Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric

I used the Web of Science to see if Carter, Evans, Franks and Kininmonth were legitimate experts in the areas in which they claim superior knowledge.

When scientists take to the streets it's time to listen up

there are stark differences between these paradigm shifts and the current climate debate.

When paradigm shifts have occurred, often the evidence for the prevailing theory had been weak.
...those denying climate change only use weak evidence.

Classic non-science evidence includes plots where temperature appears to vary along with something other than carbon dioxide. Such plots can be suspect.

If one generates large numbers of plots, one can find apparent correlations between two unrelated quantities.

Climate denial and the abuse of peer review | Climate Spectator

most climate deniers avoid scrutiny by sidestepping the peer-review process that is fundamental to science, instead posting their material in the internet or writing books.
...
Very occasionally a contrarian paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal, which segments of the internet and the media immediately hail as evidence against global warming or its human causes, as if a single paper somehow nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings.

What are we to make of that handful of contrarian papers?
....
At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second – all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.