A fellow named Jim Prall left a comment here a few days ago mentioning some work he has recently done compiling information on the contributing authors of the most recent IPCC WG1 report.
I went to have a look and I must say what a terrific resource!
It is a common septic fallacy that the IPCC report is actually written by politicians and very few real scientists are involved. Like 95% of their talking points it is 100% bunk as a cursory investigation will reveal.
Well, cursory this listing is not! All 619 IPCC WG1 AR4 authors are listed here and for each there is a link to their personal homepage, a link to a Google Scholar search for their research, citation counts, degree information, wikipedia links, affiliations and notes about declarations or petitions they have signed on to (links where available). Wow.
You can find some background info and explanation at Jim's project's homepage and at his blog, Green Herring. At that project page there is also a general listing of climate scientists, WG1 author or not, so you can quickly find out more about the authors of research papers that might pop up in discussions.
In his comment he finishes by saying:
For those who question whether the IPCC reports reflect the views of the majority of scientists with relevant expertise, this list offers another way to slice the loaf. Have a look at my listings and see who endorsed the 2008 Union of Concerned Scientists Appeal and the 2007 Bali Climate Declaration, then compare to those who appeared in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" or signers of the Manhattan Declaration. I'll let the listings speak for themselves.
Once again, thanks for all this terrific work, Jim! I think many AFTIC readers will find it very handy!
- Log in to post comments
That represents a lot of work, and I am impressed....
I am also pleased that someone has gone to this trouble, and have bookmarked it for future reference. Thanks for linking to it!
Great resource, I'm impressed. However, I have to ask why IPCC hasn't done this? The issue now in the US is essential a public relations battle of reality based science vs. right-wing wingnuts recycling talking points produced by carbon industry funded thinktanks. And so far, the wingnuts appear to be doing a much better job of perceiving how PR works. The meme that the IPCC authors are a bunch of bureaucrats and economists has been a strong sell for them, and there hasn't been collection of this type of information to push back on that issue. Just this week Watt was pushing the story that only 20% of the IPCC participants have experience with climate sciences (based on a really ill-considered one sentence Q&A response by William Schlesinger following a debate with John Christy).