http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Climate-Change-Infographic1.pdf

Not only was Laughlin being gormlessly literal-minded (aka ‘dumb’) with his simplistic ‘Don’t have to Save the Planet’ claim, but also he was being visibly self-contradictory – though whether gullibly or disingenuously so is left as an exercise for the reader.

And further, the contradiction was in his admission that not only is climate forced by long term drivers, but also it can be forced by short term drivers. Not only that, but also these different categories of drivers are not mutually exclusive.

As fine an example of epistemic closure as one could wish to see in a day’s reading. But don’t feel too bad about not picking up on his self-contradiction; it’s really hard when someone is being that thick to keep diligently foraging through the pigshit in the hope of finding a pearl or two somewhere.

That is a large part of what the paper is about: pointing that while the denialists are making up lists of their own in order to create the appearance that the scientific community is divided, in fact those lists help to demonstrate just how united the scientific community is. And when those lists are used to create the appearance that the experts are divided the paper uses the lists to demonstrate the reality that virtually all of the actual experts are greatly united behind the consensus.

It takes the illusion that they have created and uses it to illuminate the reality they seek to hide and thereby shows both the illusion and those who worked to create it for what they are.
*
At a certain level this is exactly what I see your post as doing in highlighting the hypocrisy of their use of the term “black list.” That the use of lists, even if they were identical lists would be OK only so long as they are the ones that are doing it. And further, that the paper itself did not make any of the names public. That was something done by the themselves — seemingly to themselves.

Now of course part of what what would appear to motivate them in calling it a blacklist is that with such spin that they might turn the paper to their advantage. Once again they can claim that they are being persecuted. They can claim that given such extreme persecution many scientists simply don’t speak out because of the potential consequences — whatever those might be.

And instead of letting the conversation regarding the paper revolve around what it actually says about how united the scientific community and what that suggests about the evidence they can distract audiences with their allusions to presumed persecution. But I think there is a deeper reason.

Essentially, they don’t what serious studies done of how united or divided the community is. They want to make that a kind of third rail for those who wish to demonstrate just how united the scientific community is behind the mainstream consensus view. They want to make this sort of thing taboo so that they can continue to claim without serious challenge that great division exists.

They’re defense attorneys, using the best cards they can come up with.