The blacklisting occurs in the review process of papers as John and Pat Michaels describe, in proposals for funding (e.g. John Christy is correct in his statement in the news article that there is “black listing” and my son’s post effectively summarizes this issue. This is a clear example of the type of prejudice that needs to be avoided in order to preserve the integrity of the scientific process. Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Review Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science) and can categorically state that any Editors who have “formed a resistance to outside points of view” should not serve in the capacity of an Editor. I have served as Editors of several professional journals (e.g. They know the field better than anyone else.” “But the editors of journals, if they have formed a resistance to outside points of view, they have done so after years of seeing all the good, bad, and in-between papers. “It’s conceivable that some people have formed a fixed point of view,” he says. Prall agrees that the system may not be perfect, but he thinks it’s good enough. His news article includes an interesting statement by one of the authors of the PNAS article. I recommend readers of my weblog read Eli’s article. Scientists ‘Convinced’ of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper There is an insightful well-balanced news article on the Anderegg et al PNAS paper by Eli Kintisch titled This paper is yet another example of the attempt to marginalize and “bin” scientists who differ from the IPCC perspective (except for those such as Jim Hansen who are more alarmist in their viewpoint) as my son has posted on in A New Black List. 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. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. June 21, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.Īlthough preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Schneider:, 2010: Expert credibility in climate change. An article has appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |