How can you tell who is a real scientist in the public debate? Scientists do research to find out new things, and document results in peer-reviewed journals. Relevant results are cited in other research articles, and this gets documented in data bases like Web of Science. 1/🧵 
My example graph shows some climate scientists who are prominent in public debate, e.g. on Twitter. My point is not ranking or exact numbers, just the fact that the work of experienced climate scientists tends to have been cited thousands of times in other research articles. 2/🧵
At the bottom are two prominent characters who are not distinguished by scientific achievements. They appear in Web of Science mostly as this database covers some non-peer-reviewed articles from New Scientist, Foreign Affairs or Scientific American. realclimate.org/index.php/arch… 3/🧵
It's your choice whom you rather trust on whether global warming makes tropical storms stronger, wildfires more severe or heat and rainfall extremes more common. The scientists studying these issues? Or some contrarians trying to tell you stories you might like to hear? 4/end.
After posting I saw that one of the real scientists on my chart has published an excellent and thorough review of the current book of one of the non-scientists. https://t.co/ITZfNPFMx2
Added comment: isn’t it ironic that Shellenberger (6 science citations) recently called me (14,605 science citations) a “pseudo-scientist” here on Twitter? Name-calling is not an argument, not even an ad-hominem one.
