http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7845662/Climate-change-sceptic-scientists-less-prominent-and-authoritative.html

Scientists who believe in man-made climate change are more esteemed than those who actively oppose the concept, according to a study.

The research, which claims scientists who blame man for global warming are more highly regarded than those who do not, has been criticised by opponents who question its methods.
The analysis of climate scientists claims the "vast majority" of climate change researchers agree on the issue, and that those who oppose the consensus are "not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers".
But experts said the paper divides scientists into artificial groups, does not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists, and is inherently biased due to the nature of the peer review process.
Judith Curry, a climate expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology – who was not part of the analysis – called the study "completely unconvincing" while John Christy of University of Alabama claimed he and other climate sceptics included in the survey were simply "being blacklisted" by colleagues.
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Scientists were grouped as "convinced" or "unconvinced", and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.
The results showed that "unconvinced" scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while "convinced" scientists also averaged more citations.
Opponents criticised the authors of the report for polarising all scientists into two distinct groups, rather than taking into account different shades of support for theories on climate change.
Roger Pielke Jr, of the University of Colorado, told sciencemag.org that some scientists were put into a group despite holding a more moderate viewpoint.
In one case a scientist who argued against immediate reductions to greenhouse gas emissions – a political rather than a scientific position – was categorised as "unconvinced", he said.
Critics also said the paper focuses solely on scientists who have made their position on climate change public – failing to consider those "unconvinced" scientists who choose not to speak out – and that the peer review process meant the consensus view was unfairly favoured.