Who said it was dictated by the will of the scientists?

http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html

“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”.

Making a test according to this definition gives a “very likely” indication of the presence of a troll.

Although there are 500 unconvinced researchers on the PNAS list, many of them with an outstanding prominence, there are scores of names missing.

In Sweden a petition was submitted in the beginning of this year to the Swedish government initiated by the society the Stockholm Initiative in which I am a member. There were more than 1000 signers of which around 100 were scientific researchers with a PhD, There were more than 45 professors. Only around 10 – 20 of the names on this petition are found on the PNAS list.

Hence, only from this Swedish list there are around 80 missing PhDs and professors. Sweden has a population of less than 10 million so perhaps more than thousand names are missing from the USA, not mentioning all other countries.

Keep up the good work, Dr. Spencer! You have a lot of support out there!

Now the old deniars are the same as holocaust denialist canard is wheeled out here over the same paper.

The sheet scale of whining is really getting on the nerves.

Galileo Galilei has had his Copernican hypothesis disproved. The majority of astronomers rejected his theory. That proves it is wrong. Their research was peer reviewed by the Inquisition. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin (boo! hiss!) realised it was wrong. Galileo published less papers than his rivals (especially since the Inquisition gagged him). Only a few nutters like Copernicus (how could a Catholic canon have made such an error?) and Kepler (another nutty Protestant divinity student whose works are thankfully already on the Index Expurgatorius) engage in such diabolical denialism. They will be denying the existence of witches next.

People who study climate like to have an income.
The income comes mostly from the government.
The government “grants” income if the answer is what they want (not being scientists, facts and evidence are not an issue of consequence to politics and revenue).
If you don’t have the right answer, you don’t get grants (economic forcing?).
If you don’t get grants, you don’t get published.
Leading to fewer grants, thereby having negative feedback on “prominence,” reputation and credibility.
Or you go study something else because food and shelter are good things.
Therefore, you aren’t qualified to debate the matter, having failed to develop relevant expertise, like railroad engineering for example.

Do I have this right? Just checking.

Also, just to point out, the authors:
——>
“Expert credibility in climate change

1. William R. L. Anderegga,1,
2. James W. Prallb,
3. Jacob Haroldc, and
4. Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1

1.
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
2.
bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
3.
c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
4.
dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305″
“The authors declare no conflict of interest.” <—–
Uh, riiiiiight…
I'd like to see where the advertising dollars for PNAS come from…

I look forward to seeing both lists (CE and UE reseacher) when the authors finally produce them.

I am particularly intersesting in seeing which 5 UE researchers make the top 200.

Actually, they did not miss your PhD. If you click on your name, it takes you to a page with your CV on it where it very clearly states your credentials.

You are ranked #348 in the database because you have one publication (two?) related to climate science, which was/were published in Energy and Environment (not carried by ISN and not consistently be peer-reviewed). In the abstract of your 2002 paper you claim, amongst other things, that “In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed.”

That is not true. There is a lengthy discussion on the potential impacts of GCRs on low-level clouds in section 6.11.2.2 (“Cosmic rays and clouds”) in the 2001 report. And that is just one example.

Anyhow, I am sorry that you feel persecuted. I’m surprised that you ask “Where is the research on natural variability?”. The literature is full of research on internal climate modes and oscillations. I searched the American Meteorological Society’s Journal database for the following key words “natural variability climate change” in the abstract and got 123 hits. That search does not include Int. J. Climatol., JGR-Atmospheres, GRL, Nature, Science and numerous other journals. Of course natural variability is also discussed in the IPCC, and in a recent paper by Stott et al. 2010 (the lead author being one of the scientists on the real black list).

Perhaps you did not make yourself clear, but the carbon cycle was operating long before we started pumping into the atmosphere. The carbon cycle does not “assume AGW” as you claim, but by emitting GHGs into the atmosphere though land-use change and burning FFs we have added an anthropogenic component to the carbon cycle.