Search Results for “blacklist”

Watch: Morano warns of the coming ‘climate lockdowns’ & ‘new normal’ of blacklisting

January 14, 2021

Fired. Banned from Twitter. Put on a no-fly list. The left is working overtime to punish conservatives who supported Trump. We discuss with @ClimateDepot on this week's show: https://t.co/6gqxNn9kWv pic.twitter.com/xtrB83BuO9 — Unreported Story Society (@AP_Unreported) January 13, 2021 Climate change lockdowns? It sounds crazy but @ClimateDepot thinks they're in the near future. We discuss on this week's Ann & Phelim Scoop podcast. Watch for free: https://t.co/CRra5GfBUd — Phelim McAleer (@PhelimMcAleer) January 13, 2021 Are you sick of government lockdowns yet? @ClimateDepot is an expert who has dedicated his life to exposing the lies of the 'green movement' and he believes that the left will use lockdowns as a tool to control the fake 'climate emergency.' Watch: https://t.co/6gqxNnqWl5 — Unreported Story Society (@AP_Unreported) January 14, 2021 74: Lockdowns for Climate Change? Marc Morano Explains Joe Biden & The Left’s Radical Green Agenda! The Ann and Phelim Scoop Are you sick of government lockdowns yet? Welp – we have bad new for you. Marc Morano is an expert who has dedicated his life to exposing the lies of the ‘green movement’ and he believes that the left and the Joe Biden administration will use lockdowns as a tool to control the fake ‘climate emergency.’ What do you think of Marc’s predictions? Comment below! Also on today’s episodes we discuss the recent big tech tyranny that is wiping conservatives from the internet. Where do conservatives go next?

The Academic Blacklist Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About – Issues & Insights

February 28, 2020

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/02/28/the-academic-blacklist-climate-alarmists-dont-want-you-to-know-about/ The Academic Blacklist Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About I & I Editorial Board February 28, 2020 I&I Editorial The global warming faithful are always quick with the talking points about a “scientific consensus” that doesn’t exist, and the tale that 97% of scientists say man is causing the planet to overheat. But we’ll never hear them discuss publicly how researchers who don’t agree with the narrative have been blacklisted. What are they afraid of? Of course the climate alarmists will never admit such a list even exists. But Roger Pielke Jr., who teaches science, environment, and technology policy at the University of Colorado, says it does. “A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,’” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.” Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming. Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented … are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist. The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to” the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said. Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate.” But there’s no blacklist – nothing to see here, so let’s move on … to Pielke’s father, Roger Pielke Sr. The atmospheric scientist “is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.” The younger Pielke says some statements from the Skeptical Science site that had been obtained through hacking included: “We are HUNTING Pielke,” “We are trying to bring him down,” and “My vote is to take the bastard down!” What has happened to Curry and Pielke Sr. are not isolated incidents: “Authors of a study published recently in the journal Nature Communications want editors and journalists to blacklist “climate change contrarians,” says Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The contrarian list includes politicians (Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas)), hosts of popular blogs (Marc Morano, Anthony Watts), journalists (Mark Steyn, James Delingpole), and best-selling authors (Matt Ridley, Chris Horner).” Hungarian atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi left his position at NASA in 2005 when the space agency “refused to publish work contradicting” the narrative that human carbon dioxide emissions are warming Earth, according to Accuracy in Media. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd said a little more than a year ago that his show was no longer going to “give time to climate deniers.” In 2015, the Capital Research Center published an article exposing how leftist politicians and the media were trying “to blacklist scientists who are skeptical about global warming.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation host Rex Murphy discussed “attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause” in 2009. Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation wrote in 2010 about researcher Michael Mann’s attempts “to subvert the scientific peer-review process and blacklist critics from key academic journals.” There must be something to these claims. Researchers who aren’t fully committed to the man-caused-warming claim have complained that research grants for their work is drying up. This is because, as Henry Payne wrote in National Review, “the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations,” and it is directed “only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda.” Missing out on research grants is one thing. Being tossed in prison takes everything to a higher level, which is what Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has proposed for those who don’t think like him. He suggested a few years ago that members of “the climate denial network” should be prosecuted under the mafia-busting law enacted by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Meanwhile, says economist Steve Moore, “a lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” A Government Accountability Office report backs him up. “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009,” says the GAO. The system is clearly rigged. But the public is not supposed to know this. Only by keeping voters in the dark can the charade continue. — Written by J. Frank Bullitt Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr: Academic ‘Blacklists’ targeting climate ‘deniers’ seeks to make skeptical scientists ‘unhirable’

February 13, 2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#96d7ba063682 How Academic ‘Blacklists’ Impede Serious Work On Climate Science By Roger Pielke Jr. A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.” That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable. https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1226241701800370176?s=20 But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.” I asked Professor Curry about this situation. She explained, “In 2012 I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair. While there were several reasons for this, one obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean.” So Curry stepped down and started looking for administrative positions at other universities, “At the time, I was getting numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research. I applied for several of these, and actually interviewed for two of them. I did not make it to the final short list.” The headhunter gave Curry the following feedback from the universities: “They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.” Indeed, in my own Google search of “Judy Curry,” and confirmed by others on my Twitter timeline, the Skeptical Science blacklist page for her appears on the first page of Google results, and for me it was the top listing. How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role? Skeptical Science emerged in 2007, the peak of the climate blogging era. It was also a time when the pursuit of “climate skeptics” (or “deniers”) really took off. The website soon found a large audience and was promoted as an ally in the battle against climate skeptics and deniers. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming deniers.” But the main legitimizing factor in the rise of Skeptical Science as a powerful climate advocacy group was its endorsement by prominent scientists, such as by widely-known climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State University and Katherine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech. Like Skeptical Science, Mann and Hayhoe focus much of their advocacy efforts on identifying and denigrating so-called climate skeptics or deniers. The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a leading scientific association that includes many climate scientists, has routinely endorsed Skeptical Science. The AGU has even invoked the Skeptical Science blacklist, as recently as last December, when one of its writers dismissed an Australian academic by observing simply that he “has his own page on John Cook’s Skeptical Science site.” The mere fact of being listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist appears to be sufficient to be dismissed on the official website of the AGU, where Curry was elected a Fellow. But what has happened to Curry is just the tip of the iceberg. Upon discussing on Twitter the Skeptical Science claim that their “debunking” of Curry should make her “unhirable in academia,” a follower of mine pointed to a trove of hacked internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team. In those discussions from around 2010-2012, my father, Roger Pielke, Sr. — also a prominent atmospheric scientist — was mentioned some 3,700 times. Correspondingly, my father is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist. I have read those internal discussions and what I saw is incredibly disturbing, for academic freedom and for simple human decency. Let me take a step back and explain why I believe that it is appropriate to discuss the content of these hacked discussions. (Note: These hacked discussions are different than the Photoshopped imagery found in 2013 on an unprotected Skeptical Science website showing several Skeptical Science team members with their faces super imposed upon Nazi soldiers, with John Cook as Heinrich Himmler. According to Rob Honeycutt of Skeptical Science, those images were prepared as an in-group joke to make fun of a climate skeptic who appears on another of their lists, and were not intended for the public.) The discussions in the hacked conversations – like those in the Wikileaks releases, those of President Emanuel Macron’s hacked conversations, or even the Climategate emails – are legitimately in the public interest. There are at least three reasons for this. One, the hacked forum reveals that Skeptical Science – a foreign advocacy group — in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (a DC-based progressive advocacy group), improperly obtained Congressional testimony in advance from several U.S. scientists and were engaged to help Democrats in the House to impeach the testimony of these scientists. Second, the leaked discussions reveal a coordinated effort to lobby U.S. elected officials by a foreign-based entity. While such coordination may or may not meet the legal definition of “lobbying,” the appropriateness of such foreign influence efforts in U.S. politics is certainly fair to question. Third, Skeptical Science has positioned itself as a public arbiter of truth, including rendering judgments as to who is or who is not employable by universities. Their claims to service in the public interest mean that evidence contrary to such claims is also in the public interest. For these reasons I have made the judgment that discussing the leaked discussions relevant to their stated public interest mission – and which have been in the public domain for many years – is not only fair, it is important. As the editor of the Times of London wrote in 1852, “We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences.” Knowing full well the considerable power and influence wielded by Skeptical Science and their allies, I am fearful indeed, but truth matters more. And the truth here is ugly. The internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team, with the 3,700 mentions of Pielke Sr., reveal a years-long campaign to destroy his reputation, and to elevate their stature at his expense. The effort was coordinated and brutal. In one representative exchange, they said, “We are HUNTING Pielke” and in another, “We are trying to bring him down,” and still another, “My vote is to take the bastard down!” Across 3,700 mentions in the dataset, there is no shortage of such expressed intent to damage, if not end, my father’s distinguished career. Their strategy was sinister. They sought to define Pielke Sr. as a “climate denier,” and to use his prominent status in the field as the basis for elevating their own by then taking him down. Often they commented on how pleased they were to be able to use the stature of Pielke Sr. to elevate their own profile in the climate debate, “”The fact that Pielke even acknowledges SkS is a good thing.” At times the Skeptical Science team was confused at why Pielke Sr. was engaging with them: “Why does a scientist of Dr. Pielke’s stature choose to spend so much of his time and enrgy posting on SkS? Doesn’t he have more important things to do?” What they did not understand is that Pielke Sr. is a science nerd and is willing to talk atmospheric science with anyone – alarmist, skeptic, expert, non-expert – 24/7/365. They took advantage of this openness to discussion, and perhaps his naivete as to their motives, to seek to destroy him. They went so far as to strategically have one team member contact him by email on multiple occasions to appear friendly and engage in a side discussion to see if they could gather further information via a good cop/bad cop routine. Some of the discussions of Pielke Sr. veered into the paranoid, with Skeptical Science team members on several occasions fantasizing that Pielke Sr. was perhaps the point man in a global climate denier conspiracy. If only they could somehow access his university emails, one mused, “Look, if the deniers’ emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelieveable, mind blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimitely (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.” The idea that Pielke Sr. is a climate denier is laughable. Skeptical Science consistently interpreted Pielke Sr.’s willingness to engage with their mortal enemies (such as Anthony Watts of the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat) not as a sign of a magnanimous senior statesman willing to help anyone bring their ideas to the peer-reviewed literature, but as evidence of some sort of deep and irreparable moral turpitude. The hacked discussions are infused with such Manichean paranoia. As time went by the Skeptical Science team’s attitude toward Pielke Sr. became increasingly unhinged and personal. John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science, wrote, “”I’m finding myself very annoyed when I think about Pielke, having trouble thinking purely rationally and strategically when I think about him.” One team member expressed some concern about their attacks, “It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don’t like it.” But in the end, the political aims of Skeptical Science meant that Pielke Sr. needed to be destroyed: “he lends the camouflage of scientific respectability to what is likely to be a very dangerous policy of fossil-fuel appeasement. I don’t care how Pielke is behaving: I’m playing to win.” And win they have. Even given my obvious biases, Pielke Sr. is undoubtedly a giant in the atmospheric sciences. It is hard to find any scientist of his generation with a stronger record of achievement. He was an early pioneer of computer modeling of weather, contributing to demonstrably better weather forecasts. He was also a leader in recognizing the role of land surface processes in regional and global climate. A full recounting of his achievements would span many columns here. At a time when he should be receiving lifetime achievement awards and celebrated for his contributions to science, he is instead ostracized and is still being denigrated by Skeptical Science and their followers. My bias is not simply familial. You see, I am also on the Skeptical Science blacklist. Rarely does a day go by that this is not used on social media or, at times, in personal interactions to illustrate my lack of fitness to participate in scientific discussions, to damage my career and reputation. Like Curry and Pielke Sr., I have seen firsthand the consequences of a public and behind-the-scenes campaign by Skeptical Science against me. Despite the widespread aversion of professor blacklisting, in climate science at least, such blacklisting is allowed and even encouraged by the community, and as a result, it works. I have been locked out from Twitter for sharing some of the information from the hacked Skeptical Science discussions. Several Skeptical Science team members have contacted me by email in the past hours with vaguely sinister but eminently deniable threats. I expect they will come after this column next. And if you hear that I have left academia, like Curry, you’ll know why. Even so, everything here is true, and truth matters more than fear. Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

Warmist Group’s Totalitarian Agenda Exposed: Make Scientists ‘Unhirable’ – Creates blacklist list of skeptical academics termed ‘climate misinformers’

February 11, 2020

https://climatechangedispatch.com/skeptical-science-blacklist-unhirable/ Skeptical Science’s Totalitarian Agenda Exposed: Make Scientists ‘Unhirable’ Climate Change Dispatch / by Roger Pielke / 1d Dr. Judith Curry A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli [and a writer for The Guardian], said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.” That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry [pictured], formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable. But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.” I asked Professor Curry about this situation. She explained, “In 2012 I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair. While there were several reasons for this, one obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean.” So Curry stepped down and started looking for administrative positions at other universities, “At the time, I was getting numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research. I applied for several of these and actually interviewed for two of them. I did not make it to the final shortlist.” The headhunter gave Curry the following feedback from the universities: “They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.” Indeed, in my own Google search of “Judy Curry,” and confirmed by others on my Twitter timeline, the Skeptical Scienceblacklist page for her appears on the first page of Google results, and for me, it was the top listing. How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role? Skeptical Science emerged in 2007, the peak of the climate blogging era. It was also a time when the pursuit of “climate skeptics” (or “deniers”) really took off. The website soon found a large audience and was promoted as an ally in the battle against climate skeptics and deniers. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming deniers.” But the main legitimizing factor in the rise of Skeptical Science as a powerful climate advocacy group was its endorsement by prominent scientists, such as by widely-known climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State University and Katherine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech. Like Skeptical Science, Mann and Hayhoe focus much of their advocacy efforts on identifying and denigrating so-called climate skeptics or deniers. The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a leading scientific association that includes many climate scientists, has routinely endorsed Skeptical Science. The AGU has even invoked the Skeptical Science blacklist, as recently as last December, when one of its writers dismissed an Australian academic by observing simply that he “has his own page on John Cook’s Skeptical Science site.” The mere fact of being listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist appears to be sufficient to be dismissed on the official website of the AGU, where Curry was elected a Fellow. But what has happened to Curry is just the tip of the iceberg. Upon discussing on Twitter the Skeptical Science claim that their “debunking” of Curry should make her “unhirable in academia,” a follower of mine pointed to a trove of hacked internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team. In those discussions from around 2010-2012, my father, Roger Pielke, Sr. — also a prominent atmospheric scientist — was mentioned some 3,700 times. Correspondingly, my father is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist. I have read those internal discussions and what I saw is incredibly disturbing, for academic freedom and for simple human decency. Let me take a step back and explain why I believe that it is appropriate to discuss the content of these hacked discussions. (Note: These hacked discussions are different than the Photoshopped imagery found in 2013 on an unprotected Skeptical Sciencewebsite showing several Skeptical Scienceteam members with their faces superimposed upon Nazi soldiers, with John Cook as Heinrich Himmler. According to Rob Honeycutt of Skeptical Science, those images were prepared as an in-group joke to make fun of a climate skeptic who appears on another of their lists and were not intended for the public.) The discussions in the hacked conversations – like those in the Wikileaks releases, those of President Emanuel Macron’s hacked conversations, or even the Climategate emails – are legitimately in the public interest. There are at least three reasons for this. One, the hacked forum reveals that Skeptical Science– a foreign advocacy group — in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (a DC-based progressive advocacy group), improperly obtained Congressional testimony in advance from several U.S. scientists and were engaged to help Democrats in the House to impeach the testimony of these scientists. Second, the leaked discussions reveal a coordinated effort to lobby U.S. elected officials by a foreign-based entity. While such coordination may or may not meet the legal definition of “lobbying,” the appropriateness of such foreign influence efforts in U.S. politics is certainly fair to question. Third, Skeptical Science has positioned itself as a public arbiter of truth, including rendering judgments as to who is or who is not employable by universities. Their claims to serve in the public interest mean that evidence contrary to such claims is also in the public interest. For these reasons I have made the judgment that discussing the leaked discussions relevant to their stated public interest mission – and which have been in the public domain for many years – is not only fair, it is important. As the editor of the Times of London wrote in 1852, “We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences.” Knowing full well the considerable power and influence wielded by Skeptical Science and their allies, I am fearful indeed, but truth matters more. And the truth here is ugly. The internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team, with the 3,700 mentions of Pielke Sr., reveal a years-long campaign to destroy his reputation and to elevate their stature at his expense. The effort was coordinated and brutal. In one representative exchange, they said, “We are HUNTING Pielke” and in another, “We are trying to bring him down,” and still another, “My vote is to take the bastard down!” Across 3,700 mentions in the dataset, there is no shortage of such expressed intent to damage, if not end, my father’s distinguished career. Their strategy was sinister. They sought to define Pielke Sr. as a “climate denier,” and to use his prominent status in the field as the basis for elevating their own by then taking him down. Often they commented on how pleased they were to be able to use the stature of Pielke Sr. to elevate their own profile in the climate debate, “The fact that Pielke even acknowledges SkS is a good thing.” At times the Skeptical Science team was confused at why Pielke Sr. was engaging with them: “Why does a scientist of Dr. Pielke’s stature choose to spend so much of his time and [energy] posting on SkS? Doesn’t he have more important things to do?” What they did not understand is that Pielke Sr. is a science nerd and is willing to talk atmospheric science with anyone – alarmist, skeptic, expert, non-expert – 24/7/365. They took advantage of this openness to discussion, and perhaps his naivete as to their motives, to seek to destroy him. They went so far as to strategically have one team member contact him by email on multiple occasions to appear friendly and engage in a side discussion to see if they could gather further information via a good cop/bad cop routine. Some of the discussions of Pielke Sr. veered into the paranoid, with Skeptical Science team members on several occasions fantasizing that Pielke Sr. was perhaps the point man in a global climate denier conspiracy. If only they could somehow access his university emails, one mused, “Look, if the deniers’ emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelievable, mind-blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimately (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.” The idea that Pielke Sr. is a climate denier is laughable. Skeptical Science consistently interpreted Pielke Sr.’s willingness to engage with their mortal enemies (such as Anthony Watts of the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat) not as a sign of a magnanimous senior statesman willing to help anyone bring their ideas to the peer-reviewed literature, but as evidence of some sort of deep and irreparable moral turpitude. The hacked discussions are infused with such Manichean paranoia. As time went by the Skeptical Science team’s attitude toward Pielke Sr. became increasingly unhinged and personal. John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science, wrote, “I’m finding myself very annoyed when I think about Pielke, having trouble thinking purely rationally and strategically when I think about him.” One team member expressed some concern about their attacks, “It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don’t like it.” But in the end, the political aims of Skeptical Science meant that Pielke Sr. needed to be destroyed: “he lends the camouflage of scientific respectability to what is likely to be a very dangerous policy of fossil-fuel appeasement. I don’t care how Pielke is behaving: I’m playing to win.” And win they have. Even given my obvious biases, Pielke Sr. is undoubtedly a giant in the atmospheric sciences. It is hard to find any scientist of his generation with a stronger record of achievement. He was an early pioneer of computer modeling of weather, contributing to demonstrably better weather forecasts. He was also a leader in recognizing the role of land surface processes in regional and global climate. A full recounting of his achievements would span many columns here. At a time when he should be receiving lifetime achievement awards and celebrated for his contributions to science, he is instead ostracized and is still being denigrated by Skeptical Science and their followers. My bias is not simply familial. You see, I am also on the Skeptical Science blacklist. Rarely does a day go by that this is not used on social media or, at times, in personal interactions to illustrate my lack of fitness to participate in scientific discussions, to damage my career and reputation. Like Curry and Pielke Sr., I have seen firsthand the consequences of a public and behind-the-scenes campaign by Skeptical Science against me. Despite the widespread aversion of professor blacklisting, in climate science at least, such blacklisting is allowed and even encouraged by the community, and as a result, it works. I have been locked out from Twitter for sharing some of the information from the hacked Skeptical Science discussions. Several Skeptical Science team members have contacted me by email in the past hours with vaguely sinister but eminently deniable threats. I expect they will come after this column next. And if you hear that I have left academia, like Curry, you’ll know why. Even so, everything here is true, and truth matters more than fear. Roger Pielke Jr. has been a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001. Previously, he was a staff scientist in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He has degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science, and is the author of numerous books. (Amazon). Read more at Forbes Blogs SHAREVISIT WEBSITE

Study in Journal Nature tries to ‘blacklist’ skeptics – Ranks Climate Depot’s Morano as NUMBER ONE ‘climate contrarian’ in the media! (#1 out of 386 skeptics)

August 17, 2019

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/16/journal-nature-communications-climate-blacklist/ Journal “Nature Communications” climate blacklist By Craig Rucker People with the temerity to correct the record on climate change must be silenced. That’s the outrageous point of a new study published in the journal Nature Communication. “The time has arrived for professional journalists and editors to ameliorate the disproportionate attention given to (climate change contrarians) by focusing instead on career experts and relevant calls to action,” the authors said. While the study’s goal is severely off base, it nonetheless produced two mathematical rankings CFACT is more than a little tickled by. According to a ranking of how often “contrarians,” as the study labels us, are cited in the media, CFACT’s Marc Morano is far and away the world’s most effective climate communicator. Marc is number one, with 4,171 media references, nearly double Senator James Inhofe’s 2,628 and Secretary Rick Perry’s 1,903. Marc appeared in many multiples of media references compared to anyone else as you proceed down the rankings. Steven Hayward of the Powerline Blog wrote, “Morano is truly the Pete Rose and Hank Aaron of climate contrarians.” [Note: Even warmists weighted in on Morano being ranked Number 1: Does climate community realize Marc Morano @climatedepot is most prolific voice of skepticism by a looooong way? He has 35% more articles than any others. There should be an Inst for the Study of Morano #ClimateChange #ClimateCommunication #scicomm https://t.co/9WkCfwYX11 pic.twitter.com/sGYuhJEbOJ — Randy Olson (@ABTagenda) August 14, 2019 2007 I had climate “contrarian” Marc Morano @climatedepot in my movie "Sizzle", 2010 I warned of his media savvy https://t.co/PLGF5y2Nz3, today he is a Fox News regular & most prolific skeptic in this new article: https://t.co/9WkCfwYX11 @Revkin @seeoh2 @JaydeLovell #scicomm — Randy Olson (@ABTagenda) August 14, 2019 Skeptic Jo Nova comments: “Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc!” Newsweek Mag. also reported on the new study and featured Climate Depot prominently. # Rucker article continues: The study also ranks our website, CFACT.org, on its list of the top 100 “most prolific media sources” for articles skeptical of the global warming narrative and ranks Climate Depot number 1! See, figure 2b. The list of 386 people on the climate blacklist reads like an honor roll. Here’s a sample: Apollo Astronaut Harrison Schmitt – the only scientist to walk on the moon; Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham – from the first crew to ride the Saturn V rocket; Freeman Dyson – The eminent Princeton physicist who postulated the Dyson sphere; Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre – the Canadian researchers whose meticulous mathematical audit debunked Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph; Anthony Watts – The prominent meteorologist and creator of Watts Up With That; Rick Perry – The U.S. Secretary of Energy; Judith Curry – A climate scientist with over 130 peer-reviewed papers; Roy Spencer and John Christy – Scientists who manage temperature satellites and developed the first successful satellite temperature record; Fred Singer – The genius scientist who established the weather satellite network; Roger Pielke, Jr. – The professor who showed that extreme weather hasn’t worsened and disaster costs declined; Richard Lindzen – The MIT scientist known for his brilliant work on atmospheric physics and author of over 200 papers; Will Happer – The Princeton atomic physicist and pioneer in optics; Rudy Giuliani – America’s Mayor; Mike Pence – Merely the Vice President of the United States (V.P. Gore’s OK?) While the rankings appear to be genuine in terms of the amount of media individuals garnered, the study’s black and white, unnuanced choice of whom to include on its contrarian list is bush league. It actually used DeSmog Blog as a major source! Its mathematical comparison showing that people who debate climate policy in the public policy arena have greater media exposure than researchers who are cited in academic journals is an apples and oranges comparison, lacking scientific validity, that yields a no-brainer. Their decision to not rank the amount of media garnered by warming campaigners, which would have yielded a useful comparison, reveals this for a bogus and offensive propaganda hit piece. New Climate Blacklist ranks how often climate skeptics cited in media, but CFACT’s Marc Morano is proudly number 1, w/ 4,171 media hits, double Sen. James Inhofe’s 2,628 & Sec. Rick Perry’s 1,903 @ClimateDepot https://t.co/mFPaUWKEHE — CFACT (@CFACT) August 18, 2019 We are each exposed to a mountain of media every day. Peruse the headlines and media coverage of climate for yourself. Do you need a mathematical analysis to determine which way the coverage is skewed? Wouldn’t you love to see those hard numbers? Shame on study authors, Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling. But, thank you to all our friends and supporters who helped CFACT become the most effective climate communicators in the world. # The Study is being trashed for its attempts to blacklist climate skeptics and other reasons. https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1161684580446814209 The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ – Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry calls it “the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal”. Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade Nature Communications ‘blinks’ over slimy climate blacklist from @UCmerced authors Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag Richard Tol rips the study: ‘The paper is bad’ # Below is Full list & rankings of ‘the 386 Climate Contrarians” according to the study: MARC MORANO,4171,0.023255813953488372,1 JAMES INHOFE,2628,0.14421613394216135,2 RICK PERRY,1903,0.11455596426694692,3 JUDITH CURRY,1107,0.12014453477868112,4 ROY SPENCER,892,0.06278026905829596,5 RICHARD LINDZEN,878,0.07517084282460136,6 CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON,868,0.08294930875576037,7 LAMAR SMITH,831,0.07581227436823104,8 BJORN LOMBORG,770,0.09480519480519481,9 JOHN CHRISTY,723,0.1078838174273859,10 WILLIE SOON,711,0.090014064697609,11 ANTHONY WATTS,699,0.09585121602288985,12 ROGER PIELKE JR,697,0.1406025824964132,13 FRED SINGER,626,0.05750798722044728,14 PATRICK MICHAELS,533,0.08067542213883677,15 REX TILLERSON,507,0.11834319526627218,16 BOB CARTER,505,0.05742574257425743,17 DAVID ROSE,437,0.05491990846681922,18 MICHAEL FOX,409,0.019559902200488997,19 STEVE MCINTYRE,374,0.06684491978609626,20 MYRON EBELL,369,0.08672086720867209,21 MARK STEYN,358,0.0446927374301676,22 JAMES TAYLOR,358,0.05307262569832402,23 ROBERT DAVIS,345,0.020289855072463767,24 DAVID DOUGLAS,341,0.011730205278592375,25 KENNETH GREEN,339,0.011799410029498525,26 JAMES DELINGPOLE,339,0.14454277286135694,27 EDWARD DAVID,333,0.02702702702702703,28 TOM HARRIS,319,0.06583072100313479,29 ROBERT BRADLEY,316,0.012658227848101266,30 RICHARD TOL,316,0.11708860759493671,31 HARRISON SCHMITT,315,0.015873015873015872,32 DON EASTERBROOK,311,0.00964630225080386,33 MAURICE NEWMAN,308,0.1331168831168831,34 MIKE PENCE,302,0.1291390728476821,35 GEORGE ALLEN,301,0.016611295681063124,36 MATT RIDLEY,292,0.1952054794520548,37 NIGEL LAWSON,280,0.3392857142857143,38 FREEMAN DYSON,264,0.07196969696969698,39 STEVEN HAYWARD,262,0.003816793893129771,40 ROSS MCKITRICK,252,0.0992063492063492,41 JOHN COLEMAN,252,0.07539682539682539,42 JOHN CHARLES,250,0.036,43 TIM BALL,242,0.024793388429752067,44 MALCOLM ROBERTS,236,0.11864406779661017,45 JOSEPH BAST,234,0.07692307692307693,46 CHRIS HORNER,233,0.0815450643776824,47 DAVID LEGATES,226,0.04424778761061947,48 PATRICK MOORE,218,0.027522935779816515,49 BENNY PEISER,217,0.23963133640552994,50 IAN PLIMER,209,0.11961722488038277,51 CRAIG IDSO,204,0.03431372549019608,52 DAVID KREUTZER,198,0.12121212121212122,53 CHIP KNAPPENBERGER,197,0.08629441624365482,54 ANDREW BOLT,196,0.07142857142857142,55 WILLIAM HAPPER,194,0.09278350515463918,56 DAVID EVANS,175,0.03428571428571429,57 ROGER PIELKE SR,170,0.06470588235294118,58 SCOTT PRUITT,157,0.14012738853503184,59 CHRISTOPHER BOOKER,154,0.2012987012987013,60 SALLIE BALIUNAS,150,0.04666666666666667,61 HENRIK SVENSMARK,150,0.1,62 JOE BASTARDI,146,0.0410958904109589,63 DANA ROHRABACHER,144,0.0763888888888889,64 MARLO LEWIS,142,0.035211267605633804,65 STEVE MILLOY,127,0.047244094488188976,66 STERLING BURNETT,127,0.023622047244094488,67 DAVID WHITEHOUSE,126,0.1746031746031746,68 RONALD BAILEY,123,0.,69 CHRIS DE FREITAS,118,0.05084745762711865,70 MICHAEL KELLY,116,0.08620689655172414,71 WILLIAM KININMONTH,114,0.05263157894736842,72 VACLAV KLAUS,111,0.15315315315315314,73 PAUL DRIESSEN,111,0.02702702702702703,74 DONNA LAFRAMBOISE,102,0.058823529411764705,75 ART ROBINSON,102,0.029411764705882353,76 SCOTT ARMSTRONG,101,0.0297029702970297,77 WILLIAM GRAY,100,0.07,78 ROBERT FERGUSON,100,0.02,79 LARRY BELL,99,0.010101010101010102,80 ROBERT BALLING,97,0.020618556701030927,81 GEORGE TAYLOR,97,0.030927835051546393,82 VINCENT GRAY,95,0.031578947368421054,83 ANDREW MONTFORD,93,0.27956989247311825,84 PIERS CORBYN,91,0.24175824175824176,85 LAWRENCE SOLOMON,90,0.044444444444444446,86 STEVE GOREHAM,86,0.023255813953488372,87 ROBERT MICHAELS,85,0.011764705882352941,88 IVAR GIAEVER,85,0.07058823529411765,89 NIR SHAVIV,83,0.04819277108433735,90 ALEX EPSTEIN,82,0.06097560975609756,91 INDUR GOKLANY,80,0.0375,92 JIM MARTIN,77,0.03896103896103896,93 STEVEN GODDARD,76,0.09210526315789473,94 MADHAV KHANDEKAR,76,0.02631578947368421,95 NICK MINCHIN,75,0.14666666666666667,96 JOHN HINDERAKER,75,0.,97 ROGER HELMER,73,0.2876712328767123,98 JOANNE NOVA,73,0.0273972602739726,99 FRITZ VAHRENHOLT,72,0.027777777777777776,100 CALVIN BEISNER,72,0.05555555555555555,101 TIM PHILLIPS,71,0.08450704225352113,102 JIM SENSENBRENNER,70,0.05714285714285714,103 JENNIFER MAROHASY,70,0.05714285714285714,104 RUDY GIULIANI,69,0.057971014492753624,105 TIMOTHY PATTERSON,66,0.015151515151515152,106 GARTH PALTRIDGE,66,0.,107 SEBASTIAN LUNING,64,0.015625,108 DAVID WOJICK,64,0.078125,109 WILLIAM BRIGGS,61,0.04918032786885246,110 JAN ERIK SOLHEIM,61,0.21311475409836064,111 ROBERT GORDON,59,0.01694915254237288,112 CHRISTOPHER ESSEX,59,0.,113 JACK GERARD,58,0.05172413793103448,114 DENNIS AVERY,57,0.03508771929824561,115 ALAN CARLIN,57,0.05263157894736842,116 PHELIM MCALEER,56,0.03571428571428571,117 DAVID HENDERSON,56,0.03571428571428571,118 RICHARD COURTNEY,55,0.,119 CORY BERNARDI,55,0.12727272727272726,120 ROBERT BRYCE,54,0.12962962962962962,121 NICOLA SCAFETTA,53,0.03773584905660377,122 JOHN STOSSEL,53,0.05660377358490566,123 RUPERT DARWALL,52,0.019230769230769232,124 RON ARNOLD,51,0.0196078431372549,125 WILLIAM ALEXANDER,50,0.,126 JAY LEHR,49,0.02040816326530612,127 ROBERT MENDELSOHN,48,0.020833333333333332,128 KESTEN GREEN,48,0.020833333333333332,129 SHERWOOD IDSO,47,0.,130 RUSSELL COOK,47,0.02127659574468085,131 PAUL CHESSER,47,0.,132 DAVID BELLAMY,47,0.3191489361702128,133 GARY SHARP,46,0.,134 ROGER COHEN,45,0.13333333333333333,135 ROBERT MURPHY,45,0.,136 DAVID ARCHIBALD,44,0.022727272727272728,137 CRAIG RUCKER,44,0.045454545454545456,138 VIV FORBES,43,0.,139 IAN CLARK,43,0.046511627906976744,140 SYUN ICHI AKASOFU,41,0.04878048780487805,141 GEORGE CHRISTENSEN,41,0.14634146341463414,142 FREDERICK SEITZ,40,0.05,143 EDWARD WEGMAN,40,0.175,144 IAIN MURRAY,39,0.05128205128205128,145 WILLIS ESCHENBACH,38,0.05263157894736842,146 WALTER CUNNINGHAM,38,0.,147 ART POPE,37,0.,148 STEWART FRANKS,36,0.,149 SONJA BOEHMER CHRISTIANSEN,36,0.,150 MITCHELL TAYLOR,36,0.,151 CRAIG LOEHLE,36,0.,152 GRAHAM SMITH,35,0.02857142857142857,153 GARY ENGLAND,35,0.05714285714285714,154 ANN MCELHINNEY,35,0.,155 MARITA NOON,34,0.,156 CHRIS LANDSEA,34,0.08823529411764706,157 BENJAMIN ZYCHER,33,0.,158 PAUL REITER,31,0.,159 DAN LEWIS,31,0.0967741935483871,160 SCOTT DENNING,30,0.1,161 LEIGHTON STEWARD,30,0.06666666666666667,162 FRED GOLDBERG,30,0.03333333333333333,163 BRYAN LEYLAND,30,0.,164 ALBERT JACOBS,30,0.,165 RICHARD KEEN,29,0.034482758620689655,166 NILS AXEL MORNER,29,0.,167 ANTHONY LUPO,29,0.,168 JACK BARRETT,28,0.,169 HOWARD HAYDEN,28,0.,170 KIMINORI ITOH,27,0.037037037037037035,171 DAVID SCHNARE,27,0.07407407407407407,172 CLAUDE ALLEGRE,27,0.1111111111111111,173 ART HORN,27,0.,174 SAM KAZMAN,26,0.038461538461538464,175 JOSEPH CLARK,26,0.038461538461538464,176 JOHN DALE DUNN,26,0.,177 GEORGE KUKLA,26,0.038461538461538464,178 BEN LIEBERMAN,26,0.038461538461538464,179 TODD MYERS,25,0.12,180 SUSAN CROCKFORD,25,0.08,181 NIGEL CALDER,25,0.2,182 JULIAN MORRIS,25,0.2,183 GERRIT VAN DER LINGEN,25,0.,184 CLIFF OLLIER,25,0.,185 RAY EVANS,24,0.,186 NORMAN ROGERS,24,0.,187 BURT RUTAN,24,0.08333333333333333,188 BRIAN SUSSMAN,24,0.041666666666666664,189 MIKE NOEL,23,0.043478260869565216,190 LEWIS PAGE,23,0.30434782608695654,191 LEE GERHARD,23,0.,192 DAVID DEMING,23,0.,193 TOM MCCLINTOCK,22,0.,194 JOHN O’SULLIVAN,22,0.045454545454545456,195 TERRY DUNLEAVY,21,0.,196 REID BRYSON,21,0.,197 JOSEPH D’ALEO,21,0.,198 HENDRIK TENNEKES,21,0.047619047619047616,199 TODD WYNN,20,0.,200 PETR CHYLEK,20,0.,201 JAN VEIZER,20,0.,202 HABIBULLO ABDUSSAMATOV,20,0.,203 EIGIL CHRISTENSEN,20,0.05,204 JAMES O’BRIEN,18,0.,205 DAVID TUERCK,18,0.1111111111111111,206 TOM SEGALSTAD,17,0.058823529411764705,207 RODNEY NICHOLS,17,0.17647058823529413,208 JEFF CONDON,17,0.11764705882352941,209 HANS LABOHM,17,0.058823529411764705,210 EZRA LEVANT,17,0.,211 ANDREI ILLARIONOV,17,0.23529411764705882,212 ZBIGNIEW JAWOROWSKI,16,0.,213 LAURENCE GOULD,16,0.,214 JOEL SCHWARTZ,16,0.,215 JAMES MCGRATH,16,0.125,216 DOUGLAS HOYT,16,0.,217 DANIEL SIMMONS,16,0.125,218 PETER FERRARA,15,0.,219 JOHN SHADE,15,0.2,220 JOHN DROZ,15,0.,221 JAN BRESLOW,15,0.26666666666666666,222 GERRIT VAN KOOTEN,15,0.,223 CHARLES BATTIG,15,0.,224 BOB FOSTER,15,0.,225 ANTHONY SADAR,15,0.5333333333333333,226 YURI IZRAEL,14,0.14285714285714285,227 ROY CLARK,14,0.14285714285714285,228 OWEN MCSHANE,14,0.,229 KEN HAAPALA,14,0.,230 GERD RAINER WEBER,14,0.,231 STEVE BANNON,13,0.,232 STANLEY GOLDENBERG,13,0.,233 JEFF KUETER,13,0.15384615384615385,234 DAVID BOWEN,13,0.15384615384615385,235 ROY INNIS,12,0.,236 RALPH ALEXANDER,12,0.08333333333333333,237 PETER DIETZE,12,0.,238 KILEZ MORE,12,0.,239 KEVIN DAYARATNA,12,0.,240 ISAAC ORR,12,0.08333333333333333,241 RICHARD FINK,11,0.,242 KENDRA OKONSKI,11,0.09090909090909091,243 HAROLD DOIRON,11,0.,244 GRAEME SWINDLES,11,0.09090909090909091,245 FRANK CLEMENTE,11,0.,246 DAN GAINOR,11,0.,247 WILLIAM COTTON,10,0.,248 WIBJORN KARLEN,10,0.,249 PAUL COPPER,10,0.,250 MICHAEL LIMBURG,10,0.3,251 GREGG EASTERBROOK,10,0.1,252 BARRY BRILL,10,0.,253 WILLIAM KAY,9,0.1111111111111111,254 VINCENT COURTILLOT,9,0.,255 TAD MURTY,9,0.1111111111111111,256 KEITH IDSO,9,0.,257 JOANNE SIMPSON,9,0.,258 JIM JOHNSTON,9,0.,259 JAMES SPANN,9,0.,260 FERENC MISKOLCZI,9,0.,261 BRIAN VALENTINE,9,0.,262 BOB ARMSTRONG,9,0.,263 WILLEM DE LANGE,8,0.,264 OLAVI KARNER,8,0.,265 KEITH LOCKITCH,8,0.,266 HUGH ELLSAESSER,8,0.,267 FRED MICHEL,8,0.,268 ARTHUR RORSCH,8,0.,269 TOM TANTON,7,0.,270 THOMAS WYSMULLER,7,0.,271 RUSSELL SEITZ,7,0.14285714285714285,272 MIKLOS ZAGONI,7,0.,273 MICHAEL ECONOMIDES,7,0.,274 KEITH HAGE,7,0.,275 JOEL WOOD,7,0.14285714285714285,276 GERALD MARSH,7,0.,277 DONALD RAPP,7,0.,278 BONNER COHEN,7,0.,279 TERRENCE FLOWER,6,0.,280 ROY CORDATO,6,0.,281 ROGER TATTERSALL,6,0.16666666666666666,282 ROBERT ESSENHIGH,6,0.,283 MICK MULVANEY,6,0.,284 MICHAEL JUNGBAUER,6,0.,285 JOHN H SUNUNU,6,0.,286 JAMES PEDEN,6,0.,287 HOWARD MACCABEE,6,0.,288 GABRIEL CALZADA,6,0.,289 DONN DEARS,6,0.,290 CLAES JOHNSON,6,0.,291 ANTONINO ZICHICHI,6,0.,292 VIJAY KUMAR RAINA,5,0.,293 RANDY SIMMONS,5,0.,294 LEON LOUW,5,0.,295 JOHN HUMPHREYS,5,0.2,296 HARRY PRIEM,5,0.,297 GERHARD GERLICH,5,0.,298 FRIEDRICH KARL EWERT,5,0.,299 DENNIS HEDKE,5,0.,300 UTZ TILLMANN,4,0.,301 ROB SCAGEL,4,0.,302 RICHARD RAHN,4,0.25,303 PAUL WAGGONER,4,0.,304 NIGER INNIS,4,0.,305 MIKE CATANZARO,4,0.25,306 MARCUS ERNST,4,0.,307 HELEN ROE,4,0.,308 GEOFFREY DUFFY,4,0.,309 BORIS WINTERHALTER,4,0.,310 ASMUNN MOENE,4,0.,311 VICTOR MANUEL VELASCO HERRERA,3,0.,312 REBEKAH MERCER,3,0.3333333333333333,313 PAMELA GORMAN,3,0.,314 MARY HUTZLER,3,0.,315 JOHN NOTHDURFT,3,0.,316 JOE FONE,3,0.,317 JEROME ARNETT,3,0.,318 JAMES WANLISS,3,0.,319 HENRI MASSON,3,0.,320 FRANCO BATTAGLIA,3,0.,321 EVELYN BROWNING GARRISS,3,0.6666666666666666,322 DOUGLAS LEAHEY,3,0.,323 DOUG DOMENECH,3,0.,324 DAVID PADDEN,3,0.,325 BARUN MITRA,3,0.,326 ARUN AHLUWALIA,3,0.,327 ANDREAS PROKOPH,3,0.,328 AL PEKAREK,3,0.,329 ALEXANDRE AGUIAR,3,0.,330 WOLFGANG MULLER,2,0.,331 WERNER WEBER,2,0.,332 TOMASZ TELUK,2,0.,333 ROGER BEZDEK,2,0.5,334 ROBERT SHOUP,2,0.,335 JOSEF REICHHOLF,2,0.,336 JAMES ENSTROM,2,0.5,337 GORDON SWATERS,2,0.5,338 FRANCISCO CAPELLA,2,0.,339 DONALD BOUDREAUX,2,0.,340 CARLO STAGNARO,2,0.,341 BRUNO WISKEL,2,0.,342 BECKY NORTON DUNLOP,2,0.,343 AUGUST AUER,2,0.,344 ANTON URIARTE,2,0.,345 NATHALIE ELGRABLY LEVY,1,0.,346 MARTIN HOVLAND,1,0.,347 KEN MALLOY,1,0.,348 JOSEPH CONKLIN,1,0.,349 HORST JOACHIM LUDECKE,1,0.,350 HOLGER THUSS,1,0.,351 DON KEILLER,1,0.,352 BRUCE EVERETT,1,0.,353 BO NORDELL,1,0.,354 BETTE GRANDE,1,0.,355 AVRIL TERRI JACKSON,1,0.,356 ARTHUR MIDDLETON HUGHES,1,0.,357 ALISTER MCFARQUHAR,1,0.,358 ALEX FITZSIMMONS,1,0.,359 ALEXANDRA LIDDY BOURNE,1,0.,360 ALAN MOGHISSI,1,0.,361 WALTER FETT,0,0,362 SÖREN FLODERUS,0,0,363 SAMUELE FURFARI,0,0,364 RONALD RYCHLAK,0,0,365 RICHARD TRZUPEK,0,0,366 REYNALD DU BERGER,0,0,367 PAAVO SIITAM,0,0,368 MICHELLE MICHOT FOSS,0,0,369 MICHAEL GOETZ,0,0,370 KLAUS ANGERER,0,0,371 JOHN LOEFFLER,0,0,372 JIM PUPLAVA,0,0,373 JACOB NORDANGARD,0,0,374 HUBBEL RELAT,0,0,375 HELMUT ALT,0,0,376 GUNTER EDERER,0,0,377 GERTRUD HOHLER,0,0,378 GERNOT PATZELT,0,0,379 DOUGLAS SOUTHGATE,0,0,380 DONALD HERTZMARK,0,0,381 DANIEL SUTTER,0,0,382 CARL RIBBING,0,0,383 AUGUSTO MANGINI,0,0,384 ANNE DEBEIL,0,0,385 AARON STOVER,0,0,386 # Related: Newsweek 2009 Profile: Climate Depot ‘is quickly becoming King of the skeptics!’ — ‘Most popular denial site’ — Morano thanks ‘mainstream media for ignoring Climategate’ Flashback: German Mag profile: Morano the Godfather?! German Die Zeit declares: Doubt Being Fanned Worldwide By Climate Godfather Marc Morano 2012: Climate Depot Wins Warmist Award! Morano Named ‘Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year’ by Media Matters — Climate Depot is honored to be dishonored with this award 2014: Morano goes Hollywood – Featured in Variety – Called ‘charismatic professional climate-change misinformer’ Will he do perp walk?! Morano ‘WANTED’ posters for being a ‘Climate Criminal’ go up in Paris on eve of ‘Climate Hustle’ premiere 2019: ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ by Marc Morano soars to #1 Best Seller (again) in Climatology & Environmental Science The book is out with new edition that includes 2019 Bonus Chapter on Green New Deal! ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ – July 12, 2019

Debunking Stephen Schneider’s Blacklist Paper, Part 1

August 6, 2010

Analysis: Late Stephen Schneider’s ‘Blacklist’ Paper ‘violates every ethical standard…I think it is clear that the paper, wrong on the facts, is unethical in its intent and outcome’

August 5, 2010

UN IPCC Scientist: ‘National Academy of Sciences creates virtual blacklists of scientists who dare to disagree with ‘the consensus’

July 8, 2010

John Christy on Blacklist: ‘I think the study was pathetic. It basically says, ‘Those of us who agree with each other like to cite the work of our friends and not the other guys.’ Duh’

July 2, 2010

Über-Liberal Slate Magazine Agrees: ‘The [blacklist] advocates have used bad social science to show that the science of climate change is sound’

June 24, 2010

Search Results for: blacklist