Earl Evleth wrote:


I don't find sufficient information to judge Easterbrook's standing
on the global warming issue. But the evidence is not there that he
has a particular impact.

Easterbrook's career spans 45 years (from 1963 to present). In that time,
his h-index (measure of scientific productivity) is 12. Scientists of
average productivity should see their h-index rise one unit for each year
in their career (therefore, his should be around 45!). Easterbrook's
average increase in h-index is 0.27, or about 1/4 what it should be. (The
average increase in h-index for the scientists at realclimate.org (IPCC
supporters) is 1.5, the average h-index increase for Worldclimatereport
(Skeptics) is 0.56) (All numbers taken from ISI Web of Science.) The cold
hard numbers do not lie.

Bottom line: Easterbrook, like nearly all professional climate skeptics,
is a scientist of marginal impact and relatively minor standing. The only
reason he gets "airtime" is because he is a climate skeptic.

Discussion of the h-index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number

--
Bill Asher