Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees.
Scientific American ^ | 01/10/2014 | By Ashutosh Jogalekar |

Posted on 01/12/2014 6:30:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind

The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.scientificamerican.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

1 posted on 01/12/2014 6:30:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s like election precincts voting 100% for Obama. Makes me say, “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.”


2 posted on 01/12/2014 6:32:20 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Anti-Complacency League! Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is no money in denying globull warming.


3 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The War on Drugs has been used as an excuse to steal your rights. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

sure.

Climate has been changing since the world formed. There have been ice ages followed by big melts (we are in one now I think)


4 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:43 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Real scientists would ask... what percentage of the data supports my hypothesis.

These ‘scientists’ are nothing more than glorified grant writers.


5 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:49 PM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yawn. If it gets any warmer, we are all going to freeze to death.


6 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:53 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How many peer reviewed publications will actually accept an article that doesn’t join the AGW bandwagon?


7 posted on 01/12/2014 6:34:14 PM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").

- Groupthink, From Wikipedia

8 posted on 01/12/2014 6:35:26 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

there would be no demand for climate experts unless there was a climate crisis.


9 posted on 01/12/2014 6:35:59 PM PST by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Peer reviewed" = preaching to the choir.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

10 posted on 01/12/2014 6:38:42 PM PST by wku man (We are the 53%! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXN0GDuLN4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We know for a fact from the East Anglia University email scandal that Michael Mann, Christopher Jones, et al actively prevented anti-AGW/climate change articles from being published in peer-reviewed journals, so it should be no surprise that the authors of the articles that were published would have a religious/political faith in AGW/climate change.


11 posted on 01/12/2014 6:41:38 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All anyone has to do is read the emails from the scam artist scientists (East Anglia, GSSI, U of P). Any publication that printed anything that disagreed with AGW would be discredited as a “real” scientific journal. Science mags are afraid to get out of line.


12 posted on 01/12/2014 6:42:04 PM PST by TStro (Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"... based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, ... the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one."

Since the temperature has been decreasing for the most recent 15+ years why would anyone in their right might propose any theory to explain a temperature increase which is not happening?
Liberalism IS a mental disorder, and this author is laughably ignorant ... and let's talk about the documented corruption of the peer review process necessary to promote the AGW hoax.

13 posted on 01/12/2014 6:42:24 PM PST by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is “concensus” only part of the Scientific Method when global warming is the subject? I don’t seem to recall being taught that step when I studied science.


14 posted on 01/12/2014 6:43:11 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The question is: Is Man causing it, if so how much?

The answer is: Very little if any. Man’s contribution is less than the natural variability of the Earth’s Climate.


15 posted on 01/12/2014 6:44:41 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afghanistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Of those 9136, how many actually studied the subject. And how many are just signing on because they are blindly loyal to their scientist cronies?


16 posted on 01/12/2014 6:46:37 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

You should have used the 120% turnout figure that one is better.


17 posted on 01/12/2014 6:49:15 PM PST by WilliamRobert (Obama so loves the poor he created millions more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If it’s about “consensus” then it isn’t science.

This “study” fails to control for editorial bias (”We’re not going to print that in our journal under any conditions”), referee bias (”I refuse to sign off on this paper even if the methodology is sound, because I disagree with the conclusions”) and funding bias (”We didn’t fund a single one of the deniers... Ha ha!”) Yet somehow we are to take the conclusion at face value and infer something about the validity of the result.

Absurd.


18 posted on 01/12/2014 6:52:43 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This study does not include CERN's study on cloud formation and cosmic rays, which are not accounted for in the standard climate models.

CERN FINDS “SIGNIFICANT” COSMIC RAY CLOUD EFFECT

19 posted on 01/12/2014 6:52:48 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The proven fraud out of East Anglia provides more than enough evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to defraud the public of funding for this “fairy tale” they call “anthropomorphic global warming”. Such disgraced fools who continue to promote this lie along with socialists and other criminals should be treated in the harshest manner possible.


20 posted on 01/12/2014 6:57:01 PM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson