Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
Expert credibility in climate change
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 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.
New article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
Expert credibility in climate change
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 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.
More politics from self proclaimed scientist. This is a witch hunt to specify the list of those that may disagree with the "Consensus (tm)" and set them up for a major campaign of character assassination. Why this paper is even a part of NAS is beyond me, but this is nothing new in science. The Church of AGW is simply attacking to protect their belief in the face of science that does not agree with them. And you wondered why many scientists were afraid to object to some of the shoddy science publicly? They either toe the line or they are black listed in the community. It is ok though, they are digging their own graves here.
More politics from self proclaimed scientist. This is a witch hunt to specify the list of those that may disagree with the "Consensus (tm)" and set them up for a major campaign of character assassination. Why this paper is even a part of NAS is beyond me, but this is nothing new in science. The Church of AGW is simply attacking to protect their belief in the face of science that does not agree with them. And you wondered why many scientists were afraid to object to some of the shoddy science publicly? They either toe the line or they are black listed in the community. It is ok though, they are digging their own graves here.
Seems to me that a 97- 98% consensus is pretty overwhelming.
If a scientist has found a hole in any particular aspect of climate change, he should write a paper and submit it where it can be peer-reviewed. Contrary to public opinion, there is nothing scientists would love more than to find a new piece of evidence or study which would shed new light on the topic.
btw, if this is character assassination, what does that make all the people who rushed to judgment based on the criminally acquired "Climate Gate" emails?
Seems to me that a 97- 98% consensus is pretty overwhelming.
If a scientist has found a hole in any particular aspect of climate change, he should write a paper and submit it where it can be peer-reviewed. Contrary to public opinion, there is nothing scientists would love more than to find a new piece of evidence or study which would shed new light on the topic.
btw, if this is character assassination, what does that make all the people who rushed to judgment based on the criminally acquired "Climate Gate" emails?
First, there are plenty of holes in the current science. You have posted in the threads to which I had discussed such. You disregard them because you make blind appeals to authority and so take their "word" as fact and disregard anything that doesn't toe the line of your position.
Second, how is the climate emails a black list? Are we now trying to excuse those involved? Also, when did transparency become a bad word? Those emails are supposed to be available per request. There is no private emails, they were all official public documents required to be available upon FOI request. The emails show that they were extremely political, that they were extremely biased and attempted to shape their information in the best way possible to stay in line with their hypothesis (Mann's trick, the IPCC's poor display of graphs and poor summary of the research).
It shows them colluding with the media to spin the news to fit their view. It shows them bullying journals to keep out skeptic papers. It shows them creating websites specifically designed to down play the findings of any research that didn't take the side of AGW (Realclimate). It shows them extremely political trying to shape policy at the same time they were "creating" their science. The emails are not a black list, they are simply the result of extremely poor practice and ethical standards catching up with those involved.
This paper is nothing more than whine fest propaganda piece meant to point fingers at those who don't toe the line, brand them and bully them again into conformity.
I am sorry, but your movement is dying. Your climate scientists have lost credibility and have been caught in a very poor position. Instead of trying to repair that trust, opening the doors to being transparent and honestly reviewing the errors found in their work, they resort again to trying to win this in the political realm.
By the time they are done though, you won't be able to bring up "Climate Science" without someone laughing in your face.
As we speak the EPA draws up the rules for Cap & Trade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
