Skip to comments.About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees.
Posted on 01/12/2014 6:30:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.
It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.scientificamerican.com ...
It’s like election precincts voting 100% for Obama. Makes me say, “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.”
There is no money in denying globull warming.
Climate has been changing since the world formed. There have been ice ages followed by big melts (we are in one now I think)
Real scientists would ask... what percentage of the data supports my hypothesis.
These ‘scientists’ are nothing more than glorified grant writers.
Yawn. If it gets any warmer, we are all going to freeze to death.
How many peer reviewed publications will actually accept an article that doesn’t join the AGW bandwagon?
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").
there would be no demand for climate experts unless there was a climate crisis.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
We know for a fact from the East Anglia University email scandal that Michael Mann, Christopher Jones, et al actively prevented anti-AGW/climate change articles from being published in peer-reviewed journals, so it should be no surprise that the authors of the articles that were published would have a religious/political faith in AGW/climate change.
All anyone has to do is read the emails from the scam artist scientists (East Anglia, GSSI, U of P). Any publication that printed anything that disagreed with AGW would be discredited as a “real” scientific journal. Science mags are afraid to get out of line.
Since the temperature has been decreasing for the most recent 15+ years why would anyone in their right might propose any theory to explain a temperature increase which is not happening?
Liberalism IS a mental disorder, and this author is laughably ignorant ... and let's talk about the documented corruption of the peer review process necessary to promote the AGW hoax.
Is “concensus” only part of the Scientific Method when global warming is the subject? I don’t seem to recall being taught that step when I studied science.
The question is: Is Man causing it, if so how much?
The answer is: Very little if any. Man’s contribution is less than the natural variability of the Earth’s Climate.
Of those 9136, how many actually studied the subject. And how many are just signing on because they are blindly loyal to their scientist cronies?
You should have used the 120% turnout figure that one is better.
If it’s about “consensus” then it isn’t science.
This “study” fails to control for editorial bias (”We’re not going to print that in our journal under any conditions”), referee bias (”I refuse to sign off on this paper even if the methodology is sound, because I disagree with the conclusions”) and funding bias (”We didn’t fund a single one of the deniers... Ha ha!”) Yet somehow we are to take the conclusion at face value and infer something about the validity of the result.
The proven fraud out of East Anglia provides more than enough evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to defraud the public of funding for this “fairy tale” they call “anthropomorphic global warming”. Such disgraced fools who continue to promote this lie along with socialists and other criminals should be treated in the harshest manner possible.
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.