Skip to main content

Climate Depot is trumpeting a NewsBusters blog post that attempts to debunk the most recent consensus study finding there is 90% consensus about human-caused climate change among scienitsts who have published more than 10 peer-reviewed papers on climate.

In the post, Marc Morano (former Inhofe spokesman and prolific denier who runs Climate Depot) is quoted saying he has a list of 1,000 scientists who dissent from the consensus, which is supposed to rebut the peer-reviewed survey. Morano claims the consensus study only shows "it is easier to get papers published if they support the narrative of man-made global warming." Well yes Marc, that's true. Because it's hard to get something published that's incorrect.

That seems to be the substance of the "debunking," because the rest of the post is just about how the media has used the 97% consensus in the past to say there's no longer any debate. It then goes on to cite a number of studies finding a similarly high level of consensus, followed by rebuttals that are as flimsy and empty as you would expect. For example, the post says that even some skeptics are included in the consensus, which the author portrays as a reason not to believe it, instead of a reason to think, "Hey, if even the 'skeptics' agree, then there really must be a consensus!"

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the whole "list of scientists who support me" (9+ / 0-)

    is a funny idea that the crackpots seem to have fallen in love with.  Its use stretches all the way back to the Nazis, who published a book titled "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" (the Nazis rejected relativity theory because it was "Jewish"). Most famously, the tactic was used by the Discovery Institute (the promoters of "intelligent design theory"), who had a list of "scientists against evolution". I'm mildly surprised that the leftwing crackpots haven't published a list of "scientists against GMOs" or "scientists against vaccines".

    In response to these "lists", anti-creationists produced "Project Steve", a list of ONLY people named "Steve" who have degrees in scientists and who think creationism is full of shit--and their list is longer.

    But the best response of all still goes to Einstein, who simply replied, "If my theory were really wrong, just one author would suffice."

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:36:33 AM PDT

  •  the "we can't get published because we reject the (8+ / 0-)

    mainstream narrative boo hoo hoo !!!" is also a standard whine from the crackpots, found in everything from ESP fans to anti-vaxers. It's mostly an excuse for why they never present any evidence or data.

    PS--I hear the flat-earthers have a hard time getting published too.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:39:50 AM PDT

  •  It's a problem for the solipsists as well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    And they have a problem finding others to endorse their position. :-)

  •  Actually, scientists like Lindzen and Spencer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    get published. It's just that their papers get thoroughly refuted. If you search the web you can find a whinathon from Lindzen about how he couldn't get one of his papers published in the US. It was a rehash of an earlier paper which had been soundly thrashed in the journal papers by other authors.
       Recently, the denialsphere was screeching about "censorship" because a noted meteorologist (Lennart Bengstsson) who had gone to work for the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation, had his paper rejected by a journal. In response to the media attacks, the journal took the unusual step of publishing the reviewers notes, which were devastating. One reviewer noted that Bengtsson et al had used the wrong equation for a common calculation.

       The denialists have a procedure: A "skeptic" paper is published that appears to undermine some accepted portion of AGW research. The paper is hailed by the denialist media as "the final nail in the coffin of global warming." The paper is then systematically demolished by other scientists using better methodology and datasets. Then the "skeptic" scientist becomes a martyr to the cause - a veritable Galileo persecuted by the church of global warming.

Click here for the mobile view of the site