Alarmists attack WSJ op-ed authors

“The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness.”

Skeptical Science writes,

As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also climate “skeptics” have published an opinion-editorial (op-ed), trying to make the case against taking action to address climate change. As usual, the article is little more than a regurgitation of a number of climate myths we have debunked at Skeptical Science.

The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them “luminaries” and “prominent scientists”, the list is actually quite underwhelming. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Nearly half of the list (at least 7 of 16) have received fossil fuel industry funding, and the list also includes an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days?…

Note that Skeptical Science defended Al Gore against criticism over his movie as follows:

Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task.

Read Skeptical Science’s entire screed.

Read the Wall Street Journal op-ed.

8 thoughts on “Alarmists attack WSJ op-ed authors”

  1. All of these people are continulally distracting from our nearly 100% consensus. This sounds self-contradictory.

  2. To my knowledge, these AGW types have NEVER stated what is the optimum temperature for the Earth.

    Since they do not know where they are going, it’s not likely they know where we are at!

  3. The climate hysterics are attempting to meld a social agenda with some dubious scientific studies in order to use technology (or its demise) to alleviate a problem of uncertain origin and debatable effects. To date we see more and more evidence that current climate change is well within natural variation if we draw our conclusions from observational data rather than computer models.

  4. Climate alarmism is junk science. When all is said and done, some of these folks will be imprisoned for fraud. I am sure of it.

  5. Gary, don’t be so sure. More and more scientists are quietly backing away from their earlier statements and will plead that the science wasn’t adequate to decide at the time. There will no real pressure from the public to hold these people accountable and so few, if any, will be taken to court for fraud. It is only people like Cuccinelli in the States who are looking at fraud and then only at one person, Michael Mann.

  6. An attack written by dana1981 who – among other things – is a scientologist.

    Like CAGW, that is also a belief founded on science. So not only does he believe that our climate sins will make this planet another Venus, but also that if he will gain enough levels he will be taken onto a distant planet in a UFO arriving behind a comet. Scientific stuff, you know.

  7. When reading all the “rebuttal” all that is shown is a lot of inconsistencies where the attitude is “heads we win, tail you lose” any assumption is assumed the the favor of the warming alarmists.

Comments are closed.