A study Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirms what people who have been paying attention already know:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians.
This is unsurprising, and is based on the work done by Jim Prall, who has been building a list of climate authors and the number of times they have been cited.
Predictably, given that this paper shows that deniers really are on the fringe, the paper has been criticized. But those critics have missed the point, and in many cases have been so over the top that they highlight the absurdity (and lack of decency) of the deniers.
The first criticism, was that this represents an appeal to authority, and thus should be ignored. But this study not in itself an appeal to authority, it is an attempt to determine what the authoritative opinion is. The same is true of previous studies that have found that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the consensus position.
This study says nothing on whether or not the authoritative opinion is correct. What it does however is demonstrate that the idea that there are two viable camps within the scientific establishment is wrong.
The most important aspect of this whole effort is that now reporters have no excuse for pretending that both sides have equal weight. It is abundantly clear that they do not.
But then the deniers went completely nuts. Calling this study a black list. This is absurd because the paper itself has no list. It names no names. Anthony Watts claims “It doesn’t get much uglier than this”. Which begs the question how is this ugly? The scientists who were classified as unconvinced by the evidence all signed public statements to that effect. Are they now embarrassed by those statements? Do they not stand by what they signed?
And it gets worse. Watt’s and Morano are calling this a Stasi-esque list. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, invoking Goodwin’s law and asking if they will have to wear yellow badges to scientific conferences. [Note: I am not sure Morano ever made or linked to a Nazi reference, so I cannot take personal offence, but his comparisons to the Stasi are still disgusting.]
I take the Nazi reference personally. As someone who’s family was forced to wear yellow badges by the Nazi’s this makes me sick. Comparing a compilation of PUBLIC statements to the holocaust is disgusting.
What little respect I had for Watts is gone. He is a hypocrite, and a disgusting individual who cheapens the horrors my family (and countless others) went through at the hands of one of the most brutal regimes in the world.
Again just so everyone is abundantly clear on this, the names used in the study were PUBLIC!!!, and not published in the study!!! To find out who was counted amongst the unconvinced group one needs to go back to the original public statements. Statements that are typically published and promoted on denier sites.
One needs to first make a list before colouring it black.
For Marc Morano’s [who has played a key role in spreading dis-information about this study] attempt to Swiftboat this as “Stasi-esque”: what amazing gall! He’s famous for having built a long list of climate skeptics during his term with Sen. Inhofe. Hypocrite! Why wasn’t that list “Stasi-esque?” Just because he agreed with their “side”?…
Morano publicized his list relentlessly, and listed many more names as skeptics than I have. Morano also tended to quotemine, leading to false positives where the person in question would protest their inclusion as unrepresentative of their actual views, yet Morano would refuse to take them off. He’d just point to the mined quote he had, ignoring anything the source might say about being taken out of context or trying to tell him what their actual views are.
If the fear is that someone biased against supporters of one “side” could focus their bias on people on a list, why was it okay for Morano to subject people to that risk with his list? Was Morano’s list “Stasi-esque” as well? If not, why not?
People like Watts and Morano don’t deserve respect. Their disgusting and hypocritical reactions to this study make that abundantly clear.
UPDATE: And just to further highlight the hypocrisy of Watts, he signed Tom Harris’s Climate Scientist Register, which is nothing more than a blacklist of deniers. But you know what they say: “It’s OK when deniers do it”
And it gets worse. Watt’s and Morano are calling this a Stasi-esque list. And worse asking if they will have to wear yellow badges to scientific conferences.
SO I made it clearer:
And it gets worse. Watt’s and Morano are calling this a Stasi-esque list. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, invoking Goodwin’s law and asking if they will have to wear yellow badges to scientific conferences.
For the record, I spend exactly zero seconds thinking that the Stasi were part of the Nazi movement. They were not. I was complaining about both the references to the Stasi and the Nazis. They are both disgusting; the Nazi references however I take personally.
It is almost as if Morano wants to misunderstand what I said. Oh well free publicity… and the emails I get from him publishing my email address ought to be fun.
Embarrassing: Alarmist Dan Moutal reveals historical ignorance: ‘Watts and Morano are calling [blacklikst] a Stasi-esque list…I take the Nazi reference personally’
UPDATE 4: Morano has now corrected his error in interpretation. Sort of. He doesn’t make a correction to his incorrect claim about my historical knowledge, instead points to a clarification that states:
Oops! Alarmist attempts to slam Climate Depot for ‘Nazi’ reference — But Climate Depot did not make one — only to East German Stasi
Not one mention of his erroneous claim. And while Morano is correct that I mistakenly attributed the Nazi reference to him as well as Watts, I am not sure that only referencing the Stasi is any better. At least it isn’t personal for me. To make matters worse Morano decided to highlight my error only AFTER I had corrected it.
So what have we learned? First that Morano wants transparency for others, not himself. And they highlighting errors after they have been acknowledged and corrected is fair game.
Nothing but political games from Morano. He is an expert at bending the truth into whatever shape suits him, and cannot be trusted.