The well named "PR Wire" reports Messrs Avery and Singer claim to have chalked up 500 contrarian papers "mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their [un-peer reviewed] book." authored if not from atmospheric scientists,at least by specialists in "tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics."
But there is still no sign of CEI weighing in in Nature's new Climate Feedback news blog, nor has a peep been heard from the 17,000 scientists who famously signed the 1987 Heidelberg petition rejecting global warming. How many of them read it remains as controversial as their bibliographies ,or lack thereof, but at least they all have a place to publish now:
"the newest online resource from Nature Publishing Group, is now accepting submissions in all areas of biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences. Nature Precedings is a free open access service that provides a way for researchers to share preliminary findings, solicit community feedback, and claim priority over discoveries.
Since many K Street climatology references turn out to be museum pieces , this venue shouldbe doubly attractive as Nature Precedings "submissions are screened by our professional curators for relevance and quality ...There is never a charge to submit or access material on Nature Precedings."
Mere demography suggests that if 17,000 adult scientists signed the petition a generation ago, by now 5/6 of their 2.3 children should have grown up, making 50,000 new signatories available for the sequel, outnumbering the IPCC panelists by two dozen to one. This suggests a new , pro-active litigation and publication strategy for K Street Climatologists. Imagine what Mike Crichton could do with 17,000 signatures on a petition denouncing scientific consensus.
How could any serious journal turn down an article with 50,000 co-authors. when Nature regularly runs CERN and Human Genome Project submissions with as few as 500 ? Even Science's floridly green editor might pop for a paper cosigned by 2,000 or so postulating that global warming is a terrible misunderstanding arising from the derangement of generations of meteorologists by thermometers filled with neurotoxic mercury.
The New York Times is leading the charge for a total ban on the toxic heavy metal outside of ethnic restaurant kitchens, where its foodie columnists applaud the Feng Shui benefits of applying cinnabar paint to blast burner stoves. Seizing on the Times MSM status, State Climatologists can now argue that temperature measurements made with non-OSHA compliant mercury devices shoild be rejected on the grounds that a statistically significant number of global warming advocates have lately gone mad as hatters
Meanwhile, Discovery Institute lawyers can arrange for two dozen of the forty eight thousand scientists left over from Heidelberg II to endorse an Oath Of Compurgation swearing that whatever each of the 2,000 coauthors says is legally true, and that they are collectively innocent of all complicity in any conspiracy to persuade the public that science is not what it appears to be. Since DI lawyers are great champions of precedent, natural law demands they lead the anti-consensus consensus to substitute the Oath of Compurgation for newfangled peer review, as it ranks as the greatest legal stratagem of the Medieval Warm Period.