Yesterday, Naomi Oreskes — whose study on the scientific consensus around global warming is cited thither and yon, including in An Inconvenient Truth — had an op-ed in the L.A. Times saying that, contra Richard Lindzen’s recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, there is too consensus on global warming science.

Good lord this faux debate is tiring.

Lindzen tried to knock down Oreskes’ study by citing the work of Benny Peiser, who allegedly found papers questioning the consensus that Oreskes had overlooked. As Tim Lambert, among others, demonstrated, Peiser was full of it, and Peiser himself eventually conceded as much.

Oreskes breezily dismissed the critique by saying, "it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding." Clearly she is naive about how these things work. Once a zombie lie like this is born, it never, ever dies, no matter how many times it’s debunked.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Exhibit A: The very day Oreskes’ op-ed appeared, Inhofe’s attack dog Marc Morano issued another one of his patented propaganda releases from the Senate Environment Committee. What’s he got to say?

Oreskes originally claimed she analyzed the peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change" and found just 928 articles. It turns out she was not accurate, according to British social scientist Benny Peiser a professor at Liverpool John Moores University.

Eeaaurgh, zombies eat your brain!

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.