Only Montgomery Burns has demonstrated he the only human who can control the sun and, by extension, control the climate.
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 ...
The average temperature of Mars has gone up in a way that is proportional and highly correlated to the increase in the annual temperature of the Earth, as measured by satellites. Oddly, and probably predictably, the satellite evidence is the body of evidence that is the least referenced by all these ‘flies at the stockyard’.
What an apt metaphor for hacks looking for government sinecures.
Follow the left wing money....
.
>> “Got us to the moon. And back” <<
.
No, it didn’t!
Solid established knowledge of physics and chemistry is what got us there and back!
Based on how many data points?
How much of that warming was caused by man?
Show all your work.
This reminds me of the Obama unemployment numbers which would come in each week at one point and then a couple of weeks later when it wasn't a story anymore be adjusted upwards.
Well, who could get an anti global warming study published? The journals march in lockstep.
10,000 lemmings can’t be wrong.
In medieval times, the best scientific minds KNEW the world was flat.
In modern times, the best scientific minds KNOW people cause global warming.
10,000 lemmings can’t be wrong.
btw, in my youth, the best scientific minds were concerned about the coming global cooling (onset of a new ice age).
Wide ties.
Narrow ties.
Hemlines up.
Hemlines down.
blah, blah, blah.
And in conclusion, YOUR Government (which would never lie to you0 agrees that people (and cows) cause man-made global warming....but in case it is really a case of global cooling, let’s call it Climate Change...can’t miss hitting that target!)
As our leaders tell us, higher taxes will solve global warming (and all else that is not right in the world....love life not good? Higher taxes! Car runs poorly? Higher taxes! etc
Even assuming man contributes to global warming, the question arises is WHAT is that contribution of the total warming? 100% 10% 1%?
The second question is: is global warming a bad thing. Longer growing seasons, better food supplies, better wines, lower heating costs
.
>> “Few dispute the fact that in the last century, or so, the average measured temperature on earth has gone up a little.” <<
.
Anyone that doesn’t dispute that is a complete fool !
We are 80 years into an uninterrupted decline in temperatures that began at the end of 1933.
The present ruse of increase is completely the result of disregarding the absence of data from Siberia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
.
.
Regal, I think its time you told us who you are, and who is paying for your constant agitprop here.
.
About 95%. The Earth would be an ice ball without Sol.
Only Montgomery Burns has demonstrated he the only human who can control the sun and, by extension, control the climate.
How many of those espousing the notion are getting paid for doing so from government largesse? That would be an interesting study.
” Regal, I think its time you told us who you are, and who is paying for your constant agitprop here.”
And a crony capitalism “ DENIER “
LOL.
.
USSR/Russia had a special deal for picking up billions of dollars in CO2 emission credits due to the disintegration of the USSR in the early 1990s
-
-
-
-
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/23/climate-change-russia-is-steamed-about-u-ns-kyoto-carbon-credit-cop-out/
What ultimately caused Putin and the Russian duma to change their position and ratify the Protocol? It is widely speculated that Europeans were instrumental in getting Russia admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and thus categorized it as a developing country rather than a developed one in applying the Protocol regulations. This meant that Russia received an opportunity to sell to European countries billions of dollars’ worth of Soviet-era emission credits associated with former dirty industries that had been casualties of economic melt-down. This would also help Europe meet Kyoto’s first-phase requirements without actually cutting emissions or energy use.
The earth has not warmed an iota. The birds are chirping and fish are swimming and all is wonderful. Critical analysis and questioning makes one head hurt so why do it? Besides, what if the answers to questions doesn’t fit my predetermined conclusions? That would make me sad, so I just won’t ever consider asking uncomfortable questions. I’m happy, happy, happy. la-dee-da——
I am hoping for a little global warming. We are currently in a Solar Maunder Minimum which can lead to a Grand Minimum. That means we could see a mini ice age over the next 40 years as we did from 1645 to 1715.
I’ve read the body of your posts. You seem to be cherry picking “evidence” to support your position. I must say your “follow the money” perspective is extremely one sided.
You ignore human nature as well as the fact that there is lots of money on both sides of this issue, but one side is about more than money. It’s about seizing control of the day to day lives of every single living, breathing human being on the planet.
And it’s not the “AGW denier” side.
There is more at stake here than you realize.
Well, the earth warmed if you take into account all the false readings NASA put into the system to make it look like the earth warmed...or was that to make Muslims feel good about themselves.
Sometimes I get so confused.
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.