Actual Scientists Respond to Fake Scientists at Wall Street Journal

It starts like this:

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...

... and gets even better. Go read it!

More like this

Over the last few weeks, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the Blogosphere about certain global warming related issues. Denialists have come on strong with two major and widely disseminated distortions of scientific reports and consensus, and scientists and those interested in saving the…
Via Ed I see that Christopher Monckton, the fake expert in climate change who has been repeatedly told by Parliament to stop calling himself an Member of the House of Lords,, claims he's the inventor of a magical disease cure of HIV, MS, flu and the common cold, and recently a birther, has now…
I'm on my way to a taping of the Humanist Views with Host Scott Lohman. I do these now and then and have done so since I first moved to Minnesota back when it was still cold here. We'll be talking about science knowledge, and why basic science knowledge is important. We'll also be talking about…
... or Climate Noobs Bork Climate-science? ... or Can't News Be Correct? (add your own below) The thing is, CNBC, which is supposed to be a news station, is fueling public misunderstanding of climate science. This is bad journalism, and virtually criminal given the importance of climate change and…

Nice. I hadn't realized the WSJ actually published the letter.

By Daniel J. Andrews (not verified) on 01 Feb 2012 #permalink

Do Denialists believe that authors will never read what they are quoted as saying? Trenberth noted how he was misrepresented, and how other experts are aware of how he was misrepresented. Unfortunately, these corrections do not always make it to the same audience that hears the misrepresentation.