the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

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.

Expert Credibility in Climate Change – Responses to Comments

First quote:

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?

Love, Jeff

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.

NEXT!!

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 !

Cheers
Phil

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” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
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.

Here is a link to the paper. — no names.

Here is a link to the SI — no names.

Here is a link to the data for the paper as linked by the SI — Over five thousand names – in the first link.

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.

64 Responses to “Blacklist – RC Claims NO Names Listed”

  1. boballab said

    RealClimate – Defending the Indefensible since 2004!

  2. Principles before personalities – lest we become like those we criticize.

  3. M. Simon said

    A hard rain is gonna fall. Or would that be snow?

    =================================================

  4. I always preferred the definition:

    Lie: “A statement made with intent to mislead or deceive.”

    It by implication covers all those vague and “iffy” maneuverings and “lies by other names” like prevarication, obfuscation, and disingenuity. The key word though, is “intent”.

  5. Dagfinn said

    Thank you, Jeff. The larger question is whether the so-called consensus is a system with net positive feedback (as the earth’s climate is claimed to be). In other words, an echo chamber. This study helps confirm that it is. As you imply, young climatologists will figure out what opinion they should hold in order to be “credible”. That will strengthen the consensus further (unless, of course, other forces counteract it), which will get yet more young climatologists to support it, and so on.

  6. Geoff Sherrington said

    4 Steamboat, yes, the key word is “intent”. Following not far behind is a concept that I name “intellectual greed” for lack of a more concise description. This can happen even when a person with good intent sacrifices a little or a lot of integrity for gain, be it monetary, for his/her reputation or whatever motivation. Why are the cars so much nicer in the doctors’ parking areas of hospitals? The “intent” word can be developed in many different ways – personally I like “noble cause corruption”. In the final analysis however, I believe that each person knows when he/she has broken the bounds of honesty.

  7. Jeff Id said

    Here’s a comment from the link in the SI.

    “I’ve listed signers of activist and skeptic statements by assigning a unique short tag for each such document, and entering the tag in the first column of my tables.”

    The “list” was compiled and published with all disparaging remarks by author James Prall….

  8. josh said

    Jeff, so where is the list of uncredible scientists – the so called blacklist? I am not seeing it in the materials you have linked to.

  9. Jeff Id said

    #8, I highlighted the appropriate link in red for you. Check the bottom of the linked page for skeptic names.

  10. kim said

    “Hide the opine”. Now, I like that, Jeff.
    ==============

  11. josh said

    Ah, ok, they’ve linked to other lists of skeptics. Got it. I thought you were saying that they had created a blacklist – rather they’ve created a ‘list of lists’ – pointers to external declarations and statements that were used to source names for their list of skeptics.

  12. Jeff Id said

    #11, They created a list of names to be used for defining who is credible in climate science. You can word it how you want, but it is what it is. A list of less desirables for the purpose of defining credibility.

  13. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    Deception and politics are like hand and glove. The content of the RC post is perfectly rational given RC’s mission. What else could RC say and still satisfy their political obligations to Fenton Communications?

    When even Spence Weart thinks a “climate science” paper is trash, you can be certain it really is just trash. The paper is comically transparent political commentary, and a sorry epitaph for the late Stephen Schneider.

  14. josh said

    I’ll call it what it is – a list of links to statements and organizations whose members and signers have publicly declared their skepticism. Perhaps aggregating these links is somehow nefarious. It appears to have made you very angry at least.

  15. eddy said

    Are you sure this paper was peer reviewed. I though it got a bye on that. Confirmation would be useful.

  16. michel said

    De mortuis nil nisi bonum

  17. PhilJourdan said

    Every “political” party needs a convention where the faithful can gather and sing kum-bye-yah. That is what real Climate is all about. It is not a news site, just a convention of the like minded to feel good about themselves after failing to convince the rest of the barnyard that the sky is falling.

  18. Gary said

    When is a list not a list? When it’s a list of lists, of course. It’s not a “list”; it’s a list of “lists.” How can you be so obtuse simply not to see what is isn’t what it is?

    Now, to be serious, a question about the following quote:

    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”).

    Why the compounding of vague terminology (“…much of the warming…is due in large part…”) to separate the CE group from the UE group? Why are they blurring the line so much?

  19. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Deception and politics are like hand and glove. The content of the RC post is perfectly rational given RC’s mission. What else could RC say and still satisfy their political obligations to Fenton Communications?

    When even Spence Weart thinks a “climate science” paper is trash, you can be certain it really is just trash. The paper is comically transparent political commentary, and a sorry epitaph for the late Stephen Schneider.

    Exactly. RC being RC and Stephen Schneider being Stephen Schneider is hardly news.

    I think sometimes the retorts to these going-ons are given with too much seriousness and perhaps because those involved are scientists. Think scientist acting as a political hack, and perhaps you can treat the comments with all the due respect you would for those from a political hack.

  20. david_in_ct said

    Congress is about to get a significant make-over and La Nina is in full swing. RC acolytes can’t be feeling too good about now. Sit back and watch the fun.

  21. Jeff Id said

    #14, What makes me angry is when people lie. If you make a list and claim you didn’t, that is a lie in my book. If you make a ‘credibility’ list then by definition you are making a ‘non-credible’ list also. Claiming it’s anything else is also a lie as can be easily seen from the contradictory ‘defensive’ statements.

    Real Climate should be ashamed to defend this kind of stupid paper and PNAS should be ashamed to publish it. But when you have problems with the facts and data, turn to appeals of expertise and credibility. Just don’t lie about what you did, say yes we made a list of like minded scientists whom you should listen to because these are the credible ones, the rest don’t count. Pretending it’s anything else, is false.

  22. Craig Loehle said

    If you take a random sample of scientists who believe x, and a random sample of people who believe not x, and your sample of “believe” is 10 times larger, then by sampling theory alone, the most prominent of the “believe” category will be more published than the “not believe” category. However, their sample wasn’t even random. Their “believe” category selected for IPCC authors and other prominent scientists, and the “not believe” category selected for politically active individuals like Marc Morano, who may not be researching scientists at all. Double flaw.

  23. Jeff Id said

    #22 I didn’t look but are you on the list?

  24. Bob Koss said

    After a cursory examination of their list I posted this comment at RC last night. They let it through.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You created a list of people showing the number of publications each had containing the word climate.
    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html

    The third most prolific name on that list is Matthew Collins. You link to his web-page where he indicates less than 70 publications, and none prior to 2000.

    Why does you list show Matthew Collins with 726 publications and Phil Jones only 724?

    You also link to Michael Mann at the Department of Sociology
    University of California, Los Angeles. How did he make the cut?

    What due diligence was performed on your list?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    No one there seems capable of answering my query.

  25. RomanM said

    RC has actually published my comment… I guess because I was polite.

  26. Jeff id said

    Nice Roman, it should require a corrigendum, if the paper was actually a scientific one.

  27. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    RomanM #25,

    Very polite indeed. Not a single use of “crap”, “dung”, “garbage”, or “rubbish”.

    It will be interesting to see if you get any reasoned replies.

    Jeff #26,
    “it should require a corrigendum, if the paper was actually a scientific one”
    Tongue in cheek, or are you serious?

  28. Jeff id said

    #27 Roman found a real error, unless I missed something which has been known to happen from time to time. Tongue in cheek for the rest.

  29. RomanM said

    The first two lines that I quoted from the paper are patently false:

    We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest expertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facilitates comparison of relative expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers).

    It might be true if random samples of 50 were taken, but by selecting the fifty largest in each group, it guarantees that the difference will be exaggerated by a large amount.

    I don’t know if they would see the irony in measuring the credibility of the authors with their own yardstick – number of prior papers in “evaluation of expertise”. None for any of them.

  30. j ferguson said

    “…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..”

    Much of….. due in large part.

    Much of = 60%
    large part = 60%

    60% X 60% = 36%

    Doesn’t look like they are all that certain themselves.

    At last, At last, I could do something quantitative. whoopee.

  31. j ferguson said

    Was the author of the statement I’ve dissected above really believed to be sharp?

  32. Stilgar said

    I see a few problems right of the bat. The criteria does not seem well defined as they claim.

    “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”). “

    3 things wrong with that right off the bat.

    Exatly how much? Shouldn’t we have a percentage or at least actual figures to say the CE group thinks that 65% or more of the warming in the last 50 years are due to human emissions.

    How can you have generic terms like “much” and “large” to objectivly identify people when you have don’t define what “much” and “large” actualy represent? Which is interesting when you try to reword that into a valid statement using numbers. It seems like “large part” is not needed or at the very least confusing. If you have much of a large part, you really have less overall (much… 75% of 100 = 75, of a large part 75% of 75 = 56.25). So is the list saying these people think humans are causeing little over half the temperature increase? Also, does large part of greenhouse gases include the positive feedback or not? If CO2 is only .2C and feedbacks are .4C, does large part of gases mean just the .2C or the full .6C?

    2nd thing is they say this set of 2 grouping is ok because in politics people are defined as Republican or Democrat. In the VERY generalized sense this is not even true. There are also Independents. While independent does not make up much of the actual representation in government, those are the people who the politicians pander to when they trying to get votes and pass bills. They are the people who have not really made up their minds regarding certain things one way or the other. Or believe some things are true and some other things are not quite as defined.

    The 3rd thing is sort of the same as 2… is there not a way to figure out all who have published peer reviewed articles that have not signed anything one way or the other? They wave this away by saying that other groups have found similar things, like 97% say at AGU “human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures”. Uh, that is not the same as human emissions causing a large part of recent warming. Human activity could include land use changes and other things besides human GHG emissions. Besides the study is about credibility yet they claim that those who are not vocal are probably on the CE side. Still, out of how many? If the UE group is not credible, then wouldn’t you need to know out of the whole group they belong and not just the difference between the most vocal members? If people that do have an opinion stay out of large shouting matches, you cant really judge which group is really more credible. For instance if you have 10,000 scientists in all and 1,000 are CE and 300 are UE, it is entirely possible that 5,000 others don’t agree with either of the other 2 groups (the rest beleive one or the other but are prohibited from saying so publicly). In which case neither the CE or UE actually have credibility, well acording to the methods of this study anyway.

  33. Tom Fuller said

    Hiya, Jeff–how’re you doing? Roman, can I steal your comment, or would you like to write a guest post for examiner.com? (Jeff, you can step in front of me if you want to publish it–give you free babysitting time…)

    Eddy, I believe it was peer-reviewed. Don’t know what that says about the state of the peers…

  34. Jeff Id said

    #33, I think it’s worth your time if Roman doesn’t mind. Its kind of an obvious point which should have been caught. It’s amazing what goes through peer review, I should have looked harder but was too pissed by the RC post to even consider the stats.

  35. Jeff Id said

    Maybe Roman should do a Statpad post to get his blog going again.

  36. Brian H said

    Naturally the CE and UE labels beg the question, by implying that the CAGW “evidence” is actually all or even a good overall sample of “the evidence”.

  37. John M said

    Regarding PNAS and peer review, that was a “Track 1” submission (“contributed by” a member). That and “Track 3” (“communicated by” a member) have been ways to ease the publication path for members and their pals. The justification was that it would encourage “controversial” works. There’s been enough of a bruhaha that the academy has at least eliminated the “Track 3” submittals.

    Funny, if this were an industrial practice, it would immediately be condemned (with some justification I think) as an old boys network by most of the media.

    Here are some commentaries, with nary a word about climate science.

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/14/pnas
    http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/08/28/pnas_read_it_or_not.php

  38. kim said

    Anybody know where I can find a real statistician?
    ================

  39. Jeff Id said

    #38, I wonder if people understand that this ‘mistake’ is nearly self proving fraud. I don’t use the f-bomb often but we’ve got clearly defined lies in the RC post above and apparently such obviously botched stats that it in my opinion it may rise to the level of fraud. To consider that someone able to do a stats analysis like this, but miss the bias in the subset of the data chosen is beyond anything I can imagine. If a correctly done procedure reversed the results, it’s a dead duck.

    It’s as bad as the mannian hockeystick.

    Maybe fraud is too strong, but it’s not far off.

  40. RomanM said

    #33 Tom (or Jeff)

    Help yourselves.

    I don’t need to get the blog going right now (Jeff, I don’t know how you do it – my hat’s off to you) since I will be heading off at the end of the month on an anniversary jaunt with the missus (44 years + 4 hanging around together beforehand!). It’s a cruise out of Barcelona to Rome with a couple of days added on at either end for sightseeing. Dirty job, but somebody has to do it.😉

    I have been mulling over whether to do a couple of posts just for fun on my personally developed paleo-reconstruction techniques both calibrated and uncalibrated. These are applications of least squares (I sound like a one-trick pony, but, hey, I like the simple life). These can use proxies some of which do not have any observations in the calibration period. We’ll see.

  41. RomanM said

    #39 Jeff,

    I don’t think anything here will “reverse the results”. The CE team clearly have an advantage due to the fact that they control most of the climate journals and they have much larger numbers of younger people simply because, again, for the most part they control the university training environment. Level-headed professors like Dr.Judith and (former) students like RyanM are relatively rare.

    I do think that the numbers are seriously biased by some of the factors I mentioned – higher rates of multiple authorship (I personally counted more than 30 on a single paper) in the Convinced group which increases both publication and citation averages for that group. The Unconvinced (where the hell did they get these names?) group typically has fewer. I still find the use of these measures arcane. I served on multiple promotion and tenure committees in my time and I had thought that we were moving past that. Maybe, it’s just in climate science that “looking good” is more important than “doing good work”.

    I believe that the stats in the paper were probably done by the graduate student and are relatively simplistic. The mistake was one that I don’t think he was capable of recognizing since what was written indicated that he thought that he was actually doing something else, and he was seduced by those wonderful numbers.

    The part of the population completely left out of the mix is the ones keeping their heads down and their noses clean. There may still be hope that some good honest unpoliticized research could come out of that quarter.

    38. Kim, if I see one I will send him or her over. Do they have to be good or will just real do?😉

  42. JAE said

    Just AMAZING! Another climate “science” “happening” that has me pinching myself to see if I’m dreaming. Of all the self-delusionary, self-deprecationary (word??), self-destructive “science” articles that I’ve ever seen, this one take the Nobel or higher prize. WOW, these guys are really, really, really desperate! Peer review is now a peer-review-proven joke!

  43. Jeff Id said

    “I believe that the stats in the paper were probably done by the graduate student and are relatively simplistic. The mistake was one that I don’t think he was capable of recognizing since what was written indicated that he thought that he was actually doing something else, and he was seduced by those wonderful numbers.”

    I think you are too kind. Reversing the results completely was never an option but my god. Maybe the concepts of the stats are too easy for me but it seems that if people can calc them they should be able to get the concept behind them.

    Two different sized datasets, sample the top equally, produce results.

    In aeronautical engineering, the plane hits the ground.

    In climate science, it’s a credibility test.

    In the real world, it’s plain stupid.

    Maybe I’m too grumpy.

  44. Jeff Id said

    #41, as far as clean Dr. Zorita has been a bit of fun here on the Bo Christiansen thread.

  45. WOW!!! just wow

  46. Jeff Id said

    Sorry Roman, sometimes the Id gets the better of me. — not that I was wrong of course, it’s just that guys like SteveM can say it with kindness. –I’ll work on it.

  47. Brian H said

    #39;
    contemplate the convoluted conceptual construct of ‘deliberate error’. Oxymoronicism livez! 😀

  48. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Stilgar @ Post # 32:

    I see a few problems right of the bat. The criteria does not seem well defined as they claim.

    Stiglar points to a continuing flaw in the loose criteria used to categorize those on the many sides of the AGW issue. That categorization is a political and advocacy issue and not one related to science is obvious from the use of very general categories and frequently assigned ones at that.

    Something more akin to a scientific view would require a survey with such items spelled out as what level of warming would you expect has come from GHGs and with what confidence limits and the same for future warming with some details on the expected level with and without direct government mitigation attempts. To make any sense of the bigger picture with regards to humankind the question of detrimental and beneficial effects of the warming expected for the future and suspected from the past would have to be posed. Critical to understanding the replies would in my judgment require asking what the person taking the survey thinks of government mitigation and its possible unintended consequences and other possible problems.

    I do not know what such a survey would show overall for views on past and future warming, but I would bet large sums of money on there being some very strong relationships amongst how the survey questions were answered.

  49. Jeff id said

    #43 should say ‘never a real option’. I believe that those in climate science have likely written more climate science papers.

  50. Bernie said

    One might argue that this is an effort by political activists to counter the point that Wegman raised in his social network piece. In short, to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

    As for the late Steven Schneider, my recommendation is that people take a look at his 1984 book, The Coevolution of Climate and Life (Sierra Club Books).

    I guess I am not so put out by the content of the paper per se nor by the disinformation at RC. What really troubles me is its publication at PNAS. Perhaps Wegman can rework his piece on social networks among climate scientists and submit it to counter this “list of lists”.

  51. Steve McIntyre said

    I have never signed any of the letters or statements. Nonetheless, they added my name to their list: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html > To that extent, their statement that they haven’t “added researchers” is untrue as it applies to my inclusion on their blacklist.

    RC said:

    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.

  52. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff, RomanM,

    Are you interested in putting together a short (formal)comment on this paper? Just use their data and make the comparisons statistically robust, using Roman’s suggested method of random selection from the larger pool of AGW scientists, and show how the results are changed by a rigorous selection method. PNAS probably would not publish anything from a non-academe member, but in may be worth a shot somewhere.

  53. The paper just proves that there are lots of researchers working and publishing in the area of climate change, whose funding depends on saying that there is a climate problem. If you make a list of IPCC WG1 scientists, they will have many papers to begin with – that is how they were selected for the IPCC (hopefully); and they will all ‘believe’ in the tenets of CAGW, because that is how they got the funding to write those papers in the first place.

  54. RomanM said

    #52 Steve F

    Just use their data…

    Where is their data?

    Let’s see how they react to my comments first.

  55. Roman
    Where is your comment posted?

  56. Got it. You were dishing it out, with Maple leaf?? I saw that the moderator partially snipped your point about why you think the paper should be criticized, and inserted his brilliant “teacher’s stick” – “stick to the point”. Arrogant condescension, and therefore all eyes shut.

  57. RomanM said

    #56 Shub

    You are referring to comment 155 on the RC thread. The remark I was replying to was by ML:

    ML:

    I see what is going on here. The Anderegg et al. paper is important and the findings troublesome/inconvenient for the ’skeptics’/contrarians, so it has to be attacked

    RM:

    No, I don’t think that this paper is particularly important nor the ‘findings” inconvenient, but I do find them troublesome from the viewpoint of ethics and professionally. [edit – no sideswipes, stick to the point] .

    My original reply read

    No, I don’t think that this paper is particularly important nor the ‘findings” inconvenient, but I do find them troublesome from the viewpoint of ethics and professionality. It is in the same category as “scientific” studies done in the 20th century purporting to show that particular racial and ethnic groups were somehow inferior or second class. The paper should not have been published because it reflects badly on the climate science community as a whole – I would be ashamed to be a member of a group that countenanced this sort of thing .

    Given RC’s mission, I don’t think that the moderator had much choice other to delete the portion that s/he did. My personal view is that sole purpose of the paper is to unfairly besmirch the reputations not only of the individuals mentioned on the list website, but also of anyone else who may disagree with any part of a proclamation by the AGW advocates. All one needs to do is simply label the individual with one of the trigger words: denier, contrarian or, unfortunately, even skeptic, and the credibility of the individual is damaged.

    It is a sorry event that the executive of distinguished organization such as NAS allowed such a dishonorable and ethically reprehensible paper to be published.

  58. Tom Fuller said

    Okay, here’s what I put up–any corrections, additions, subtractions you want to suggest?

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d6-Debunking-the-Blacklist-Paper-Part-2-The-results-were-rigged

  59. RomanM said

    #58 TF

    First time I have been “interviewed” without being interviewed.🙂 You quoted the comments I wrote and I certainly stand by them. Sounds OK to me, but it won’t make me any friends over there.

    I also find the idea of the paper rather unethical and demaning to all climate scientists. It occurred to me in the middle of the night last night that the next step in the process of determining who is credible and who is not – the authors suggested more research should be done on this topic – is to write a paper on the differences between male and female climate scientists. Of course, there will be complaints from that quarter, but they can be dealt with easily with the same arguments used in the Anderegg et al. paper. There are fewer females than males and I suspect that if climate science is similar to other scientific disciplines, the females likely write fewer papers and get correspondingly fewer cites. This robust method could easily dispose of this group and be ready to move on next to …

    After a few papers, the only “credible climate scientists” will be the prolific authors Dr. Hansen and the Hockey Team. They will have the ear of policy makers and be able to run the show as they wish. (But don’t quote this in the article).

  60. Tom Fuller said

    RomanM, I’d love to interview you in greater depth, but didn’t want to disturb. Would you like to do an interview here in the comments at Jeff, by email, not at all, some other way?

  61. willard said

    > Sounds OK to me, but it won’t make me any friends over there.

    I strongly disagree.

  62. GHowe said

    Great thread. Paraphrasing Jethro Tull, I just shake my head and say its a shame. or sham.

  63. Poptech said

    Everyone is missing the point. Their results are worthless simply because they were never verified and do not understand Google Scholar. The first warning sign should have been the silly numbers Prall had in his list for the CE group. Phil Jones published 724 climate papers? Really? Why is no one looking at their actual numbers which cannot be verified and are bogus. I did and proved the paper is worthless,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/08/google-scholar-illiteracy-in-pnas.html

  64. Brian H said

    If Phil has been in the clim-tastrophe biz for 20 years, that would be one paper every 10 days. Including weekends. Bizzy boy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: