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 ...
First, to mean anything, one would need assurances that negative articles would have an equal chance of publication (they do not)...
Second, one would need assurances that there would be no reprisals taken on those scientists who disagree (reprisals would be nearly certain in some circles, one suspects)... and
Third, I suspect multiple counting of authors (ol suspicious moi)....
Fourth, for this count comparison to have validity, there would need to be no profit or prestige incentive for one's research to support such a politically correct notion (such incentives are more than obvious).
It would be much more, ahem, "scientific" to invite critics to address an hypotheses (which global climate change might not even qualify to be), than to count the "ins" and "me too's".
.
The peer-reviewers suppress opposing opinions and facts.
REAL scientists publish experimental procedures and data, and determine how many can duplicate their results. Global Warming cultists take surveys of the choir.
Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3054138/posts
New peer review: only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW WUWT VH ^ | 8/13/2013 | Anthony Watts
Posted on: 8/13/2013 11:40:04 AM by Signalman
"Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
9/10 doctors agree that Camels are good for you.
Consensus does not equal science.
The fact that “peer reviewed” journals mostly refuse to publish things that disagree with the Official Line, of course, doesn’t have influence on the results of the survey.
People with academic credentials thinking politically instead of scientifically, like Nazi doctors trying to prove the superiority of the master race.
At one time, nearly of scientists believed:
1. The Earth is flat.
2. The Sun and Moon rotate around the Earth.
3. Fire is caused by too much or not enough Phlogiston.
4. Cells are filled with a jelly-like substance called protoplasm.
5. The continents don’t move.
6. The atom is indivisible and indestructible.
7. The contents of the atom is like a plum pudding.
8. The motions of solar system bodies are governed by a Ptolemaic system of epicycles.
9. Dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals.
So, what is exactly the relevant point of this article in So-Called Scientific American?
You're right to be suspicious. I'd also be willing to bet that many of those who are being counted aren't scientists at all, or are "scientists" in non-climate related disciplines. A previous poll (1990s) of 3,000 "scientists" who said AGW was real, turned out to be a handful of actual climatologists and meteorologists, and a whole slew of social workers, grad students, and so on. Wish I could find a link to the article which exposed it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!!
Fact is, Global Warming was debunked by the release of the IPCC emails some what .... 10 years ago which showed that Michael Mann falsely created the "hockey stick" theory and manipulated the data used to form his "conclusions."
Mann has never been peer reviewed - he only allows other so-called scientists to look at, and concur with the results.
That's not science. That's thuggery. Mann berates and belittles those who oppose him, driving them out of "science."
Michael Mann, the IPCC and the rest of the global warming alarmists are FRAUDS.
I didn’t know that the scientific method included “get consensus” as a step.
The basic fact is that Jones destroyed the basic data for the study and it was not ever reconstructed. Everything was based upon the “manipulated data” and thus destroyed any possibility of the study being reviewed or replicated. No real scientists would ever allow the basic data be destroyed and still claim the study valid.
Something is rotten in Denmark, as they say! The putrid smell is wafting everywhere!
>> 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%.
And of course, an a priori consensus of 99.99% is perfectly normal.
I'd love to know the breakdown of these scienticians, and what their politics are, and whether they have any knowledge germane to "climate science".
OR, as I suspect, are OVERWHELMINGLY leftists, who REALLY REALLY like leftist redistributionist schemes.
Once every single one of them has been eliminated from the "consensus", let me know the results.
I could be convinced that the world is getting warmer. I am not convinced it’s man made. Nor do I think we can do a damn thing about it.
are you telling me that the people who received funding / grants / permission to publish a book are in agreement?
gee, sounds exactly like propaganda to me.
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.