In a devastating critique, the Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast and NASA's Roy Spencer laid out the false assumptions and statistical sleights-of-hand used by global warming advocates.
The duo's diplomatically stated conclusion is "the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."
That's old news
But it's important to understand that most of what Bast/Spencer report has been common knowledge on the right side of the blogosphere for years.
That's an indictment of the mainstream media, not Bast/Spencer, who likely would not have felt compelled to write the op-ed had journalists been doing their jobs honestly in reporting on global warming.
Weathermen are split
Meteorologist Anthony Watts, for example, researches and writes the Watts Up With That blog. Watts has been tirelessly documenting global warming myths and frauds for years.
Watt reported in August 2013 on a survey by the American Meteorological Society of its members. Turns out the AMS members are evenly split on the issue of whether humans cause dangerous global warming.
The survey found 52 percent of AMS members think people are causing dangerous global warming, while 48 percent of them do not.
"The inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are 'mostly' the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The rest will probably get smeared as 'deniers,'" Watts wrote.
Here's a test
As it happens, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas is holding a hearing Thursday on the reliability, or lack thereof, of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Washington Examiner columnist Ron Arnold makes clear in his column today, the hearing will have experts who are critical of the IPCC and who are supportive of its work.
Check Friday's editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets. Odds are they will either ignore the hearing completely or report only on evidence presented that supports the false consensus of the 97 percent.
On today's washingtonexaminer.com
Columnist/Ron Arnold: House panel takes hard look at U.N. climate report process.
Columnist/Gene Healy: Obama welcomes terror debate as means of avoiding it.
Columnist/Sean Higgins: Bringing the immigration debate into your living room.
Columnist/Timothy P. Carney: A historian who understood why Big Business wanted regulation.
Columnist/Noemie Emery: Dems approach on civil rights has crashed through the looking glass.
Beltway Confidential/Kevin Daley: Supreme Court gives Secret Service qualified immunity when protecting the president.
PennAve/Zack Colman: Obama's EPA using power-plant rule to backdoor cap-and-trade.
Legal Newsline/David Yates: RNC sues, claiming political parties should have same fund-raising rights as PACs.
In other news
USA Today: Obama to defend his foreign policy.
Time Magazine: Iraq vet killed by KC cops was turned away by VA.
The American Spectator: Obama and the fourth branch of government.
The Daily Caller: EPA unilaterally pushing cap-and-trade.
Washington Free Beacon: China moves three nuke subs to South China Sea base.
The Federalist: Why "Survivor" is the most morally contemptible show on television.
The Daily Beast: Obama is betting it all on Afghan special forces.
UTNE Reader: How I met Edward Snowden.
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hillary Clinton's secret weapon is stupid Republicans, of course.
Progressives Today: University got millions in federal money to develop climate-change game.
Talking Points Memo: Toughest questions Dems should have to answer on Obamacare.
Democratic Strategist: Nathan Deal trails Jason Carter in Georgia governor race.
In These Times: Would Bernie Sanders be the people's president?