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 wishall 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 ...
Once your own self importance just fades to nothing... then so will the pushback you get. From many, not just me. You are an insufferable prig.
.
Thanks for your mirror chant anyway.
You have described your self perfectly in one sentence.
.
Dinosaur farts?
5.56mm
You quite do describe yourself that way.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
.
You embarrass all of us with your childish nonsense.
.
.
>> “Dinosaur farts?” <<
.
No, Barney Rubble didn’t have a catalytic converter on his convertible.
.
That is well said about you. You really are quite lazy and make it quite easy to demolish your front.
.
So far all you’ve demolished is your non-existent credibility.
.
In medieval times, there were very few scientists in Western Europe. The folks who were saying the world was flat were Catholic clergy.
That is history done with all the rigor of global warming science.
If you open up St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, on the very first page he speaks of the differentiation of the sciences, explaining how the same fact may be shown by different sciences, and the examples he uses are how both the astronomer and physicist demonstrate that the earth is round, but by two different means. That work, written ca. 1270, was the standard work for training Catholic clergy for centuries.
When Columbus proposed setting sail for the new world, he did run into opposition from the clergy, not because they thought the world was flat, but because they had a fairly good idea of the circumference, as well as the location of the eastern edge of Asia—and if you put those two things together you need a great deal more water and food than Columbus was capable of carrying—sort of like setting out for the moon with a two-day supply of oxygen. Columbus argued that the circumference was actually much smaller. Columbus was wrong, but was fortunate enough to run into the new world.
Where did the flat earth myth come about, you may wonder? Washington Irving set out to write a popular history of Christopher Columbus, and found that the actual events were too complicated and too pro-Catholic—so he made up something that he thought would fly. Andrew Dixon White, first president of Cornell University (my alma mater) either bought into it or found it convenient, and between the two of them, it has become an impossible to eradicate myth. A quite convenient myth, in that it allows one to adopt an intellectual position that doesn’t have to bother with anything before the enlightenment.
If you want more details, read Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
In medieval times, there were very few scientists in Western Europe. The folks who were saying the world was flat were Catholic clergy.
That is history done with all the rigor of global warming science.
If you open up St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, on the very first page he speaks of the differentiation of the sciences, explaining how the same fact may be shown by different sciences, and the examples he uses are how both the astronomer and physicist demonstrate that the earth is round, but by two different means. That work, written ca. 1270, was the standard work for training Catholic clergy for centuries.
When Columbus proposed setting sail for the new world, he did run into opposition from the clergy, not because they thought the world was flat, but because they had a fairly good idea of the circumference, as well as the location of the eastern edge of Asiaand if you put those two things together you need a great deal more water and food than Columbus was capable of carryingsort of like setting out for the moon with a two-day supply of oxygen. Columbus argued that the circumference was actually much smaller. Columbus was wrong, but was fortunate enough to run into the new world.
Where did the flat earth myth come about, you may wonder? Washington Irving set out to write a popular history of Christopher Columbus, and found that the actual events were too complicated and too pro-Catholicso he made up something that he thought would fly. Andrew Dixon White, first president of Cornell University (my alma mater) either bought into it or found it convenient, and between the two of them, it has become an impossible to eradicate myth. A quite convenient myth, in that it allows one to adopt an intellectual position that doesnt have to bother with anything before the enlightenment.
If you want more details, read Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
It’s not just historians, it’s archeologists, too. In the 1800s, the consensus among the “smartest guys in the room” was that Icelandic sagas about Greenland were fairy tales. Why? Because where the sagas said there was a farm in a valley around 900AD there was only a glacier in the 1800s.
The warming in this century caused the glacier to recede. Guess what they found under it? A Viking-era farm. Disprove that, please.
Ok, where did all the oil come form on top of the word? In the Arctic? How is that? Was their a prehistoric jungle above the arctic circle? How hot was it millions of years ago? Did T-Rex drive an SUV?
.
Not warming in this century!
Warming in the 19th century.
That warming ended in 1933.
.
.
By the early 1950s we had already used more petroleum than could possibly have been ‘biogenic.’
.
I was trying to do three things at once yesterday and shouldn’t have been posting here.
My first degree was actually in history, and in my mind, alongside 10 other things I was doing at the time, I was mixing up Galilean heliocentric science and flat earth theories. Neither which had much to do with one another.
I’m well aware that mapmakers in the days of Columbus and especially those of Prince Henry the Navigator were well aware that the world was round due to Arab (old Caliphate maps) and Greek maps obtained by trade with the Byzantines and Venetians, and/or by the so-called “Reconquista” of Portugal and Spain.
In short, I shouldn’t attempt to multitask. I’m terrible at it and always have been. You are a 100% correct. The early 15th century argument was over the circumference - not the shape of the earth.
Thanks. The ancient Greeks had actually calculated the circumference fairly accurately, but I do not know what manuscripts were known where when. Given Thomas’ arguments, I would guess that they were known to him, and were commonly available.
Galileo is another interesting case that is also often butchered. His tidal argument was up there with man-made global warming (yes, the relationship with the sun in the end does have something to do with the tides, just not something that was actually measurable at the time, and ignored the moon), and stellar parallax was not much better (again, not measurable by the science of the times). At any rate, back to work.
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.