Source:  FrontPage

Posted By Rich Trzupek

Source:  http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/peter-webster-on-pnas-paper-very-likely.html

Peter Webster, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech, weighs in on the PNAS paper that segregates scientists into two categories, good guys and bad guys. Webster is listed as one of the “good guys” on the PNAS list:

All of this is new to me as I have just returned from Asia where I was happily oblivious to the PNAS paper and, forgive me, engaged in science. It has come something of a shock to find myself pigeon-holed, classified and lined up! (more…)

Source: Climate Depot

‘Black List’ Shame: ‘So many errors of data…mistakes regarding backgrounds, employment and specializations of scientists on the lists’

Pielke Jr.: A New Black List: ‘May very well mark a new low point in the pathological politicization of climate science’ — ‘There are good guys and there are bad guys, and to tell them apart, it is important to have a list. A black list’

Inquisition Has Begun! Joe Romm already using Black List ‘to dismiss scientists as unfit for participation in climate debate’ (jromm@americanprogress.org) — Romm: ‘It is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling the anti-scientist disinformers’ (more…)

Source:   http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

by Roger Pielke,Jr.

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. (more…)

Source: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/pnas-climate-change-expert-credibility-farce

by Doug L. Hoffman

A new, purportedly scientific report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is claiming that more “top” environmental scientists believe in global warming. Moreover, the report also claims that the scientists who do believe in global warming—now re-labeled anthropogenic climate change (ACC)—have higher credibility than those who do not. All of this is based on an “extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data.” Citing such data is like saying “most of the people who write for conservative magazines are conservatives.” In other words, the study is devoid of factual significance and possibly purposely misleading. More propaganda from the sinking global warming ship.

In an open access article, rather innocuously titled “Expert credibility in climate change,” William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider have attempted to denigrate those who dare to disagree with the IPCC party line. In order to provide a false sense of balance, the “researchers” refer to climate change believers as “convinced by the evidence” (CE) and skeptics as “unconvinced by the evidence” (UE). That is the only unbiased thing about the report. Here is the paper’s abstract: (more…)