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:  Washington Examiner

Dear Professor Schneider,

I am writing in regards to your recently published paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change.’

I would like to start by asking you if your previously held opinions on global temperatures, which you have since discarded, should be used to disqualify you from current or future work or discussion regarding climate change. If not, why do you libel Roger Pielke Sr. as a skeptic based on his signature to a petition in 1992?

Second, I would like to know how you could associate your name and reputation with a paper with so many errors of data. Are you aware of the mistakes regarding the backgrounds, employment and specializations of the scientists on the lists used for your paper? What quality control measures did you use that could get Willam Happer’s field of specialization wrong? Do you stand by the integrity of the data used in your paper? (more…)

Source:  Telegraph

by James Delingpole

Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?

Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.

The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.

Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones? (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: Wattsupwiththat?

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.

Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.

After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know. (more…)