A brief on the canard that warmists are more credible because they have out-published skeptics

Warmist Greg Laden offers this graphic to marginalize confidence in climate skeptics:


Without quibbling about precise numbers, why has comparatively little research been published by skeptics?

1. No government funding. With few exceptions (Spencer and Christy come to mind), the federal government (the overwhelmingly largest funder of climate research) doesn’t fund skeptics. But it has funded warmism to the tune of tens of billions of dollars since at least the Clinton administration. Without money and access to expensive data and instruments, original climate research is nearly impossible.

2. Journal bias. Many (most? virtually all?) relevant journals refuse to publish skeptics — even letters to the editor. Indeed the publishers of these journals (like the NAS, AAAS and Nature publishing) are highly partisan when it comes to climate research.

3. Warmist-enforced journal bias. As discussed here, journals are policed by warmists such as Michael Mann to make sure that skeptics aren’t published. Those that dare to publish skeptics are targeted and punished.

4.Being a skeptic is a career damaging. If you want to end your career as a climate researcher, announce your skepticism. This is most likely the case because of #1. If the only significant funder of climate research favors warmism, then that’s what you do (or at least your institution will, with or without you). Consider how Penn State was willing to degrade itself to keep its cash cow (Michael Mann).

Why doesn’t it matter that skeptics have published many fewer papers?

Just like you don’t need to be Steven Spielberg to figure out whether a movie is any good, you don’t need to be a professional climate researcher to figure out that, say, the hockey stick is hokey. As long as science is not a black box (which is what Mann’s hokey stick was until McIntyre and McKitrick began their work), it can be evaluated.

6 thoughts on “A brief on the canard that warmists are more credible because they have out-published skeptics”

  1. An excerpt from an E-mail from Phil Jones to MIchael Mann:
    “The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is!”
    Google up “John Costella” and “The Climategate E-mails” if you wish to read more.

  2. Laden is engaged in religion, not science. Science welcomes other views. That other views haven’t been published is an embarrassment to science, not proof of a theory.

  3. “Just like you don’t need to be a pilot to figure out that a plane is being flown badly”, you don’t need to be a professional climate researcher to figure out that, say, the hockey stick is hokey

  4. The warmists can’t argue on strength and accuracy of their theory to predict before the fact, so they need to prove their worth by making their consensus seem overwhelming. The warmists are always at the big money trough and control the flow while accusing skeptics being on the take from big whatever. The skeptics always are quick to point out that they are not on the take from big evil. Interesting game with the skeptics never being on the attack like the warmists. One group has much better PR. Maybe its time the skeptics tried the same tactics. I’m sort of reminded by a Smothers Brothers piece “Mom always liked you best”

  5. I think that graph is very enlightening they have overwhelming money and support from government, journals, press and the academia and they are still getting their a$$ kicked. Very enlightening indeed.

Comments are closed.