“High Priests of Consensus Panic: The NYT’s Meltdown Over Scientific Skepticism”

[rangerrebew]

“High Priests of Consensus Panic: The NYT’s Meltdown Over Scientific Skepticism”
9 hours ago Guest Blogger 
Charles Rotter

The New York Times is at it again—clutching pearls and reaching for the fainting couch as the Trump administration dares to let a little oxygen into the musty, tightly sealed room of government climate “consensus.” If the tone of their latest lament, “Trump Hires Scientists Who Doubt the Consensus on Climate Change,” is any indication, you’d think the barbarians had just sacked Rome with nothing but peer-reviewed papers and calculators.


https://archive.is/g7lAZ
Right out of the gate, the Times wrings its hands over the shocking spectacle of scientists—yes, actual scientists—who “reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change” being allowed anywhere near the Energy Department. If you detect a note of moral panic, you’re not wrong. “The three scientists joined the administration after it dismissed hundreds of experts who were assessing how global warming is affecting the country,” they warn, as though these dismissed “experts” were the last line of defense against an onrushing climate apocalypse.

But let’s talk about these dangerous contrarians—and, for a moment, let’s try something radical: list their actual credentials.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/08/high-priests-of-consensus-panic-the-nyts-meltdown-over-scientific-skepticism/

[DefiantMassRINO]

Science is not a popularity contest.

[Smokin Joe]

They have denied the existence of dissenting scientists since the Petition Project http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php,  and went to great lengths to try to discredit and marginalize the Petition and its signatories. This, since 1997, claiming the signatories represented only 0.3% of science graduates in their respective fields. (The petition was in 1997, the grad pool compared to was from 1970-2015.) https://skepticalscience.com/oism-petition-project.htm
Ironically, this data was presented on a website that claims to be skeptical--not of the 'accepted science', but of the people who were skeptical of the emerging orthodoxy of Anthropogenic Global warming.

I am content to have been right then, and still be right today in my 'skepticism' that CO2 (human generated) is a significant factor in driving changes in climate, and I am one of those who signed the Oregon Petition, as it has come to be known. Despite claims to the contrary, we were vetted and had to produce our credentials before our signatures would be accepted.
Like you said, it isn't a popularity contest, it isn't a democratic process with the majority deciding what the natural processes around us are, it is just a question of being right.

Small wonder the NYT, which has been as active a proponent of Anthropogenic Climate Change (formerly known as 'global warming') as any of the MSM and other outlets for 'popular science', would be shocked to find people like me persist, and that we do so in greater numbers than the vocal proponents of Anthropogenic Climate Change would have any believe. So much for their 97% consensus, it just means that (however many actually buy in) that many are wrong.