BPSDB
The Great Climate “Skeptics” Swindle
“ I also note where each author ranked in my overall listings [of climate research papers]. None of these four [skeptics] even made it into the top 200.
Meanwhile the skeptics include three names with zero hits on “climate” and another two with just one match.”
Actually I don’t know Jim at all. He’s just some Dude who showed up here as a commenter last Dec 10th. A Virgo apparently, likes birding and sailing … may like Pina Coldas for all I know. But when I saw the work he was doing my reaction was “You’re insane! A wonderful, magical, beautiful type of insane.”
You see, Jim is clearly a Tycho Brahe type of guy. Someone who crunches unbelievable volumes of information so someone else can come along, stand on Jim’s shoulders, and look brilliant (or at least really tall).
So what do you do when some troll says that there were only “26 UN authors” of the IPCC report? How about showing them a table listing all 619 IPCC AR4 wg 1 contributing authors, by citation and works on climate, including institutions where they work? (no, they are/were NOT employed by the UN)? Would that help?
Or when they say “there is no evidence”, would a table of the 2726 most cited authors, linking their work and websites come in handy?
How about a table of those 2726 climate scientists and signatories of public declarations on climate (pro and con) broken down by actual climate work, institutional affiliation, etc?
How about breakdowns and facts on every signatory of the seven “Skeptic” declarations? Or would any of the facts given below be helpful in some discussions or articles about climate change science and politics?
- none of the 619 contributing authors to AR4 wg1 have signed any of the five public declarations of ‘skepticism;’
- 157 of the 619 have signed one of the four ‘activist’ statements I’ve identified;
- just one of the 619, Dr. Christopher Landsea, has resigned over differences on the treatment of hurricane risks;
- of the sixteen people interviewed in Martin Durkin’s climate skeptic film The Great Global Warming Swindle only John Christy was on AR4 wg1 (and there are real problems with how Durkin interpreted and presented the views of those interviewed.)
- of the top 500 most cited authors in the larger list, just 23 (4.6%) have signed any climate skeptic declaration, while 184 (37%) — nearly ten times as many — have signed an ‘activist’ statement (aside from the IPCC reports themselves.) [Note: these stats may vary slightly as I update the list with new names and stats.]
Useful? well Jim Prall’s got your back!
Throw in some occassional posts like a quick guide to some of the best sources for popular science writing on climate, or the rather interesting fact that the 2009 climate skeptics’ conference in New York had 42 co-sponsors (coincidence?) and you’ve got one hell of a resource.
Jim is a treasure, and I’m not the only one who thinks so ( Jim Prall is making a list, Excellent compilation of IPCC WG1 authors). So what are you waiting for? stop wasting time here and go check him out.
- Green Herring (blog)
- Most cited authors on climate change (the tables & other resources)
In terms of total annual rainfall, most of the United States became “wetter” over the 20th century. Most of this increase, however, is being expressed in “extreme” rainfall events, which are now more frequent and even more extreme than they were in the 1950s. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 274 … still no evidence.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
yeah, I hear Jim also sometimes hangs out at the UofT global change series (academic year), Post Carbon Toronto meetups, and at the greendrinks-toronto drink thingies…
also, Jim = further evidence 4 me* theory: “all best climate bloggers are belong to canucks”…
*=not Jim… but also very appreciative of his under-recognized efforts! thanks Jim!
Ha ha, I knew I knew that face from somewhere! Nice to meet you, Jim – I didn’t realize you had a blog, especially such a comprehensive source – I should have clicked on the link ages ago!
I am not taking sides here, but regardless of your data I would like to point out a serious flaw in the logic leading to your conclusions.
If — completely hypothetically, I am not making any claims, but *IF* — you had a particular agenda to push, be it political, or monetary, or other… what papers would you cite?
Since virtually all of the money and political clout has been on one side of that question, the conclusion is obvious: you would cite the papers and authors that have been cited. [1]
I am NOT saying that is the case… but it is a flaw in your logic. You can’t just assume that the most popular papers are automatically the most correct. [2]
CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. If it were, the Earth would still be considered to be the center of the Universe. [3]
—-
Do you have any actual facts to back up this vacuous assertion? And no, “I’m not taking sides here” is not an actual fact.
— bi
Anne Observer – THANK YOU! I get very irritated when I see the types of argument that say that because x% of the world’s ‘top’ scientists (based on citation count) believe one opinion we should all blindly follow that opinion. [1] As Anne so correctly put it, consensus is not science – as a race we should not forget in our history how many times ‘consensus by the world’s top scientists’ have been proven false. [2] As an observer to this debate, all that we can do is critically review the research work put out by scientists on both sides of the debate [3] (examine the data and the scientific methodology used and determine the validity of the results), and make informed, objective decisions on which opinion to favour. [4]
—-
I think you missed the point that both Anne and Safeen have tried to bring up. They are not specifically talking about this example, they are talking about a much more important issue. Consensus is not science. Just by the fact that your reply to Safeen said that “Have they been right 99.999% of the time” shows that you don’t understand the point. Some of the biggest breakthroughs in science have been by people who thought against the great majority of other scientists.
If we all thought like you, we would still think that the planets revolve around earth, or that earth is flat.
Also, now Safeen, Anne, and I agree, so by majority, you are wrong.
—-