Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here

Tom Kunich wrote:

> <bjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .. 
>>
>>  Most people agree there was
>> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
> 
> Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies 
> attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people
> like you that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the
> time. 
> 
> But it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
> about something you know nothing about.
> 
> 

Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate 
physicists in terms of their h-indeces:

The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known,
well-
funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and compared 
that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would there

be any significant difference?  (Sidebar:  the h-index is one measure of a

scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact their 
publications have in terms of citations.  There is a wikipedia entry on
the 
h-index, googling h-index will turn it up.  It is also discussed on the
ISI 
website.)  So, I took the staff of WorldClimateRe****t.com (Michaels, 
Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared 
their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann, Ammann, 
Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig, deGaridel-Thoron 
(maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)).  One issue
with 
this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.  
This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so I 
also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since
Ph.D.  
(the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims for 
physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal scientific 
productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat lower 
for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)).  Here are the 
results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):

WorldClimateRe****t (Skeptics)
Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since
PhD)
P.J.Michaels.............11........1979..............0.38
R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992..............0.56
R.E.Davies...............13........1979..............0.65

Average...................13.........................0.56


RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
Name..............h-index.........PhD Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
Schmidt............18.............1996..............1.5
Mann...............29.............1998..............2.9
Ammann.............17.............2002..............2.8
Archer.............24.............1990..............1.3
Benestad...........8..............1997..............0.73
Bradley............31.............1974..............0.91
Connolley..........14.............1996..............1.2
deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
Rahmstorf..........22.............1990..............1.2
Steig..............24.............1995..............1.85

Average............18...............................1.53


So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific
productivity.  
Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of three 
greater than the skeptics.  This is why the skeptics are simply getting 
savaged scientifically.  They just aren't good scientists, they're just 
media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.

CO2Science is run by the Idso family.  Craig Idso has an h-index of 5 and
a 
yearly average of 0.5.  Keith Idso has an h-index of 4 and a yearly
average 
of 0.16.  Sherwood Idso (daddy) has an h-index of 43 for an average of 
1.05 (I guess we know who weilds the big stick in that clan eh?), so he is

comparable to the guys at realclimate.org, but that is a rare exception 
among skeptics.  Fred Seitz, who you cite as an authority, has an h-index 
of 14 but has a career spanning over 50 years so his average is very low 
(you can't argue that he did most of his work early either since most of 
his publications are in the back half of his career (when he became a 
climate skeptic)).  

It's not that people like Ben or I are pretending to be knowledgable, it's

that the skeptics are pretending to be knowledgable.  Why people like you 
and Jack can't figure out that you are being used as inflatable sheep with

life-like sucking mouth action is something I cannot figure out.  

-- 
Bill Asher