For example, if 20 % of
contrarian climate scientists reported frequent media attention, a fair and balanced media would also give frequent coverage to 20 % of mainstream climate scientists.
It is unclear to whom Watts refers here, since the
few contrarian climate scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen have been trotted out before US Congress virtually every time a congressional committee has held a climate hearing.
This is yet another fact understood by climate scientists 50 years ago that some contrarians, including a few favorite
contrarian climate scientists like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry, continue to cast doubt upon to this day.
So are
contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science?
But painting this as the «normal», opinion - based sort of consensus is a good denial tactic, as is highlighting the views of the very
few contrarian climate scientists (who are in the same boat as the people who authored negative trials on aspirin, if there are any - they're destined for the dustbin of science history.)
«The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious,» said the statement, attributed to three
contrarian climate scientists: Richard S. Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger.