Blacklist?...What Blacklist?

[Oddball]

It doesn’t get much uglier than this. A stasi-esque master list of skeptical scientists and bloggers, with ratings put together by a “scientist” that rants against the very people he rates on his blog. Meet the author, Jim Prall here. And he uses this for a peer reviewed paper. What next? Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?

We don’t need no stinking badges. Here’s a sample of coverage:

Scientists who believe in man-made climate change are more esteemed than those who actively oppose the concept, according to a new paper. But experts said the paper divides scientists into artificial groups, does not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists, and is inherently biased due to the nature of the peer review process.

Or, in the inimitable words of Phil Jones:

I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Ugliness – The blacklist of climate science

 

[JBeukema]

Why's it gotta be a black list for huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, when Lindzen and the rest refreeze the glaciers and ice caps, then they may get some respect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh ya, perhaps they had better do something about the absorbtion bands of CO2.

 

[Oddball]

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.​

What qualifies one to be on the APHS10 list of skeptics, which I'll just call the "black list"? Well, you get there for being perceived to have certain views on climate science or politics. You get on the black list if you have,

signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC's findings, of climate science generally, of the "consensus" on human-induced warming, and/or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.​

In fact, it turns out that you don't even have to sign an open letter or argue against immediate cuts for emissions. You can simply appear unwillingly on Senator James Inhofe's list. A co-author of APHS10 warns on his website (but not in the paper) of the perils of relying on the Senator's list:

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: A New Black List

 

[westwall]

There is a high degree of probability that this is the author of said "black list". Me thinks the fallout is going to be quite spectacular. When they sink to these depths you know they're worried.

No Frakking Consensus: Who is William R.L. Anderegg?

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you recant your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming?

Recant!
RECANT!
RECANT!!