Blacklist – RC Claims NO Names Listed
Posted by Jeff Id on August 3, 2010
I’ve edited the text for length since initial publication below removing the section on appealing to authority.
While reading an article by Tom Fuller today, he referenced an absolutely insane post at Real Climate on defense of a paper by the late Dr. Schneider. Schneider was a ‘scientist’ who honestly I don’t miss much. You may have noticed that I’ve not said a single word about his death to date. I’m sorry to his family and all but in my opinion the man was an idiotic political hack and his last paper, which intended to be a bad guy list for climatologists, was disgusting, mind-numbingly immoral, and it was trash. The same kind of trash the Iranian government keeps for Christians.
What isn’t ok, is lying about the intent of it, and in my opinion that’s exactly what Schneider’s coauthors did today at Real Climate. What’s more, I can prove it.
Wiki – A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a known untruth expressed as truth.
Personally, I don’t use the word — until forced. Not everything written in this RC post was a deception, some was just obfuscation – which gives context.
Our paper Expert Credibility in Climate Change is predicated on this idea. It presents a broad picture of the landscape of expertise in climate science as a way to synthesize expert opinion for the broader discourse.
Expert Credibility in Climate Change – not “expert positions”, not “most published experts” but “expert CREDIBILITY”. I wonder how a paper with this TITLE passes peer review. We also get the first verifiable deception of the RC post in that they intend to synthesize or IMO humorously “coagulate” expert opinion. If we were synthesizing opinion, it wouldn’t be a paper disparaging any individuals ‘credibility’ . After all, IF some have excellent ‘credibility’ then some must not — right!
Dear Real Climate,
How stupid are we?
The next important point is the separation of the groups into those who don’t 100% agree that Antrhopogenic Climate Change is severe and those who do.
The first of four broad comments about our study examines the relevancy of our two studied groups – those Convinced of the Evidence that much of the warming of the last half century is due in large part to human emissions of greenhouse gases, as assessed by the IPCC, which we term “CE,” and those who are Unconvinced of the Evidence (“UE”).
UE = bad guy, CE = Friend — Got that young climatologists. Don’t mix it up or you’ll be on the wrong list before you know it.
A short side trip for this next less important comment is required – cause it’s another deception.
Some have taken issue with our inclusion of IPCC AR4 WGI authors in with the CE group, in that the IPCC Reports are explicitly policy-neutral while the four other CE policy statements/petitions are policy prescriptive.
The IPCC is policy neutral?? What about the summary for policymakers? Weren’t several policy scenario’s presented with the predicted outcomes? Weren’t the eco-left solutions with government intervention using green technologies presented as the best outcomes? Hey RC, how dumb are we?
The IPCC report is as policy neutral as I am. I just don’t attempt to trick you to hide the opine.
No grouping of scientists is perfect. We contend that ours is clear, meaningful, defensible, and scientifically sound.
I would say NO other grouping of scientists EXISTS! The very compilation of this paper seems to be an anomaly which only exists in climate science.
My next favorite quote, saved for the near end of the RC post which by now can be described as a good guy manifesto.
Publication bias: A frequent response to our paper’s analysis consists of attributing the patterns we found to a systematic, potentially conspiratorial suppression of peer-reviewed research from the UE group. As of yet, this is a totally unsupported assertion backed by no data, and appears untenable given the vast range of journals which publish climate-related studies.
To which the answer is simple. Bovine scatology!!. In the last two years, I’ve personally witnessed suppression multiple times for non-consensus papers. Blogland is nice in that sometimes the inside view is sent by email. It leads to a much greater understanding of what is going on, but unfortunately, I can’t blog on it!! It’s up to the paper’s authors to talk and I’m NOT one of the authors of the blocked papers. What I can blog on is this little reminder to the Real Climate boys:
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Of course that’s Phil Climategate Jones, exonerated multiple times now by climate insider panels. To be fair, the email quoted above was discussing blocking already published papers critical of the ‘preferred’ view of climate from the IPCC, and not blocking papers from publication. However, there were literally dozens of emails on blocking, delaying and replying to slightly critical papers. Even the boycott of journals who published ‘slightly’ critical papers. The emails just weren’t as startlingly corrupt as the one I quoted.
Only in climate science can the fact that no climate scientist was given a pair of steel bracelets rise to an exculpatory defense of the indefensible. And only at Real Climate would they dare write it.
Lessee then, what are the more skeptical PhD’s saying? This is from Pat Michaels who recently wrote to the Wall Street Journal on the state of publication since climategate – Nov 19, 2009. Italics are my words, the rest are his.
Pat Michaels has a disturbing article in the Wall Street Journal on what is happening in peer review since climategate. He can no longer publish any papers and has had four blocked since November. The article was from the 12th but I didn’t see it until now.
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Hmmm…. “totally unsupported assertion”, Real Climate says.. Well, maybe a little support. After all, the individual Phil Jones sent the above email to was Mike Mann with the header – highly confidential. —
To: “Michael E. Mann” <email@example.com>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Now for the best part, denial of the blacklist.
The idea that our grouping of researchers comprises some sort of “blacklist” is the most absurd and tragic misframing of our study. Our response is two-fold:
1. Our study did not create any list.
Followed immediately by:
We simply compiled lists
The whole paragraph is below for fairness, not that it is deserved.
Our study did not create any list. We simply compiled lists that were publicly available and created by people who voluntarily self-identified with the pronouncements on the statements/letters. We did not single out researchers, add researchers, drop researchers; we have only compiled individuals from a number of prominent and public lists and petitions that they themselves signed, and then used standard social science procedure to objectively test their relative credibility in the field of climate science.
Wow, how much over the top can you be. The no-list cannot co-exist with the LIST. It is, or it is NOT. Black and white, no grey of climate science to worry about.
Defense of the indefensible – part Deux!
2. No names were used in our study nor listed in any attachments.
As is always the case in climate science, you cannot trust the writing. It’s up to you to look up the truth. It’s up to you to think for yourself. Mann says no variance loss in his 07 paper but until I did the work, nobody could tell me why he was able to demonstrate in peer reviewed literachur what I already understood was a false result. The flat hockey stick handle was the result of variance loss and the M07 lack of variance loss was due to poorly modeled proxies. You have to look for yourself in this world. Well guess what I found WRT NO BLACKLIST NAMES.
No seriously, over five thousand NAMES in the first link. Five thousand friggin’ names right after they claim NO NAMES listed. No names then half a town of names. WHICH IS IT REAL CLIMATE!
Catch this beautiful first link from the SI page.
The over 5000 individuals listed below have signed one or more of the following eight declarations defending the integrity of climate science issued since December 2009, in response to the inflated controversy of the release of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Six of the eight statements (all but WWFC09 and UCS10) specifically address the fake “scandals” built on inflated claims made about the stolen emails, and all re-affirm the urgency of starting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A nice neutral statement from our good objective scientists — wouldn’t you say. Climategate was faked, we need to spend the money to shut down industry — now!!
This “Fake scandals” statement passed peer review! — no, it really did!! We skeptics FAKED THE WHOLE THING!! Hide the decline, chopping datapoints, filter distortion, chucking data you don’t like, blocking peer review, blocking FOI, it was all a lie – it was skeptics fault. A conspiracy by SKEPTICS, to make innocent climate good guys look bad.
And the guys that said the whole thing was FAKE, were the ‘credible’ ones.
Wow, that is some real climate.
Finally, I’ll present the whole #2, the coup-de-grace which contradicts itself just as #1 did.
No names were used in our study nor listed in any attachments. We were very aware of the pressure that would be on us to provide the raw data used in our study. In fact, many journalists we spoke with beforehand asked for the list of names and for specific names, which we did not provide. We decided to compromise by posting only the links to the source documents – the ‘raw data’ in effect (the broader website is not the paper data), where interested parties can examine the publically available statements and petitions themselves. It is ironic that many of those now complaining about the list of names are generally the same people that have claimed that scientists do not release their data. Implying that our list is comparable to that created by Mark Morano when he worked for Senator Inhofe is decidedly unconvincing and irresponsible, given that he selected individuals based on his subjective reading and misreading of their work. See here for a full discussion of this problematic claim or read Schneider’s interview above.
Can you imagine writing for thousands to read:
1 – You didn’t create a list
2 – You did create a ‘credibility compilation’
3 – The credibility list was not a blacklist
4 – That you didn’t provide the names in any attachments.
5 – The data (names) on the moment’s before non-existent list were based on anticipated pressure to provide data.
6 – Follow that in the SI with “climategate was fake”.
7 – Then pretending surprise that the accused are complaining.
Hey Real Climate,
your slip is showing.