Are the recent global warming denier claims of 'blacklisting' paranoia and propaganda?

Question

Deniers on this site such as Ottawa Mike have claimed that a recent study on the scientific consensus on global warming is tantamount to 'blacklisting'. Roger Pielke Jr., on his blog, called it 'blacklisting.' On his blog, Roy Spencer called it - you guessed it - blacklisting (and an inquisition!).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/the-global-warming-inquisition-has-begun/

Michael Tobis disagrees.

"Let's keep in mind what the PNAS paper revealed. It did not reveal who had what opinions: it based that on public declarations. Everybody counted in the paper in either category had already added themselves to controversial lists. No new information about people and their opinions was published. Indeed, no names were named in the publication, though they had been visible for months on the web. All that was revealed was how much influence the signatories of the various statements have within the field."

Claims of a 'blacklist' are "transparently crazy propaganda. Is this the same level of paranoia that's behind the other criticisms of the field? (hint: yup)"

What do you think - are complaints about blacklisting in this case valid, or are they an example of denier paranoia and propaganda?

Answer 1

The deniers should really use the list to their advantage, rather than trying to characterize it as blacklisting. It certainly looks to be a much more impressive list than the Oregon Petition or the Inhofe list.



Maybe they should get the same guys to create a list of papers that ACTUALLY refute global warming, rather than that misleading Popular Technology list.

Answer 2

From: The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun

June 22nd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.



“But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.”



Cry me a fcuking river, Roy.



Considering that the intellectual arsenal of denier arguments against AGW consists almost entirely of nothing but personal insults and deliberate lies, claiming that the term “climate denier” represents institutionalized persecution comparable to, “the Roman Catholic Inquisition” is pitiful.

Answer 3

You STILL don't get it, Dana.



It should be immediately obvious that calling someone who denies that there is a threat from climate change a denier is wicked blacklisting, while describing the entire community of climate scientists as fraudulent conspirators is objective fair comment.



Propaganda, yes. Paranoia, no. These people know exactly what they're doing.

Answer 4

I would say that they are valid. I was in Germany for 3 months and they didn't realize the damage that the environmentalists in the United States are causing. They were surprised at the fact that environmentalists don't want solar or wind power in the United States.

Answer 5

Personally, I think that it shows just how afraid they are of actual scrutiny for their claims, their methods and their affiliations. If everyone can see the network, then they aren't a bunch of mavericks...



Besides, it's hardly a blacklist. If anything, it will help them get funding and paid speaking engagements at some of those wonderful 'events' that the conservative think tanks like to throw in order to spread the new disinformation and talking points. Isn't the colloquial for said events, 'Cons'?



_

Answer 6

I second Vampire Muffin Man, additionally it seems like a rather comprehensive list of scientists who don't support AGW, there is no longer a need to rely on the Oregon Petition.

Answer 7

From what i've seen on this site deniers are capable of little else but paranoia and propaganda