Tim Lambert et al are looking into this at Deltoid. There doesn't appear to be a single reason for all of the names being there, but a common thread seems to be "have written studies cited by inactivists". So in other words, if McKitrick and McIntyre challenge the consensus, and they cite Michael Mann, then Michael Mann *MUST* of course also deny the consensus! (Yes, he's on the list.)

Are their tactics *that* desperate?

Why on earth would you link McKitrick and McIntyre to this story? They have no involvment whatsover with this story.

Because they are not only listed, but their website is listed, and they have supported this conclusion in the past (see the websites listed, numerous entries).

And, let's see now, are they among people who are outraged that they are in the list? Not so far.

McIntyre, Steven, www.climateaudit.org
McKitrick, R., www.climateaudit.org

Paul, what have ANY of these people on the list got to do with it? The sheer lunacy of Avery listing them as co-authors defies comprehension.

Fern Mackenzie

And we have about 45 quotes still to put up! There is a lot of very angry scientists out there all demanding (at the least) that there names be taken off the list.

I smell a class action law suit... Nice.

Don't hold your breath, Shindig! These guys have the most amazing ability to hang on to their belief in these great long lists. I finally just stopped bothering with anyone who hauls out that pitiful Oregon petition.

Good job, Kevin, calling the Heartland Institute's bluff! They must figure that no one is going to actually take the time the track these people down. It will be interesting to see how many more of the 500 speak up as the word gets around.

Fern Mackenzie

the New Zealand "Department of Scientific and Industrial Research" hasn't existed for 20 years. How many other defunct institutions does it list? At least one of the scientists listed from NZ hasn't worked at the university he's listed with for 25 years.

Avery is a senior fellow at heartland AND hudson. This claptrap crap of an attempt to mislead appeared on both the hudson site and heartland's, so both are just as guilty! Just in case a suit comes out of this, both of these organizations should be included.

It would be interesting to go through the citations in "Unstoppable Global Warming . . ." and find out whether Avery makes reference to any recent work at all.

I am rather intrigued by Singer's & Avery's brass -- listing people whom they cited as co-authors! What a stroke of genius! All I have to do is cite the top guys in my field to claim them as co-authors! Brilliant!

Fern Mackenzie

I agree, Fern. I can't wait to get going on my next paper:

"Progress toward a unified theory of life, the universe and everything". Johnson, D., Godel, K., Escher, M.C., Bach, J.S., Hofstadter, D.R., Hansen, J., Darwin, C., Huxley, T.H., Adams, D., Popper, K., Wilson, E.O., Livingstone, D., Stanley, H.M., Henty, G.A., and Eriksson, L. J.I.R. 42: 1-31.

Don't forget Arthur Dent (and Dirk Gently).

Fern Mackenzie

Good one, Dan.

Fred, been studying hammer-and-sickle patterns formed on cereal flakes? Or doing crossword puzzles to find traces of Bolshevism in Moby Dick?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

He's trying to play his CDs backwards, but it doesn't work.

You mean Paul is dead?

(:

. . . in spite of Heather's best efforts (meow!)

Fern Mackenzie

. . . in spite of Heather's best efforts (meow!)

Fern Mackenzie

The reaction from the inactivist blogosphere... if you can call it a reaction:

http://tinyurl.com/4nrycd

Heheheheh.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Somehow "inactivist blogosphere" doesn't seem right.

Hmm... what do you suggest?

"Inactivist crapmill" sounds like a really bad mixed metaphor.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Inactivist blogocave? Inactivist blogosand? Inactivist blogodisk?

DE-activist echo chamber?
Fern Mackenzie

"Blogocave" has a nice ring to it. :)

Still undecided about "inactivists" vs. "deactivists", but I remember also proposing "reactivists" (which sounds a bit like "reactionaries")...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

What country is that?

And by the way, I am outraged that they left out everyone from the National Resource Something Program.

Not Really Science People
Fern Mackenzie

I just checked out Bjorck, Svante, Lund University, Sweden from the "500 list" who is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science[1], he was also he chair of the geology section of said academy which wrote this in response to the IPCC report:

Klass V anser att den vetenskapliga basen för att bedöma klimatproblemet nu är så stabil att det motiverar omfattande satsningar för att utveckla metoder att begränsa utsläpp av växthusgaser och för att mildra negativa konsekvenser av pågående och kommande klimatförändringar.[2]

Quick translation to english:

Class V [the Geo. Science group] regards the scientific basis to judge the climate crisis is now so stable that it motivates vast investments to develop methods to lower emissions of green house gases and to soothe the negative consequences of current and future climate change.

I should probably drop him an e-mail if he hasn't already been asked. Is it any official list to tick of so we don't spam some of these scientists with multiple questions about the same thing?

1. http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/contact/contactdetail.asp?personID=4413
2. http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/publications/academythink/07climate_group.pdf

Michael, what do you mean they haven't released their list? Have you read the report?

The list of scientists involved in writing and reviewing the reports are given in Annex 2 and 3 of the WG1 report ("We're the ones doing it"), Appendix II and III of the WG2 report ("It's gonna be bad"), and Annex III and IV of the WG3 report ("Here's what we can do about it").

The scientists who did the original research cited throughout the report are listed with the references for each individual chapter, much like any scientific paper.

I'll even provide the URLs. However, I can't do your homework for you. (Horse, water, and all that.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-app.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf

Feel free to ask them. I'm calling your bluff.

"Feel free to ask them. I'm calling your bluff."

oh, bam! now they've got their leg work cut out for them. not that they'll bother; knee-kerk denials are so much easier....

KEvron

The report I saw AR4 showed 32ish on the Core Writing team
230ish on the Review Team

Hardly seems like a consensus of 2400
So we need to assume that if they did not respond than they are in the affirmative?
Do we assume that only 10% of the 2400 had an opinion of the matter?
Does this constitute the end of debate on a matter?

Rook to queen 3

The report I saw AR4 showed 32ish on the Core Writing team 230ish on the Review Team

I've seen no such list. Evidence please.

Q-B8 ch

Best,

D

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf

start at page 15. i roughly estimate about 600 plus contributors and 550 plus reviewers. add to that your 32ish and 230ish, and that 2400 looms.

king me!

KEvron

Enough with the "my list of scientists is longer than YOUR list of scientists" nonsense. Have a look at the quality of the research. What's getting published in reputable journals? What are the scientists actually saying? Clear the air of all the PR crap (which is what this blog is doing) and you will find that the science is actually quite settled. Avery is not only a bad judge of facial hair and eyewear, he is unable to distinguish between what he wants a scientist to conclude, and what that scientist actually DOES conclude from his research.

Oh what the heck. It's been a long day.

Fern Mackenzie

Now that both the atmosphere and oceans are cooling, what are the alarmists going to do for an encore? Let's try stopping volcanoes next. The science is surely settled on that issue, as well.