tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.comments2023-07-14T03:38:09.995-04:00Green HerringJim Prallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-57994947692831820212014-09-12T11:01:16.053-04:002014-09-12T11:01:16.053-04:00I've updated my twitter list of climate relate...I've updated my twitter list of climate related tweeters:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/gregladen/lists/climate-change-science/members<br /><br />Turns out I had almost all of yours on there, but I've added the few I didn't (plus you, as it turns out!).Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-33898283911380636952013-01-11T11:57:00.714-05:002013-01-11T11:57:00.714-05:00I figured as much, I've not known much of the ...I figured as much, I've not known much of the CO2 problem prior to visiting your blog but now I am filled in. This is a huge problem.<br /><br />-Land Source Container Service, Inc.Rubbish Removal NYChttp://www.landsourcecontainers.com/rubbish-removal/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-46195432261412798702011-10-07T12:00:23.466-04:002011-10-07T12:00:23.466-04:00Dear Birdbrainscan,
Thanks for your excellent arti...Dear Birdbrainscan,<br />Thanks for your excellent articles and for putting up with the cranks who will continue to call black - white & hang on to unjust accusations such as the ones against Michael Mann as if they were true!<br />Thank you!Anonymoushttp://www.pathslesstravelled.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-53323582886886624442011-06-22T01:11:17.805-04:002011-06-22T01:11:17.805-04:00Hi,
Thanks for your work.
Just a quick note to ...Hi, <br /><br />Thanks for your work.<br /><br />Just a quick note to let you know that your <a href="http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html" rel="nofollow">list</a> contains an error. Your link to Michael Mann goes to the wrong Michael Mann. There's more than one of them.<br /><br />Take careAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-54187749294617043272011-04-05T20:26:22.568-04:002011-04-05T20:26:22.568-04:00(six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)
Skep...<i>(six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)</i><br /><br />Skepticalscience.com reckons over 10 million US citizens fit the OISM signing criteria.<br /><br />0.3% of those who could have done actually signed...Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-25965613927338014072011-04-05T16:03:38.802-04:002011-04-05T16:03:38.802-04:00Thanks, Nick. Your comments on ScepticalScience ma...Thanks, Nick. Your comments on ScepticalScience make good sense.<br /><br />My take on the OISM signers is that the great majority of them were genuinely skeptical of mainstream/consensus climate science (not just relying on the fact that the petition's language only rejects an extreme outcome.) The key point is that the petition has been touted as having lots of signers with relevant expertise, while in fact it cast a very wide net and took everyone's word for it that they had a B.Sc. in almost anything. Anybody with a BSc *ought* to be able to tell a gigaton from a petagram or a ppm; however the source population for having a BSc in anything is a pretty large number (six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)<br /><br />The petition's own organizers narrowed down their own figures on signers with (any) Ph.D., around 9K, and further to people who they identified as climatologists (double digits), though they never identifies which signers they counted under these figures.Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-41022287769726169242011-04-05T11:09:25.076-04:002011-04-05T11:09:25.076-04:00Hi I read your U of T page on sources and though...Hi I read <a href="http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/list_sources.html" rel="nofollow"> your U of T page on sources</a> and thought you might be interested in passing on my views of an aspect of the OISM petition that seems to have been barely noticed by all the people culling the Mickey Mice and Spice girls and assessing the validity of the PhDs?<br /><br />Here is a link to a comment I made on Skepticalscience.com, which covers the strawmen inherent in the very wording of the petition itself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html#10310" rel="nofollow"> link to my comment on skepticalscience's OISM page</a>Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-90380578677988788722010-10-16T22:47:19.774-04:002010-10-16T22:47:19.774-04:00I met this author recently, ibrahim, who told me ...I met this author recently, ibrahim, who told me about when he went to Memphis, TN for a Green Jobs conference in 2008. He left the conference for a day to explore the downtown and went to a diner. An old woman asked about his whereabouts and they got to talking. He asked her what she thought about climate change. She said, "it's what democrats are trying to get me to be afraid of like republicans get me to fear terrorists." this young man, ibrahim, got me thinking about the political way in which we frame climate change. maybe it's time to change that. he gave me his card - www.greendeenbook.comJacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-6494759031759228612010-09-21T22:15:52.311-04:002010-09-21T22:15:52.311-04:00Thanks muchacho. I've corrected the network na...Thanks muchacho. I've corrected the network name in the post. I first heard from Bill Anderegg in August 2009; my wife had been prodding me a little while before this, saying "Jim, why don't you try to publish something on your list?"<br /><br />I was starting to ponder how to approach that, when Bill emailed me asking to collaborate. We worked on the design of our data selection in September, and Bill did the statistical analysis from that. The paper had been out for peer review for quite some time when word came through in late April 2010 (IIRC) that it had been accepted with revisions.Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-16240933985634788942010-09-21T16:30:49.625-04:002010-09-21T16:30:49.625-04:00Hi Jim, small point, it's Channel 4 not BBC4 t...Hi Jim, small point, it's Channel 4 not BBC4 that broadcast GGWS. Great stuff Jim. BTW Could you tell me when was the the paper with Dr Anderegg concieved ? Im curious 'cos it is the subject of a correspondence of my own with the BBC.hengist mcstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305004072053789291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-52520087249780861162010-07-13T07:48:03.851-04:002010-07-13T07:48:03.851-04:00WRT Mann: http://climatesight.org/2010/07/11/so-w...WRT Mann: http://climatesight.org/2010/07/11/so-what-happened-with-climategate/<br /><br />CO2 was identified as a climate forcing factor 110 years ago by Svante Arrhenius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effecthightidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952540124352243487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-56561013072211992242010-07-12T19:48:46.655-04:002010-07-12T19:48:46.655-04:00A Velikovsky wannabe?
No, I had never heard of Ve...A Velikovsky wannabe?<br /><br />No, I had never heard of Velikovsky when I wrote "World's Collide."<br /><br />I am interested in global warming. That's why I visited your site.<br /><br />Here is an article on the Vostok ice-record that you may be interested in.<br /><br />http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts<br /><br />Search the page for Vostok.<br /><br />(This is preearth.net's forum).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-2552421066080368152010-07-07T18:00:21.048-04:002010-07-07T18:00:21.048-04:00"Scientists can be a real nuisance. They use ..."Scientists can be a real nuisance. They use big words, and act all smart and everything. Then they come around and tell us scary stuff like dangers we never even knew were there: radioactivity and cancer-causing chemicals and UV rays and nicotine. What a bunch of spoil-sports."<br /><br />You're going to get a lot of support with that attitude. Tell me Mr. Prall, what have you done in your life that entitles you to talk to your audience as if they are small children? If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as you actually are. A common phenomenon in your profession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-61972088655418534102010-07-07T17:57:58.029-04:002010-07-07T17:57:58.029-04:00No one cares. No one is going to listen to people ...No one cares. No one is going to listen to people like Jim Prall. Ever. Deal with it buddy. We don't believe you, there's nothing you can say to make us believe you, and it isn't because we closed our minds; you closed them for us with exactly the kind of attitude that leads to behavior like this ridiculous list.<br /><br />Don't listen to Freeman Dyson, he doesn't know what he's talking about! The man, and most of the men and women on that list, could and would run rings around the Phil Joneses and Jim Pralls of the world. Not because they're smarter. But because they're more honest and they're also correct. Too bad so sad to see all those climate conferences devolve into jack squat, huh?<br /><br />By the way, when you want to make sure your condescension gets through, write like this, not your half-assed attempt at not coming off haughty. Hilarious brother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-72380410190406808732010-07-07T14:26:09.957-04:002010-07-07T14:26:09.957-04:00Thanks for this blog, it's a good way for ever...Thanks for this blog, it's a good way for everyone to see the political bias behind your work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-7827870576814916912010-06-28T21:42:19.014-04:002010-06-28T21:42:19.014-04:00If you make a difference, you'll get people sh...If you make a difference, you'll get people shooting arrows at you. Look at it as a badge of honor.<br /><br />And hey, big congratulations on the paper - that is so cool that you stepped up to the plate and did it.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-50867584924463375442010-06-28T14:45:55.008-04:002010-06-28T14:45:55.008-04:00The only other way to spin this into something sin...<i>The only other way to spin this into something sinister is to argue that someone evil *might use* the lists to persecute people regardless of our intentions. ... That objection of what someone might do with the list really falls down on the point Michael makes so well, that all the source lists I compiled were already on the web.</i><br /><br />I'm not convinced by this blacklist thing but the point is that your lists have now received the PNAS imprimatur. Anyone can make lists and stick them on the Web. Who cares? But PNAS-stamped lists are a whole nother thing. They really are potential (but, IMO, unlikely) blacklist fodder.<br /><br />While I'm here, can you please clarify one aspect of your methods? Your PNAS paper suggests an ambiguous method of searching Google Scholar for references and citations [I can't find the PDF! It was something like 'Finit Lastname' - something that suggested that only the first initial was used, anyway] and your website provides exact search terms that sort-of agree with this method but often had two or more initials. Fair enough. However, repeating the searches using those terms now produces some strange results - eg, fewer 'climate' publications for some authors than you found a year or more ago.<br /><br />Did you hand-finish the Google Scholar results for selected authors? That is, did you use extra name-variants for some of the authors on your lists?<br /><br />VBVinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-36839725481776066172010-06-26T16:04:19.594-04:002010-06-26T16:04:19.594-04:00Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping ...Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. <br /><br />In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. <br /><br />Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. <br /><br />The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. <br /><br />Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. <br /><br />D.D.EisenhowerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-10636440404889766382010-06-26T06:38:29.916-04:002010-06-26T06:38:29.916-04:00I assume the reason to focus on the active researc...I assume the reason to focus on the active research and number of publications is the implication that somehow these would imply a more informed opinion. Since the scientific point at issue in the climate debate is whether the net feedback to CO2 forcing is negative or alarmingly positive (or somewhere in between), an informed opinion would seem to depend more upon what publications one has READ rather than written. Given that climate science is a multi-disciplinary field with many specialties that are not focused on model diagnostic studies or model independent estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, unless they have made a special effort, even climatologists are not likely to have an informed opinion.Martin Lewittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-12982262435278425452010-06-23T22:27:14.090-04:002010-06-23T22:27:14.090-04:00The whole "Climate Change" is a scam in ...The whole "Climate Change" is a scam in more than one way, it has coerced 70 billion dollars in research money from the taxpayers of mostly free democratic nations. <br /><br />It has created a huge bureaucracy of interested parties that jet set around the world going to conferences; 15,000 people at a time - a credibility issue. <br /><br />The term "Global Warming" was replaced with "Climate Change" to expand influence when the "models" didn't work and they can claim anything was due to climate change. <br /><br />Copenhagen was an attempted coup of the free world by the UN to impose global governance and taxation on sovereign free countries to be administered by a corrupt UN to the tune of trillions of dollars.<br /><br />Al Gore is a liar and always was. He didn't invent the internet either. He is also a hypocrite like most supporters of the scam are.<br /><br />Carbon markets are a ponzi scheme and will do nothing to help the environment and everything to reduce everyone's standard of living. <br /><br />Anyone who supports this insanity has a vested interest in above carbon markets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-47007658229515455762010-06-23T08:52:42.591-04:002010-06-23T08:52:42.591-04:00Could any intelligent being understand what this b...Could any intelligent being understand what this blog is all about? Science?<br /><br />600 French scientists against Allègre. Wow, this is what is called a straw man.<br /><br />Why not 300.000 scientists against Le Pen. Do they really all agree with your scientific or political, ideological views?<br /><br />If climate is changing so fast(that everyone will agree in 10 years) and if we must save the planet for hundred other reasons than just climate change, what the hell are you and these thousands of scientists talking about?<br /><br />This really looks like a new kind of pseudoscientific religion for those who feel more educated and ethical than ordinary men.<br /><br />Regards<br />EddyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-21101035531712995702010-06-23T00:31:51.230-04:002010-06-23T00:31:51.230-04:00Hi, Jim!
I want to thank you for including me am...Hi, Jim! <br /><br />I want to thank you for including me among the climate denialists, but I resent being placed at the 430th place. However, I guess that encouraged the Spanish government and the Madrid city authorities to send me an airplane ticket to Madrid for giving a lecture on next October about the incoming global cooling and its relationship with the chaotic movement of the solar system's baricenter.<br /><br />Thanks again, I am proud of being a denier, not of climate change -it's always changing, nor of the climate science (poor dear, still in diapers) but about the fraudulent claims you people have been making for years.<br /><br />I don't think you have ever considered your master's advice about balancing the difference in being effective in your claims and being honest.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks again. I got a free trip and a nice month staying in Spain. :-)Eduardo Ferreyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11932507760815485057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-66094180507242959902010-06-22T23:56:55.205-04:002010-06-22T23:56:55.205-04:00Well I'm a scientist, not in climate change an...Well I'm a scientist, not in climate change and I have some comments about this article and I will post them here because PNAS leaves me no place to comment.<br /><br />(1) It's pretty amusing for an article examining 'expert credibility' to itself be published after the cursory peer review that articles 'contributed' to PNAS receive.<br /><br />Articles like yours that are marked as 'Contributed', mean that the senior author is a member of the NAS who simply asked two of his/her buddies to write a 'review' and endorse the manuscript for publication. This is obviously a mockery of peer review (contibutor chooses reviewers ; no anonymity for reviewers ; unlikely that negative reviews are submitted to PNAS)<br /><br />PNAS is unique in publishing articles that receive such a phony peer-review. Choosing to have your manuscript published by the special PNAS route only serves to underscore: (1) how entrenched the network of 'CE' scientists is that this route is available to the senior author and (2) how feeble is the manuscript that it required publication by such a pathetic route. <br /><br />If this is good science, why didn't you try to get it published after real peer-review?<br /><br />(2) The keywords for your article are:<br /><br />"citation analyses, climate denier, expertise, publication analysis, scientific prominence"<br /><br />Calling people who disagree with you 'deniers' to evoke the idea of holocaust deniers is also pretty nasty. <br /><br />In my branch of science (biology) we do not repudiate ideas we disagree with by ad hominem attacks but by presenting better arguments and new data. Lysenko demonstrated the fate of science when it devolves into ideology.<br /><br />(3) I can't understand why Fig 1 and Fig 3 aren't cumulative frequency histograms. Ok, you establish there are fewer CEs - now you want to show the quality of their work is also crappy. But the simple histograms presented actually don't allow the eye to actually see this point.<br /><br />(4) Give that UEs are only ~3% of the whole group, why does your discussion include the very likely hypothesis that the apparently poor quality of UE science is simply a reflection of greater likelihood that UE's tend to cite UE's and CE's tend to cite CE's. Buried in the methods you obliquely allude to the possibility of 'clique citation' but dismiss it because you have a large sample size and because you focus on 4 most cited papers. What nonsense! Neither of these strategies will abrogate the effects of clique citation OR clique reviewing.<br /><br />(5) Now that you are personalizing attacks on climate skeptics, you serve to reduce the likelihood that such individuals will seek to publish their data. Does this aid public discourse?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-8808655945223972332010-06-22T21:42:14.598-04:002010-06-22T21:42:14.598-04:00I am not sure if you have studied climate or not.
...I am not sure if you have studied climate or not.<br />With that in mind, can you please explain the hydrological cycle as it is modeled for us?Sigurdurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-3150343900042732882010-06-22T20:46:10.707-04:002010-06-22T20:46:10.707-04:00birdbrainscan said...
Why is everyone comparing &q...birdbrainscan said...<br />Why is everyone comparing "making a list" to the Stasi? Why not, say, <br /><br />SANTA?<br /><br />My reply could be interpreted as "snark" but is not a one liner.<br /><br />Do you not even understand the complete ignorance of your comment here?<br /><br />You don't even understand the complete big brother esque nature of your listing.<br /><br />If you truly had a "harmonic" heart, you wouldn'th have seperated them out so precisely.<br /><br />Although you have done one thing perfectly well, which will probaly bring you the ire of the ACGW believer community, you have just proven again that there are more than 1 or 2 brain dead idiots that believe in a skeptic point of view, there are some very smart scientists on that list.<br /><br />Why is it you, a Systems administrator is daring to call the 100 people listed in that editorial as unworthy or unqualified.<br />I'm a network admin/system admin desktop support specialist/ network design engineer etc, never once do i remember in any of my college classes or cert training any classes making me an expert in climatology.<br /><br />However, amongst the names of the 31,480 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition or the Petition projct there are climatologists, paleoecologists, geologists, astronomers,etc over 9000 of whom have stated they don't believe in ACGW. At most you have listed maybe 5-10k scientists who supposedly believe in ACGW.<br />I find it humerous that all these staunch supporters of Climate change science who were pretty much unheard of just a scant 2 years ago have rushed to the side of the CRU and others after the release of the CRU-tape letters as Mosher loves to call them.<br /><br />Why would they do this when 2.5 years ago there were maybe 2000 at best known ACGW believers, many of whom weren't even phd's let alone climatologists?<br /><br />I'll tell you why 1.8 trillion dollars of grants that are at stake.<br /><br />The alarmist regime constantly put out articles of a supposed 28 million spent by Exxon to get skeptic scientists to go against the elite ACGW scientists to discredit them and that these scientists who supposedly took money from Exxon should not be believed.<br /><br />Hmm well let's look at the real truth here.<br /><br />Exxon a disputed, never proven $28 million (that's with an M folks)<br />Now let's look at what the ACGW elite have received. The US Government has put out over $1.8 Trillion (with a T) in funding for studies on climate change in the last 10 years. That's not including funds that were ciphoned to climate studies that were earmarked for other things. That's also not including funds from Germany, France, the UK, or the United Nations. That $1.8 trillion figure is just in US dollars from the US Government.<br />Which side should really be question on conflict of interest?<br /><br />Which side has taken the low road?<br /><br />Hmm Exxon $25 million which is in question and has never been proven.<br /><br />US Government pushed by Gore, Obama and others $1.8 trillion.<br /><br />I think even the ACGW elitists can figure it out for themselves despite their bad math models.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com