Just when you think things can't sink any lower, the National Academy of Sciences has now published a list compiled by a non-academic weblogger that attempts to rank scientists by expertise, credibility and (oh!) belief in the consensus position on global warming.
It is a blacklist. It's also hilariously wrong. As Roger Pielke Jr. notes on his weblog, his father, who firmly believes in man's impact on the climate, is rated as a skeptic, while James Hansen, who has repeatedly criticized the IPCC consensus (albeit for being too conservative) is mentioned as a supporter of the IPCC.
This will contribute to the feeding frenzy on climate change and distract (as it is meant to do) from real discussion of climate change issues.
It is a black day for science and shows that there are people more stupid than Ken Cuccinelli.
The worst of it all is the fact that Stephen Schneider lent his name to this travesty. It's no longer enough to quote from the McCarthy hearings (At long last, Senator, have you no decency?). Does anyone here have any sense of shame?
All of the elements of climate consensus confusion creation (henceforth to be known as the 4Cs), are contained within this piece of junk. Creation of jargon. Attribution of motive. Assignation to a list because someone else put a scientist's name on it. Using opinion of where scientists publish and what they say as if it were gospel.
Very much of a piece with the other junk coming out these days. Very much a symptom of a group that can no longer respond to the real arguments.
It's a travesty. Stephen Schneider, how could you lend your name to this garbage?
Environmental Policy Examiner, 21 June 2010
21 JUNE 2010
A New Black List
Little did I know it, but I am intimately associated with the world's most accomplished "climate skeptic." But he is not actually a skeptic, because he believes that humans have a profound influence on the climate system and policy action is warranted. More on that in a second.A new paper is out today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which I'll call APHS10 after the author's initials) that segregates climate scientists into the "convinced" and the "unconvinced" -- two relatively ambiguous categories -- and then seeks to compare the credentials of the two groups. The paper is based on the tireless efforts of a climate blogger, self-described as "not an academic," who has been frustrated by those who don't share his views on climate change:
I've also grown all too familiar with the tiny minority of 'climate skeptics' or 'deniers' who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action. I've gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online.What qualifies one to be on the APHS10 list of skeptics, which I'll just call the "black list"? Well, you get there for being perceived to have certain views on climate science or politics. You get on the black listif you have,
signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC's findings, of climate science generally, of the "consensus" on human-induced warming, and/or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.In fact, it turns out that you don't even have to sign an open letter or argue against immediate cuts for emissions. You can simply appear unwillingly on Senator James Inhofe's list. A co-author of APHS10 warns on his website (but not in the paper) of the perils of relying on the Senator's list:
I caution readers to take this with a grain of salt: a number of experts have been included despite their strong support for GHG reductions. However, the list does record a significant number of people who are outspoken critics of Kyoto or of efforts to cut GHG emissions generally.So you can find yourself on the black list as a "climate skeptic" or "denier" simply because you express strong support for greenhouse gas reductions, but have been critical of the Kyoto approach. On the other hand, a scientist like James Hansen, who has expressed considerable disagreement with aspects of the IPCC consensus, finds himself on the list of people who are said to agree with the IPCC consensus. In fact, it appears that simply being a contributor to the IPCC qualifies one to be on the list of those who are defined to be in agreement with the IPCC consensus and/or demand immediate action on emissions reductions and support Kyoto (unless of course one doesn't qualify, in which case you are placed on the other list -- it is complicated, trust me).
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.
Back to the world's most accomplished "climate skeptic." That would be my father who not only tops the black list but also would be near the top of the list of acceptable scientists based on his credentials, had he been placed there. What sort of views does my father hold that would qualify him to lead the "climate skeptics" list?
I was copied on his reply to a reporter today and can quote from that. He provides this rather ambiguous statement:
I am not a "climate skeptic".Note to Dad, there is no better evidence of your denier credentials than denying that you are a denier. Trust me -- been there, done that. Far from being a skeptic, my father has long argued that the IPCC has underestimated the human influence on the climate system, which includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide, a view that is pretty mainstream these days, thanks in part to his work. Does he "try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action"? Well, no.
What my father does do is ask questions, challenge preconceptions, advance hypotheses and test them with data and analysis, followed by publication of his work in the world's leading climate journals for a period of decades without much regard for whether his work supports or challenges a consensus -- in short, he does exactly the sort of thing that makes you one of the most published and most cited scientists of your generation. But in the bizarre world of climate science deviation from or challenge to orthodox views on science or politics is enough to get you on a list as the top bad guy.
APHS10, co-authored by a leading climate scientist (Steve Schneider) and appearing in the premier journal of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) may very well mark a new low point in the pathological politicization of climate science. But hey, at least now we have a list. A black list.
Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper
A new analysis of 1372 climate scientists who have participated in major climate science reviews or have signed statements in support or opposition to their main conclusions confirms what many researchers have said for years: Those who believe in anthropogenic climate change rank much higher on the scientific pecking order than do those who take issue with the idea.
The paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement" on climate change, says climate science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. "Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist--mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."
But the paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, faces criticism on three fronts: how it divides scientists into one of two groups, whether the scientists have been chosen properly, and whether the peer review process stacks the deck in favor of the consensus view. "This is a completely unconvincing analysis," says climate expert Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was included in neither group.
The co-authors, led by graduate student Bill Anderegg of Stanford University, tapped online lists of scientistswho have signed statements (like this, this, or this) in support or opposition to the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely, that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" and then analyzed the groups for the number of papers they had published which included the word "climate" in a Google Scholar search. "Unconvinced" scientists comprised only 2% of the top 50 researchers ranked by number of climate publications and 3% of the top 100. Among scientists with 20 or more papers on climate, the so-called convinced group had an average of 172 citations for their top paper compared with 105 for the unconvinced.
The first critique of the paper is that the grouping of researchers into "unconvinced" and "convinced" fails to capture the nuances of scientific views on the subject. "By putting scientists into two categories which do not reflect the subtleties of the debate, ... this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate," says Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder. His father, Roger Pielke Sr., for example, was among the most prominent and cited of the "unconvinced." But in an e-mail toScienceInsider, the elder Pielke says that although greenhouse gas emissions are important to consider, so are land-use changes, black carbon and aerosol pollution—a position perhaps more nuanced than the convinced/unconvinced dichotomy the paper postulates.
In addition, the paper defines as "unconvinced" someone who signed a paper "arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions." Pielke Jr. takes exception to that definition. "So you are a "climate skeptic" if you have a certain view on climate policy? Bizarre," he wrote in an e-mail.
"It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," says Jim Prall, a computer support professional at the University of Toronto in Canada who was one of the four authors on the paper. But Prall believes that the paper makes a valuable contribution by allowing the public to measure the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.
Another area of controversy is the authors' selection of scientists to study. The paper focuses on only scientists who have either participated in the IPCC or signed public statements on the state of the science. Are those the right 1372 scientists to analyze? Scientists who are "unconvinced," for example, may feel peer pressure not to publish public statements on that view, which might dilute the strength of that view over all. Its decision to include all IPCC contributing authors as "convinced" by that document's main conclusions is also debatable.
Finally, does peer review affect a scientist's ability to contribute to the field? John Christy of University of Alabama, Huntsville, another of the prominent "unconvinced" scientists analyzed in the study, blames the disparity between the two groups on "the tight interdependency between funding, reviewers, popularity. ... We are being "black‑listed," as best I can tell, by our colleagues."
Pat Michaels, a well-known climate skeptic, says in an e-mail that the paper's conclusions are "a self-fulfilling prophecy." He notes that "I have three manuscripts that have been out for nearly two years. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them except they indicate that warming will be at the low end of the frequency distribution given by [a middle-of-the-road IPCC greenhouse emissions scenario]. Every time we answer reviewers, the editor then sends it out to someone else to cook up another complaint. I gave up on one on Greenland ice that indeed models 2007 with a 50 percent probability of being the largest annual loss since at least the late 18th century."
Prall agrees that the system may not be perfect, but he thinks it's good enough. "It's conceivable that some people have formed a fixed point of view," he says. "But the editors of journals, if they have formed a resistance to outside points of view, they have done so after years of seeing all the good, bad, and in-between papers. They know the field better than anyone else."
