http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/ ~prall/ climate/ AR4wg1_authors_table.html

I’ve limited my review to just WG1 since they are the focus of the discussion of the science behind the greenhouse effect and of the range of different climate forcings and feedbacks, and of projecting how much earth can be expected to warm.

I found homepages for 584 of the 619. While the ‘inactivists’ like to argue that the ‘consensus is crumbling’ and such, the only one of the 619 to have resigned from the IPCC is Chris Landsea, over differences on projecting changes in hurricane severity.
The IPCC Assessment Reports have grown more decisive and forceful on the strength of the scientific basis and the evident urgency of reducing GHG emissions. Thus inactivists need to try to minimize the significance of the Assessments. This is difficult, as the reports draw on top climate scientists from around the world (over 300 have 50 or more citations to their *fourth* most cited paper) and the reports have been reviewed and reaffirmed by all the top academies of science around the world.

To address the objection that IPCC reports might conceal widespread dissent among the authors, with the skeptics having been somehow squelched, silenced, bullied or whatever, I’ve also compared how many IPCC authors have signed public declarations or open letters outside of the IPCC; I’ve reviewed ten such declarations, both skeptical and ‘activist’ (calling for prompt GHG cuts), starting from the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. Notes on the declarations are included on my main page and the longer list of over 2000 names going beyond the IPCC.

If you look at my list of IPCC wg1 authors, you’ll see that 157 signed the activist declarations that I’ve checked up to now; NONE have signed any of the skeptics’ declarations. John Christy appeared in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle and is widely cited as a ‘climate skeptic’ over his views on satellite temperature records. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in Germany was profiled in Lawrence Solomon’s column and resulting book entitled “The Deniers” for his view that solar variability explains significantly more of 20th century temperature variation than is allowed by the majority or ‘consensus’ view.

Both Christy’s and Solanki’s works are covered in the Assessments, so it’s hard to support any claim that they’ve been silenced. There were more people on the IPCC holding different views from theirs, and the range of opinions were taken into account in the Assessments.

Moving to my longer list of names, where I’ve collected citation stats for almost 1300 authors, the signers of the skeptics’ declarations are skewed toward the bottom of the ranking by frequency of citation.

By contrast, of the top 500 most cited authors in the larger list, just 18 (3.6%) have signed any climate skeptic declaration, while 179 (36%) — nearly ten times as many — have signed an ‘activist’ statement (aside from the IPCC reports themselves.) Here’s a link to the longer list:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/ ~prall/ climate/ AR4wg1_authors_table.html

While you’re at it, cross-check the UN IPCC list of 2,500 experts.
I’d love to see what you find there.

Dash

I’ve skipped over the Oregon Petition as utterly unusable, as it omits any info on institutional affiliation, and random sampling of names yields very, very few who have published anything at all remotely relevant to climate science. I’m forced to view the Oregon Petition as simply being from the general public. Compare its 31K names to the 2.6 MILLION who’ve signed statements supporting greenhouse gas reductions – all linked on my “petitions” page.

The Heidelberg Appeal was not about climate change. Also it makes claims that are hard to disagree with in literal terms, but easy to misinterpret.

Marc Morano’s various lists done for Sen. Inhofe merely combine copies of other lists plus names he has quotemined arbitrarily, several of whom repudiate his claims (but never seem to get back off his list) so it’s not a reliable source for what those listed actually believe – it’s not a letter that people on the list actually signed (while some of the shorter lists actually are – see my discussion on my site.)
The other skeptics’ petitions such as the Manhattan Declaration are better documented. They were good enough to sort the names into a list of scientists (197, over 30% ‘former’, ‘retired’ or ‘emiritus’…) and I’ve incorporated the list of current scientist signers in my rankings.

This Hooterville Gazette page links to several smaller variant lists I haven’t cross-checked yet (more work for me, oh joy) but I suspect I’ll find a lot of overlap.

The URL of my site is linked from my name above; here’s another link for reference:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate

She is a member of the Senior Executive Service. As such she has preferment for any position for which she is otherwsie qualified.

But I’ll assume Dash is legit and point out that there is a consensus about evolution, but there are a handful of scientists, including even some biologists who have devoted their lives to studying DNA, who insist that Intelligent Design must be true.

Their decisions aren’t based on science even though they are scientists.

It is the same with Global Warming.

Joe has a good article on conservative commentators who deny Global Warming, suggesting that because the only solution to the problem is massive government programs (something that they hate) they make themselves deny Global Warming. [I think I'm paraphrasing correctly.]

Others of course just like attacking liberals or environmentalists and can’t bring themselves to change.

To be honest I don’t really understand the denial movement.

But I must ask: I learned in grade school about how green house gasses keep Earth much warming then if it had no atmosphere. Dash, Didn’t you learn that too?

Here are just a few of the scientist who disagree:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

If not, as an SCS she can be reassigned on a whim. I say she should be counting fish scales in Duluth.