“Ive published several papers and been a reviewer for several conferences.”
Congratulations. Join the club. Then you above all should understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and something someone just throws up on the Web. The latter COULD be brilliant, but if so, why not get it into a peer-reviewed journal where it will be taken more seriously?
My point was that he’s not blacklisted. Your point is something else.
He needs to propose his paper to journals that are interested. If he were truly blacklisted, he could just post it on the web. I’m sure in today’s environment if a scientist were truly blacklisted, he’d become an overnight celebrity.
Did you read the post this past week that made to both Anthony Waats’s site and Spencer’s site that misinterpreted Kirchhoff’s law then said that there could be no such thing as global warming? Even that dumb paper became famous.
Again, he’s not blacklisted.
This applies both to lay people and to scientists who disagree with AGW, who are not in climatology as a specialty; and also to scientists in meteorology / climatology, who are not spouting the party line.
argumentum ad hominem is not logically valid, but it *is* effective *cough* Alinsky *cough*
The left specializes in this -- think Carl Sagan and the use of his "nuclear winter" idea to promote unilateral disarmament by the US.
In the meantime, in the US, we need to capture the hearts and minds of the man in the street.
And the Climategate emails ("the dog ate my data") is a great place to start, as most people remember from high school or college that you can't just hand in a lab without the original measurements and say "trust me".