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 ...
What is the “correct” temperature for Planet Earth?
What period typified the “ideal” climate?
The climate has changed quite dramatically throughout history (going down and up without the help of man).
Exactly. If you think global warming is bad, wait till we get global cooling. Last time was a beotch.
Selling souls does tend to garner more loyal customers than selling oil....
Um, maybe that was yesterday’s warming du jour. Today’s is a surface effect on a number of temporarily stagnant ocean areas. Got to keep up with the shell game here, pal...
Even more:
Is there a range of conditions that are ideal for man’s survival and if there is such a state, is there a range of conditions in which man cannot exist?
Is mere existence enough?
What caused prehistoric fluxes in temperatures?
And how many of those so-called scientists have or anticipate a government grant?
The folks crowing about “Darwin” managing to keep earth not just alive but smelling like a rose through major volcanic belchings and meteorite hits and dramatic ice ages... are now getting very cold feet. Or is it warm feet.
Are today’s temperatures the ideal numbers?
Or the base recordings of the 1800s?
Or the medieval warming period?
What is the ‘right’ number?
Scientologists would tell you it was aliens dumping the souls of aliens into volcanoes.
Is the number base-10. Is the number a prime number? Is it divisible by 11?
Today, few deny the cooling.
As to the ocean, anything that disproportionately warms ocean waters causes an increase in precipitation, whose predictable result is land mass cooling.
.
Who wrote the Book of Love?
Who shot Liberty Valance?
Why do fools fall in love?
.
>> “Is the number base-10. Is the number a prime number? Is it divisible by 11?” <<
.
Is anything you post here ever relevant?
.
Some places have cooled, some have warmed, the vertical profile of same has changed (earth isn’t just a 2 dimensional entity) and different substances are involved with different specific heats.
It is mathematically absurd to believe one can predict from the empirical information we have what temperature trends are going to be. Too many variables, too few equations.
One cannot judge relevance without a baseline of relevance.
Is relevance relative?
Well, God wrote the Book of Love
.
>> “It is mathematically absurd to believe one can predict from the empirical information we have what temperature trends are going to be. Too many variables, too few equations.” <<
.
Agree in general.
.
Exactly!
The calculations for the moon mission were basically no different than those done by Issac Newton and others.
As to Climate Models - After learning to Program “Hello World” the next thing most programmers learn is “GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out!”
As for value of “Peer Reviewed Climate Science”, the Hadley CRU emails destroyed their credibility.
One of my old girlfriends is a big climate change professor at a major university
I’m not surprised
She’s an heiress
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.