==Lee Gerhard== 
 In the discussion on currentness of research, Lee Gerhard's name came up as one who might be excluded. Kim Peterson linked to a google scholar search that shows recent publications. I've looked a bit closer at these. To sum up: all his journal papers have been in AAPG Journal (American Association of Petroleum Geologists). His geo papers span 1971-82. His recent writings in the same journal have all been on arguing against Kyoto and minimizing GHGs as drivers vs. solar.  

 Here's a link to a search on the AAPG journal site showing his writings: 
 http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/search?field_name=fulltext&field;_value=&andorexacttitle;=and&author1;=gerhard&fmonth;=Mar&fyear;=1921&tmonth;=Mar&tyear;=2007&RESULTFORMAT;=1&hits;=10&sortspec;=relevance&sendit;=Search 
 His geo writings are both long ago and not related to climate (they're about finding oil, as that's the area of science this journal covers.) His recent writings don't appear to be original research on climate so much as commentary. He's definitely a skeptic, but if we were sticking to people who publish on the science of climate, I'd have trouble justifying his inclusion.  

 I read through the powerpoint linked by his entry, and he assembles lots of charts from other people's research with his own read on what they mean. Slide 23 uses a pie chart I recognize from a quite dodgy skeptic site I recently looked into, which had very fishy numbers claiming that two-thirds of the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to today's 380ppm was natural, not anthropogenic. That's just nuts of course, but it underlies the 0.28% anthropogenic share of GHEffect the pie chart claims. (95% water vapour, 4.72% volcanoes, ocean life and animals) 

 Anyway, I feel Gerhard is pretty borderline. He's still publishing, but not from direct research of his own; he's just putting up other people's graphs and discussing how he reads them.