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 ...
Argumentam ad Populam.
“Just because all your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you’ll do it too?”
- My Mom
Computer modelling is not evidence, no matter how many times you run the simulation.
What I want to know is what nations scientists are writing all these pro-global warming studies?
I say just about all come from these spoiled, guilt ridden nations-—
USA
UK
Canada
Australia
Germany
France? maybe
Japan? maybe
You find nothing from scientists in India, Russia, China, Korea. They have zero interest in such BS
“Peer review” means something different from what it once meant. Now there is a strong political component and a very small scholarly component.
The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - a rapid increase in earth's temperature that is caused by man, and is so severe that drastic methods are required to mitigate it. There is significant scientific dispute over the latter, and the real scientists, the ones who believe there is no CAGW, are supported by the truth.
billions of flies at the stockyard can’t all be wrong.
But we really aren’t arguing whether man affects the environment, that is a given. The question is how much and what economic impact there is. So far, trivial impact.
Reality has not matched the models of decades ago. Therefore the writings (while possibly well intentioned) drew false conclusions (peer reviewed or not).
Write a paper supporting AGW => grant money, acclaim, peer approval
Write a paper critical of AGW => no grant money, derision, peer ostracism
Gee... what kind of papers are we going to get?
Well, not really. The sun has a lot to do with it... :)
science by consensus? irrational.
i propose that one paper by einstein or newton or keppler has more scientific woth then all the ones cited here put together. i’d rather spend my limited time on earth reading theirs then any cited here.
If global warming causes the oceans to rise why has New York not been flooded?
Or the water to rise by a noticeable amount? Anyone? Buehler?
Peer review today is like the newspaper editorials and surveys of recognized leaders in the South in the 1950s. I’m sure that nearly 95% percent agreed that Blacks in the South were in favor of segregation.
If you pick whom you survey carefully and use the right encouragement, you can get any result you want. Sort of like peer review today.
That was my Mom too. I still remember that talk from the age of four.
“Computer modelling is not evidence, no matter how many times you run the simulation.”
_____
Got us to the moon. And back.
” India, Russia, China, Korea.” All are exempt from the climate treaties like Kyoto. Their stake in the game is staying quiet so they can reap a percentage of the trillions of dollars of cap-n-trade cash.
We need beer reviwed papers. After all brewskis are a source of CO2.
We need beer reviewed papers. After all brewskis are a source of CO2.
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.