Galileo in his day had 97% against him, or whether Darwin had 97% against his hertical theory of evolution. I daresay it was closer to 100%