Expert credibility in climate change — PNAS

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
...
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Why don't we trust climate [hoax] scientists? | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

...the central idea seems to be that the more a scientist gets their work published and cited in "climate-relevant publications", the more credibility they should be accorded as an "expert" in that field.
...
One other interesting nugget from the study: "From the ~60% of researchers where year of PhD. was available, mean year of receiving a PhD. for UE [unconvinced by the evidence] researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE [convinced by the evidence] researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age-effect alone."

The study shows, however, that this is not the case. It's been noted before, of course, that sceptical climate scientists tend to be approaching retirement age, or are, in fact, already retired. What does this tell us? That wisdom comes with age? Or is this evidence of "retired man syndrome"; when scientists who have already seen the best days of their career pass them by develop a contrarian view in an attempt to seek validation and court attention?

Twitter / John Kerry

No building a long term D majority w/o action on climate, young voters feel it intensely, good policy is good politics: http://bit.ly/bYjjDx