Imagine for a moment that climate change skeptics actually submitted their anti-science arguments for publication in a credible peer-reviewed journal. Now imagine that, after thorough examination and debunking by their peers, these skeptics finally admitted their many false claims and assumptions, and perhaps some or all moved on to contribute meaningfully to the vast body of science confirming manmade climate change?

Ok, back to reality.

Instead, the skeptics' greatest and most-often cited (by them) "peer-reviewed studies" appeared in the journal Climate Research between 1997-2003. This journal has been considered credible at certain points in its history, and many fine papers have appeared there.

But according to my new analysis [PDF] of the papers published in Climate Research, there is a very clear gap in credibility during the years 1997-2003 when Chris de Freitas served as one of the journal's editors. During this time, de Freitas oversaw the publication of 14 papers from notorious skeptics - half of them authored by fossil fuel industry pal Pat Michaels - many of which would not have survived rigorous and honest peer review at any other credible journal. 

A few months ago, another journal's editor resigned over a paper that should not have been accepted due to a poor peer review process. It reminded many of us of the more drastic case of Climate Research (CR), where several editors resigned in 2003 in the wake of a colossally poor paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, accepted for publication by none other than Chris de Freitas.

It was certainly not the first de Freitas-endorsed paper to pass weak editorial processes at Climate Research, but when incoming Editor-in-Chief Hans von Storch suggested the paper should not have been published, he endeavored to fix editorial processes to prevent such problems.  The publisher did not agree, so von Storch and other editors resigned.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ’900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on Populartechnology.net listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.

The Journal News out of Westchester recently did a story on Dr. Richard Lindzen who they claim "…hasn't conducted any research for oil or coal companies."

I guess it may be technically correct that Lindzen has never conducted "research" for oil and coal interests, but that of course would depend on how you define "research."

Here is what we do know about Lindzen's connections to the fossil fuel industry over the years:

When the Associated Press released its survey of climate scientists—virtually all of whom said "An Inconvenient Truth" faithfully portrayed climate science—an aide to skeptical Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a press release headlined "AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore's Movie."  Jim Motavalli—editor of "E/the Environmental Magazine"—dug into this exercise in disinformation to sort it all out. 

Okay, so we're just here with strong opinions or, through the links at the right, with evidence-based science. If you want "truth," you have to go to people with a religious conviction — or, apparently, to people with really big funding from the energy industry.

Can we suggest Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, whose latest Cato Institute - sponsored book is called Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming (which, we have to admit, is a terrific title).