Southern Europe has never recovered, scientifically speaking. While the list was effective in enforcing social control by the existing power elites, as far as promoting the advancement of knowledge it was a self inflicted bullet in the foot.
Fortunately, we're so much wiser today ...
An astonishing paper has just been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the premier journal of the premier American Science organization. It's a list. Of climate skeptics.
Of course, it's nothing so vulgar as a simple list of who to ignore. It's slightly - but only slightly - more subtle than that:
The analysis of climate scientists claims the "vast majority" of climate change researchers agree on the issue, and that those who oppose the consensus are "not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers".So skeptics are lousy scientists, right? Not so fast:
Most hilarious is the response from Roger Pielke, Jr, concerning the scientific credentials of his father, who was surprised to find himself on the list of skeptics:
Opponents said that the paper divided scientists into artificial groups and did not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists.
They also pointed out that climate sceptics often struggled to get their papers accepted by journals, as they must first be reviewed and approved by climate change "believers".
Judith Curry, a climate expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology – who was not part of the analysis – called the study "completely unconvincing" while John Christy of University of Alabama claimed he and other climate sceptics included in the survey were simply "being blacklisted" by colleagues.
Back to the world's most accomplished "climate skeptic." That would be my father who not only tops the black list but also would be near the top of the list of acceptable scientists based on his credentials, had he been placed there. What sort of views does my father hold that would qualify him to lead the "climate skeptics" list?So just how degenerate is the "Climate Science" community? So much so that the flagship publication of the premier American scientific organization is discussing not scientific arguments, but credentials and opinions. And offering guidance to keep the weak-minded safe from the temptations of heretical views.
I was copied on his reply to a reporter today and can quote from that. He provides this rather ambiguous statement:I am not a "climate skeptic".Note to Dad, there is no better evidence of your denier credentials than denying that you are a denier.
The Index killed southern European science, by proscribing views dangerous to the Faith. The National Academy of Sciences is heading down the exact same path. Sic transit Gloria Mundi.