Posted on 02/03/2015 7:20:44 AM PST by dennisw
I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.
My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.
Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish–all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.
The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards.
(Excerpt) Read more at desmogblog.com ...
Ahhh, nobody quotes better than a Pharisee.
.
I will have no quibble with being judged by the standards I have advocated here.
I look forward to it.
.
I can tell by your posts how easy it is for the AGW crowd to fool fools.
.
You pharisees don’t quote the word of God!
You quote your own invention as superior thereto.
.
.
Yes, I remember, and the best didn’t use rubber bands, they used small, oiled, hard steel springs.
.
There is no global warming. Now stop bothering me while I smoke this cigarette, which has nothing to do with the quality of my health.
“The earth has not warmed an iota. “
it’s warmed about 0.3%
There is no global warming. None.
I never experienced those. Did they use clock-springs?
But I think that smoking has rendered you taste buds unable to distinguish the difference between apples and oranges.
What you are describing would be an adverse effect and everyone knows that there is no such thing. What you’re going to suggest that there is some model out there that says cigarettes are bad for you!?!?! Sucker!!!!
You want grandiose accusations against you too?
It's too early for spring break so you must be home for a snow day. Just because you are set up next to the furnace in you mom's basement doesn't make the rest of the world artificially warmer.
“Nothing is Wrong” Denier!
You are clowning around now. However there has been no global warming for 17-18 years which is contrary to all the computer modeling done by scientist bought and paid for by the Federal Gov't grants and the liberal educational establishment. You play the contrarian here at FR but this is nothing compared to being a climate skeptic professor in a modern American university today. You definitely will not get any Federal grants for studying so called climate change
The (highly questionable) “science” aside, the behavior of the CAGW crowd casts serious doubt on their credibility. For example, ever notice how they subtly shifted from talking about carbon dioxide and instead began referring to “carbon?” The two substances are completely different, of course, but why the messaging change? I think it is clearly an effort to deceive the public by using terminology that falsely suggests images of dirty, sooty smokestacks and air pollution. That’s a much more compelling image for their PR campaign than a compound, CO2, that we all exhale as a necessary function of life. A related question: Why does “settled science” need a PR campaign in the first place?
Add to that example the fact that real science doesn’t operate by consensus and certainly doesn’t label anyone with a competing theory a “denier”, or their recent behavior of moving the goalposts by now pushing their projections 100 years out into the future (where they cannot be contradicted by actual events, as has happened frequently in the past couple of decades), and the level of fraud becomes crystal clear.
We are witnessing one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated upon mankind.
So, how much CO2 has been released discussing this topic, anyway?
I really want your arrogant, childish sniping to just fade to nothing.
You made the accusation against me through your projection.
I had not accused you of anything; just answered your self-important post.
.
.
No, just home-brew using stock springs from hobby shops or hardware stores.
.
Lecture to the mirror, please.
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.