This is rather astonishing, kudos to Best Schools for putting this together.
Best Schools has put together another very interesting list: Top 15 Climate Change Scientists – Consensus and Skeptics. Recall their previous list that included the top 50 women in STEM
Here is the rationale for what they have done:
We are well aware that those who support the mainstream position that anthropogenic climate change represents a grave threat to the future of humanity will deplore our decision to represent both side of the debate (or even to characterize the ongoing discussion as a “debate” at all). They have convinced themselves that only cranks and paid stooges could possibly disagree with them. We see things differently.
Simply stated, we maintain that appeals to authority and scurrilous ad hominem attacks are no substitute for rational argument. We also hold that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This means, among other things, that mainstream climate scientists who roundly condemn climate skeptics for seeking support from private industry ought to be a bit more circumspect, seeing that they themselves receive millions in financial backing from government agencies. The tacit assumption behind their indignation — that only private actors have material interests, while public actors are by definition impartial seekers after truth — simply won’t wash. We strongly suspect that in, say, 100 years’ time, when (we hope!) scholars will be in a position to investigate this whole disgraceful episode in the history of science more objectively, they will find plenty of blame to go around.
Our position is simple. It is the classical liberal one. Drumroll. Cue the shade of Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why should I defend someone else’s freedom to say what I myself believe to be wrong? Because the truth is one thing, my knowledge of it is something else. And because this means that the essence of rational inquiry is intellectual humility. And also because the slow and painful advance towards truth is best served by the open and honest airing of disagreement. For all of these reasons, we deplore all attempts to use political muscle to shut down academic debate. Perhaps our liberal take on the ethics of inquiry has become unfashionable in this postmodern age. To which we respond: So much the worse for intellectual fashion.
That said, we do not feel under any obligation to give “equal time” to both sides. In the end, we came up with the following formula: the mainstream position will be represented by 10 scientists; the skeptical position by five.
Here is the list:
Ten Consensus scientists (alphabetized by last name):
- Wallace Broecker
- James Hansen
- Phil Jones
- Syukuro Manabe
- Michael Mann
- John Mitchell
- V. Ramanathan
- William Ruddiman
- Susan Solomon
- Tom Wigley
Five skeptical scientists:
- Lennart Bengtsson
- John Christy
- Judith Curry
- Richard Lindzen
- Nir Shaviv
I am very impressed by this article and the very thoughtful bio-sketches for each are included.
Read more at Climate Etc.
Ego is the greatest destroyer of true progress. Pure criticism is destructive. Constructive criticism shortens the road to progress. Admit quickly and loudly your errors and thank those that have pointed them out. Admit and understand your limitations. Those in the first list do not understand the words above. They are the LOSERS.
I don’t know if at some point they were honest scientists but clearly something changed along the way. Ego is certainly a big one–they get quoted a lot by the uninquiring press, travel to lots of conferences, etc. Also they don’t want to disrupt the gravy train they have boarded, getting millions of dollars from governments, left-wing foundations, etc. So the science has been totally corrupted.
Since science is not based on consensus giving them double the number of scientists, especially with so-called scientists like Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, makes it seem as though there are many more on the consensus (the science is settled) than those who still believe in and practice science.
I am glad to see such luminaries as Drs Curry, Christy, and Lindzen but wish they added more names to that list (I’d want to include the likes of Joe Bastardi and Tony Heller). But as Dr Curry says, this is at least a good start.