Global-warming alarmists continually refer to a “scientific consensus” to support drastic policy proposals. They insist on peer-reviewed publications as the standard for debate, while ignoring that standard when the standard will not support their hysterical claims. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report had notable examples, such as Amazongate (where rain-forest sensitivity to small changes in rainfall were well publicized, but were based on a blog post from an activist website); and the widely hyped, but wildly unscientific, claims of the imminent demise of Himalayan glaciers. The federal government also publishes a climate assessment report. Patrick Michaels of Cato and Harold Doiron of the Right Climate Stuff team have analyzed the draft of the most recent National Climate Assessment and found its scientific rigor to be wanting.
More About the Speakers
Patrick Michaels, Ph.D.
Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, and author of Climate Coup, Climate of Extremes, and Meltdown
Harold Doiron, Ph.D.
Retired NASA Physicist and Engineer, and Member, The Right Climate Stuff Team
With Comments by
Harlan Watson, Ph.D.
Former Ambassador and Special Envoy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow, Energy Economics and Climate Change