Well, the emphasis was on "leading" -- any researcher "conducts research, analyzes data, publishes papers, also has experience in ...". Also, how do you know that the research conducted by the said researcher is not bogus? Wikipedia?
In application to GW -- say, a researcher A says that it exists, while the researcher B says it does not -- who would you believe?
I'm actually interested in that question in general -- for example, there was (is) a guy named Walter Wagner who said that LHC would create black holes that will end life on Earth... and I say "no" -- who would you believe?

the problem HAS been (and it's becoming even more obvious) the GW crowd has been trying to discredit people with opposing views and preventing them from making THEIR views known (by stopping them from publishing their findings in respected publications..
many scientists who don't subscribe to their model of GW have been complaining of being marginalized and ostracized in the scientific community...this is crazy..I want an honest debate among scientists..

Aleksey, on LHC i believe there is a non-zero probability of creation of black holes that would start consuming matter around it. At least that was my understanding..
As of leading scientist - i believe a definition would fit someone who publishes a lot of stuff on the subject in peer-reviewed magazines... i am not sure what's the definition of "a lot".

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

Ok, but what if researcher A and researcher B both publish a lot in research journals? Who would you believe?
I understand that many would not care about a discussion of black hole production at the LHC (or Rezus-monkey mating patterns) -- but this question has some relevance for GW discussion.
BTW, I'm happy to defend my point of view regarding black holes at the LHC and the end of times associated with that.

Aleksey, u don't believe nobody, you put them in a cage and have them fight it out.. i mean it's obvious

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

Regarding the honest debate -- how does it suppose to go? Normally, people do research and publish their result in scientific papers. Or not publish -- if the results do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is called "peer review" -- and it is part of honest scientific debate. There are also conferences, where people report their results.
It is usually considered a bad taste to go to press when your papers are rejected from the professional journals. Well, maybe not in GW discussion. But there are many crackpots (at least in my field) that send their papers to the professional journals. I deal with that as a reviewer and as an editor. In many cases, those people say that "scientists want to suppress new ideas" -- and in all cases their "theories" don't hold up because of elementary mistakes!

Mike, I think you are on to something! Darwinian solution! Oh, wait a minute... :-)

This healthy skepticism is applicable to science and scientific discoveries in general, as it should be. So based just on such skepticism and history of scientific discoveries and how frequently many scientists were wrong with their "sure thing" findings it is preposterous to claim that GW caused by humans is "a settled science" as the inventor of the Internet claims.
Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was challenged and not conclusively proven for over 15 years - from when he first proposed it in 1908 until 1922, when examination of total Solar Eclipse proved that gravity manifests itself through curvature of timespace.

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed climate journals are compromised now. They do not have the authority anymore to say who is leading researcher and who is not. They crewed themselves up.
So, not publishing there does not make a skeptic scientist's research less valid.
The non-political scientists keep working on the climate research and they reached the conclusion that it is NATURAL and is not related to MAN activity on Earth.
The issue here is the politics of taxation in the name of saving the Earth. If man is not responsible for the climate change -there will be no excuse to tax people.
What's not clear here?
The EPA ruling that CO2 is toxic -это такой маразм, что просто слов нет.
I'm sure when the political power moves to the other side, the CO2 will become what it should be - an indispensible ingridient of life.
We can regulate some tetrafluorodiethylpolyvinylbnezoyl because it's not natural, but we should not mess with CO2.

they reached the conclusion
THEY did? When will the lunacy stop? There is not definitive conclusion right now and it's not even possible with a current state of technology. There is not one serious researcher that denies that fact that men have had an affect on our climate, the question is only how much.. Is it .05C different or 2C difference.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу