Here’s something you can show your friends and neighbors, to help them tell a genuine “Global Warming Experts” list from a fraudulent one.
Go to Google Scholar Advanced Search, select “articles since 2003” (as a group, “top scientists” will be recently-publishing scientists), select just “Return only articles in Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science”, and, one at a time, enter, say, 20 consecutive names from the list in the “author” field, and search.
See how many articles they’ve written, which of them are actually about climate science, and how many times these articles have been cited by other scientists.
Then try the same thing, using the names of, say, the contributors to RealClimate.org – and note the difference.
This technique is “noisy”, it’s far from perfect on any single search (e.g. for someone whose expertise is biological, no articles will show up at all), but in the aggregate it’s revealing.
And you don’t even have to do the eyeballing by hand.
I wrote a Greasemonkey script (very crude, there must be better ones) to grab and condense a single Google Scholar search’s “#citations” statistics, and ran it on searches of RealClimate’s contributors, of Climate Central‘s Senior Research Scientists, and of names “A” through “F” of Heartland’s “Global Warming Experts“.
I specified articles from 2003 on, and searched only for “Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science”.
Here are the results, with a few comments. I’m just using initials, since the goal is to distinguish between the groups, not the individuals.
TG: 8 totalcites / 2 papers cited = 4 cites/paper
RB: 22 totalcites / 3 papers cited = 7.3 cites/paper
WC: 54 totalcites / 6 papers cited = 9 cites/paper
DA: 233 totalcites / 17 papers cited = 13.7 cites/paper
ES: 140 totalcites / 10 papers cited = 14 cites/paper
RP: 129 totalcites / 8 papers cited = 16.1 cites/paper
GS: 558 totalcites / 26 papers cited = 21.5 cites/paper
SR: 258 totalcites / 11 papers cited = 23.5 cites/paper
MM: 773 totalcites / 26 papers cited = 29.7 cites/paper
RB: 54 totalcites / 1 papers cited = 54 cites/paper
Climate Central’s Senior Research Scientists:
HC: 6 totalcites / 1 papers cited = 6 cites/paper
EL: 13 totalcites / 2 papers cited = 6.5 cites/paper
PD: 35 totalcites / 3 papers cited = 11.7 cites/paper
BM: 152 totalcites / 6 papers cited = 25.3 cites/paper
1 (TK) had 0 papers in Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science
(but in chemistry, had 98 totalcites / 4 papers cited = 24.5 cites/paper)
Then there are Heartland’s Global Warming Experts:
IC: 1 totalcites / 1 papers cited = 1 cites/paper
DA: 2 totalcites / 1 papers cited = 2 cites/paper
WB: 4 totalcites / 2 papers cited = 2 cites/paper
RC: 8 totalcites / 4 papers cited = 2 cites/paper
CE: 5 totalcites / 2 papers cited = 2.5 cites/paper
RB: 21 totalcites / 7 papers cited = 3 cites/paper
DA: 4 totalcites / 1 papers cited = 4 cites/paper
SB: 52 totalcites / 8 papers cited = 6.5 cites/paper
DD: 53 totalcites / 6 papers cited = 8.8 cites/paper
JC: 82 totalcites / 9 papers cited = 9.1 cites/paper
MF: 51 totalcites / 5 papers cited = 10.2 cites/paper
SIA: 26 totalcites / 2 papers cited = 13 cites/paper (not a climatologist, by his own admission)…and *25* “Global Warming Experts” with either *no* papers in Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science, or none that were ever cited: BA, JSA, TB, JB, ECB, DB, SBC, DB, ASB, RB, HSB, RC, JC, PC, KC, JC, IC, RC, RC, RC, CF, PD, FD, ME, ME, RE.
Moral of the story: anti-regulation “think tanks” might not be the best place to go for accurate information about scientists, and by extension, about science.
Caveats: this was sloppily done, by a tired person, and may have flaws beyond the methodological – e.g. I had somehow left Heartland “Global Warming Expert”/U.C. Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames (Update: who agrees he is not a Global Warming Expert and has asked Heartland’s Joseph Bast to remove his name) off the list; so don’t take each data point as gospel, and please feel free to replicate this experiment and waste as much time as I did.