A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal published an anti-climate change op-ed signed by 16 scientists. None of the authors are climate scientists, nor do peer review research in the field.
No matter, it got published anyway. And shortly after the piece was published, real climate scientists came out off the woodwork to condemn the WSJ and the so-called scientists that wrote it. Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes has been tracking the pushback, here.
I’m happy to say that the WSJ published a rebuttal from real climate scientists and researchers, and it is epic. A taste:
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.