Which is another scam!
Financial Post; Terence Corcoran July 16, 2010
Bad Politics The politicization of climate science reaches new low with the development of a deniers blacklist
A few weeks ago, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a paper that claimed to have found evidence that scientists who support official climate change theory are vastly more numerous and expert than scientists who do not. Those who do not, often called skeptics or deniers, were said to be in such a minority as to be insignificant in number, making up only
2% or 3% of climate scientists. That tiny fraction of climate scientists was found to have much weaker levels of scientific credibility and expertise.The paper, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, created a minor flap at the time, mostly for being a laughable bit of prime junk science. Less laughable was the clearly stated intent of the study, which was to create a blacklist of scientists that the media and others should avoid talking to. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers. In future, said the paper, discussions in the media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change should recognize that not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system.
The reason for noting all this is that Expert Credibility in Climate Change was the spring board for a piece in yesterdays National Post by Jonathan Kay, titled Bad Science: Global Warming Deniers are a Liability to the Conservative Cause. The paper, he said, shows that only a tiny sliver of fringe opinion held skeptical views of climate science, and that fringe smacks of right-wing conspiratorial craziness. One cant help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon landing photos, or the umbrella man from the Zapruder film of JFKs assassination.
One of the first principles of good science and even in life is that before you start jumping up and down on the diving board to do a cannonball into the pool, it is best to first make sure there is water in the pool. This is especially true if the pool is maintained by the scientific mop-and-pail crew that produced Expert Credibility in Climate Change.
The paper was cited on Green blogs such as desmogblog as the work of Stanford University researchers and by Mr. Kay as scholars from Stanford University and the University of Toronto.
Let me introduce the scholars.
James W. Prall, a system administrator and tech support contact for all research computing at the Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Toronto. Thats his day job. When not doing that, Mr. Prall spends his free time developing and maintaining a list of some 2,100 climate scientists and ranking them according to whether or not they are climate deniers. Mr. Pralls academic background is unclear, although his blog site informs he is a Virgo. His views of climate issues are clear, however. He is 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. Ive gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online.
William R. L. Anderegg, the lead author of the paper, is a biology student at Stanford who did his honours thesis on wetland bird populations. He is a climate activist and a member of Students for a Sustainable Stanford. His picture suggests a free spirit. Astrological sign not readily available.
Jacob Harold, who holds an MBA from Stanfords business school, makes his main living as a program officer in the philanthropy program at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, set up by one of the founders of Hewlett-Packard and now a giant $7-billion cash machine for green activism and research all over North America, including Canadas anti-fish farm movement. Mr. Harolds staff bio at Hewlett says he spent a year as a grassroots organizer with Green Corps, where he led campaigns on climate change, forest protection and tobacco control. There is nothing in the postings to indicate whether the Hewlett Foundation funded the black list paper or Mr. Pralls research. Nor is it clear what role Mr. Harold played in the research.
Stephen H. Schneider is the only member of the four co-authors who can claim status as a scholar. He is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, author of 450 scientific papers, and a genuine climate scientist, including a lead author on the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Without Prof. Schneider as a co-author, it seems doubtful the prestigious National Academy of Sciences would have published Expert Credibility in Climate Change.
Prof. Schneider is also notorious for his views on how climate science should be conducted. Climate scientists, he once said, are like most people. Wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
Thats the scholarly science team thats maintaining the pool that Jonathan Kay is jumping into, the only scholar being a man who believes in scary scenarios and avoiding doubts.
So now, how do you create a blacklist? First you need a doctrine against which to draw the blackist of non-believers. In their paper, our pool crew first created a list of good scientists, those who support the tenets of [anthropomorphic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As the Oxford Dictionary defines the word, tenets are doctrine, dogma, principle, or opinion, in religion, philosophy, politics,or the like, held by a school, sect, party or person.
At the IPCC, the dogma is deep and the number of tenets lengthy: the climate is warming, man is very likely the cause of most of the unequivocal global warming to date, and dramatic action is needed immediately to avert likely catastrophe and much more. Using data from Mr. Pralls hobby list, the paper said it collected the names of all the supporters of the tenets of IPCC doctrine from official IPCC author lists and from other list of scientists who signed petitions and statements in support of the official IPCC doctrine.
The same method was used to isolate the names of scientists who do not support IPCC doctrine, known as deniers and skeptics. Many Canadian scientists who signed petitions or statements urging Ottawa to review the science of climate change are listed as being deniers. Where once their names existed solely as part of Mr. Pralls personal hit list of wrongdoers, they are now part of an international list that has the imprimatur of the National Academy of Sciences.
To assess the productivity and credibility of 1,372 science authors, the scholars put the list through Google Scholar to measure their output and quality of work. The result, which would have been no surprise, is that a list that starts off with a lot of IPCC scientists came up with a breakdown that collectively gave the official science community top billing.
As the paper explicitly suggest, this is intended to be a do-not-call list for the media and others. The list was immediately labelled a blacklist by Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, a leading climate science critic but hardly a full-blown denier. You can find yourself on the black list simply because you express strong support for greenhouse gas reductions but have been critical of the Kyoto approach.
His father, Roger Pielke Sr., who is not a skeptic, is listed on the blacklist because of his criticisms of some climate science. Pielke Jr. said the paper, appearing in the premier journal of the National Academy of Sciences, may very well mark a new low point in the pathological politicization of climate science. But hey, at least now we have a list. A blacklist.
Critics of the list were legion, including writers for Science magazine, the Council of Foreign Relations, and scores of contributors to climate blog sites, including Yales climate blog. Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology (neither a skeptic nor a believer) said This is a completely unconvincing analysis. Along with others, Ms. Curry criticized Mr. Pralls faulty and unscientific selections methods, which load the list with official IPPC scientists and with scientists who may not reflect the science community.
At Slate, the online magazine, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, said hyping this paper [as the White House did] simply reinforces the dangerous perception that climate activists will credulously push any news that might further their case. For those who care about this issue, thats tragic.
So now we have Mr. Kay bouncing on the diving board, heading for an empty pool. He attempts to link the Prall et al. reference to 2% of climate science deniers with conspiracy theorists. The most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind, such as world views that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not be modifying their hypothesis but instead by insisting on the existence of every-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.
Funny, but Expert Credibility in Climate Change proves exactly the opposite. The authors claim there exists a tiny cabal of nefarious deniers who make up only 2% of climate scientists but have received large amounts of media attention and have significant influence in the societal debate over climate. If theres a conspiracist group here, it is the authors of the paper and the entire IPCC. They are convinced, in their paranoid state, that their tenets and doctrines and dogma which cannot be contradicted are under attack by this little group of scientists, blacklisted now as deniers and skeptics.
Dont jump, Jonathan. Theres no water in the pool!
Financial Post