# Why don't climate change deniers publish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811 "2014-01-14T20:28:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/1 "2014-01-14T20:28:19Z")
An excellent question from an [article](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html) on Slate which had never occured to me. I am not a climate change denier, largely thanks to the [Berkeley Earth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth) study and findings. Even when I was (much) more skeptical, it didn’t occur to me to wonder about the ratio of published studies. I won’t get in to my skeptical reasoning, but I assumed, as the article says, that there were actually climate scientists who did not favor anthropogenic global warming. Obviously, if there were such scientists…and they had any reasonable findings they’d publish in a heartbeat. The dearth of legitimate skeptic papers is, for me, just one more nail in the coffin. I honestly don’t see how anyone could come to a different conclusion. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811)._