“Discrepancies in
scientific authority
and media visibility
of climate change
scientists and contrarians",
was published recently
in the journal Nature
Communications.
Study authors,
want editors
and journalists
to blacklist
“climate change
contrarians.”
The study claims
“expert scientists”
beat
“prominent skeptics”
in
“scientific authority”
(which they define as
the number of publications
and citations in the
peer reviewed literature).
But they claim that
skeptics beat scientists
in the number of quotations
and mentions in digital and
print mass media.
Skeptics’ media coverage
is “disproportionate”
to their numbers and
their “scientific authority.”
This is a leftist study,
so you can be sure
it is biased and bogus.
Truth is not a leftist value.
The study contends that
224 contrarian scientists
who publish in
peer-reviewed journals have
disproportionate coverage
in the mainstream media,
compared to the top
224 mainstream scientistsm
who have many more
publications and citations
in the peer-reviewed literature.
The study fails
to distinguish
between positive
media reports,
where the authors
assume everything
said by "favored"
scientists is the truth,
and negative
media reports
slamming scientists
with contrary opinions.
At least the study concedes
media coverage may include
a high number of negative
"hits" on skeptics.
Mainstream climate scientists
sound like trained parrots --
the climate “crisis” is always
“worse than we thought.”
Journalists who are
looking for something new
must talk to skeptics.
Skeptics have a higher ratio
of media mentions per
number of publications and
citations in science journals,
partly due to the journals
refusing to publish any
of their climate studies
that refute
of their climate studies
that refute
the "CO2 is Evil"
near religious belief of
"mainstream" scientists.
Nearly all U.S.
climate change
research is funded
by federal agencies.
They hire and promote
researchers who toe the
CO2 is Evil "party line".
For federal research,
perceptions of a coming
“planetary emergency”
are a source of more job
security, higher budgets,
and more power.
University climate research
programs heavily depend
on federal funding.
So they hire and promote
researchers who toe the
CO2 is Evil "party line".
Those same researchers
supply most of the editors
and peer reviewers of
academic journals,
where they get to decide
which papers to publish,
and which to reject.
Making it harder to fund and
publish skeptical research,
reduces the number
of skeptical studies.
This study cites the lower
publication rates
of self-identified skeptics
as evidence of low
“scientific authority”,
and urges people
to ignore them.
and urges people
to ignore them.
But there is no
“well-funded
“well-funded
climate denial
machine.”,
as the study claims.
machine.”,
as the study claims.
The study also says
“professional
journalists
journalists
and editors”
can and should
“adjust the disproportionate
attention given to contrarians.”
Because
“uniform” and
“authoritative information
about the risks of inaction
is crucial for achieving
global action”
on climate change.
A chart in the study
names the top 100
“expert scientists”
but not the top
100 contrarians.
There is a cloud-based link
to a list of 386 contrarians
in rank order of their
media visibility.
The implicit advice
to editors and
journalists about
climate skeptics
is:
climate skeptics
is:
(1)
'Don’t publish or interview
any of those people', and
(2)
Don’t even bother
refuting skeptics,
which just leaves
“the counterproductive
impression that there is something
substantial in contrarian arguments
to be debated.”
Ignoring an opponent
in a public controversy
does not refute him.
The authors of the
Nature Communications study
have no idea that when they
demand uniformity of opinion
in the name of science, they are
promoting climate science fascism.
WHY THIS STUDY IS BOGUS:
The study includes contrarians
who are:
-- politicians
(Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK),
former Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX),
former Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)),
-- hosts of popular blogs
(Mark Marano, Anthony Watts),
-- journalists
(Mark Steyn, James Delingpole),
-- and best-selling authors
(Matt Ridley, Chris Horner),
... all of whom get
media access for reasons
other than scientific research.
But the “expert scientist” list
includes only scientists
with science degrees ...
while the many CO2 is Evil
messages in the media
coming from leftists,
such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
coming from leftists,
such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY),
Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc.
are completely ignored !