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 ...
“Write a paper supporting AGW => grant money, acclaim, peer approval
Write a paper critical of AGW => no grant money, derision, peer ostracism”
_______
Not true. The energy industry provides loads of money to produce “research” that refutes AGW.
Don’t know what criteria you are using, but there have been more than one meta analysis that tells a very different story. In most cases the vast majority of studies show upwards of 66% of scientist do not think the data proves any human causation.
.
>> “Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming (2014)” <<
.
The “peer” of a fool is another fool!
.
Thousands of scientists can’t all be wrong! ... Oh yes they can. A brief history review will falsify that notion. And no - we are not any smarter than we used to be. Technological progress does not presuppose intellectual progress.
LINK PLEASE
Not true at all
Let's do a quick comparison
James Hansen, the leading Global Warming activist made $180,000 a year at the GISS, plus $750,000 in speaking fees in 2012 alone and previous received separate $1 million dollar and $700,000 prizes from the Heinz Foundation and the Soros Foundation respectively. Global Warming made him a millionaire.
Fred Singer, the leading anti-Global Warming activist once earned $5000 a month from the Heartland Institute, which if he worked the entire year would be $60,000 (that’s less than some waiters in NYC) and was paid $1000 to speak at the Heartland Institute's Global Warming conference + and additional $129 for food & drink
$2,630,000 vs $61,129.
Gee so who has more reason to lie???
You stand to make a fast $10,000.
I’d recommend the Drexel study cited in this article.
Computer modelling is not evidence, no matter how many times you run the simulation.
Got us to the moon. And back.
Bad example. The physics of orbits/mass/thrust etc are well understood and can be *tested*, producing the ability to create very accurate computer models.
The environment requires a very different type of “science”. You cannot test all your theories, which is all they are. So you have “theories” in the computer models but they’re not proven via global experiments (as you can’t change the various variables of the earth). The computer models they have don’t even take into account variables like the sun. They overestimate the effects of CO2, ignore others.
If the science is “done” then why is there more than 1 model? Why do the current models not match reality? ...because they don’t reflect reality. I wonder how many of them would bet their lives on their model? ...those that went into space had that level of certainty.
You need to do some editing.
I was lazy in not providing a direct link. It is available at the end of this editorial.
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
>
>> “The energy industry provides loads of money to produce ‘research’ that refutes AGW.” <<
.
Utterly false!!!!!
The largest energy producers in the US provide millions to those that produce propaganda, and agitprop like yours, that support “AGW.”
They do this so that more electric vehicles will be sold, thus increasing their own market, and operating costs, exponentially.
Regulated energy producers can increase their profit by increasing operating costs, which are passed through with a mark-up to energy users. (IOW, the public)
.
What does this have to do with my post to your nonsense?
I will take it by changing the subject you can’t defend your incorrect position
BTW. That challenge is bogus. For example I will gladly offer Double the money to anyone who can prove Pink Unicorns don’t exists.
I hope that you’re not trying to suggest that the “traditional” energy industry does not have a financial stake in refuting AGW?
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
yep computer modeling said NYC would have the worst blizzard ever..
Integrity is instantly compromised when the desperation for retaining a funding stream for survival becomes the primary concern.
Am I calling you liars?
Why yes, yes I am. Prove me wrong by showing me the SEALED documents with the chain of custody of all readings from the QUALIFIED sensor taker all the way through to the output final documents. Just for starters.
Show me the sensor calibration records and the chain of custody for those records.
Science requires so much more than “because I say so”.
BUMP
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.