Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees.
Scientific American ^ | 01/10/2014 | By Ashutosh Jogalekar |

Posted on 01/12/2014 6:30:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind

The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 01/12/2014 6:30:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s like election precincts voting 100% for Obama. Makes me say, “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.”


2 posted on 01/12/2014 6:32:20 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Anti-Complacency League! Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is no money in denying globull warming.


3 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The War on Drugs has been used as an excuse to steal your rights. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

sure.

Climate has been changing since the world formed. There have been ice ages followed by big melts (we are in one now I think)


4 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:43 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Real scientists would ask... what percentage of the data supports my hypothesis.

These ‘scientists’ are nothing more than glorified grant writers.


5 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:49 PM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yawn. If it gets any warmer, we are all going to freeze to death.


6 posted on 01/12/2014 6:33:53 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How many peer reviewed publications will actually accept an article that doesn’t join the AGW bandwagon?


7 posted on 01/12/2014 6:34:14 PM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

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").

- Groupthink, From Wikipedia

8 posted on 01/12/2014 6:35:26 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

there would be no demand for climate experts unless there was a climate crisis.


9 posted on 01/12/2014 6:35:59 PM PST by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Peer reviewed" = preaching to the choir.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

10 posted on 01/12/2014 6:38:42 PM PST by wku man (We are the 53%! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXN0GDuLN4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


11 posted on 01/12/2014 6:41:38 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


12 posted on 01/12/2014 6:42:04 PM PST by TStro (Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"... based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, ... 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."

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.

13 posted on 01/12/2014 6:42:24 PM PST by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


14 posted on 01/12/2014 6:43:11 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


15 posted on 01/12/2014 6:44:41 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afghanistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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?


16 posted on 01/12/2014 6:46:37 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

You should have used the 120% turnout figure that one is better.


17 posted on 01/12/2014 6:49:15 PM PST by WilliamRobert (Obama so loves the poor he created millions more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.

Absurd.


18 posted on 01/12/2014 6:52:43 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This study does not include CERN's study on cloud formation and cosmic rays, which are not accounted for in the standard climate models.

CERN FINDS “SIGNIFICANT” COSMIC RAY CLOUD EFFECT

19 posted on 01/12/2014 6:52:48 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


20 posted on 01/12/2014 6:57:01 PM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is a count of authors of publications.

First, to mean anything, one would need assurances that negative articles would have an equal chance of publication (they do not)...

Second, one would need assurances that there would be no reprisals taken on those scientists who disagree (reprisals would be nearly certain in some circles, one suspects)... and

Third, I suspect multiple counting of authors (ol suspicious moi)....

Fourth, for this count comparison to have validity, there would need to be no profit or prestige incentive for one's research to support such a politically correct notion (such incentives are more than obvious).

It would be much more, ahem, "scientific" to invite critics to address an hypotheses (which global climate change might not even qualify to be), than to count the "ins" and "me too's".

.

21 posted on 01/12/2014 7:00:08 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The peer-reviewers suppress opposing opinions and facts.


22 posted on 01/12/2014 7:01:11 PM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

REAL scientists publish experimental procedures and data, and determine how many can duplicate their results. Global Warming cultists take surveys of the choir.


23 posted on 01/12/2014 7:02:29 PM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/18/climate-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims

Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

and

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3054138/posts

New peer review: only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW WUWT VH ^ | 8/13/2013 | Anthony Watts

Posted on: ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2013‎ ‎11‎:‎40‎:‎04‎ ‎AM by Signalman

"Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

24 posted on 01/12/2014 7:04:08 PM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

9/10 doctors agree that Camels are good for you.


25 posted on 01/12/2014 7:11:49 PM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est. New US economy: Fascism on top, Socialism on the bottom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Consensus does not equal science.


26 posted on 01/12/2014 7:11:50 PM PST by Rebelbase (Tagline: optional, printed after your name on post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The fact that “peer reviewed” journals mostly refuse to publish things that disagree with the Official Line, of course, doesn’t have influence on the results of the survey.


27 posted on 01/12/2014 7:12:37 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There was a time when medical scientists believed,9136 to 1,that leeches were the best cure for consumption,evil humors and vapors.
28 posted on 01/12/2014 7:13:40 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Osama Obama Care: A Religion That Will Have You On Your Knees!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

People with academic credentials thinking politically instead of scientifically, like Nazi doctors trying to prove the superiority of the master race.


29 posted on 01/12/2014 7:31:07 PM PST by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

At one time, nearly of scientists believed:

1. The Earth is flat.

2. The Sun and Moon rotate around the Earth.

3. Fire is caused by too much or not enough Phlogiston.

4. Cells are filled with a jelly-like substance called protoplasm.

5. The continents don’t move.

6. The atom is indivisible and indestructible.

7. The contents of the atom is like a plum pudding.

8. The motions of solar system bodies are governed by a Ptolemaic system of epicycles.

9. Dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals.

So, what is exactly the relevant point of this article in So-Called Scientific American?


30 posted on 01/12/2014 7:33:09 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Leftist Doucetoolery 101

When the evidence all around you, available to anyone through empirical observation, does not support the hypothesis agenda.

Scream louder.
31 posted on 01/12/2014 7:40:47 PM PST by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner
"Third, I suspect multiple counting of authors (ol suspicious moi)...."

You're right to be suspicious. I'd also be willing to bet that many of those who are being counted aren't scientists at all, or are "scientists" in non-climate related disciplines. A previous poll (1990s) of 3,000 "scientists" who said AGW was real, turned out to be a handful of actual climatologists and meteorologists, and a whole slew of social workers, grad students, and so on. Wish I could find a link to the article which exposed it.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

32 posted on 01/12/2014 7:41:27 PM PST by wku man (We are the 53%! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXN0GDuLN4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
How many peer reviewed publications will actually accept an article that doesn’t join the AGW bandwagon?

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!!

Fact is, Global Warming was debunked by the release of the IPCC emails some what .... 10 years ago which showed that Michael Mann falsely created the "hockey stick" theory and manipulated the data used to form his "conclusions."

Mann has never been peer reviewed - he only allows other so-called scientists to look at, and concur with the results.

That's not science. That's thuggery. Mann berates and belittles those who oppose him, driving them out of "science."

Michael Mann, the IPCC and the rest of the global warming alarmists are FRAUDS.

33 posted on 01/12/2014 7:46:43 PM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I didn’t know that the scientific method included “get consensus” as a step.


34 posted on 01/12/2014 7:51:48 PM PST by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The basic fact is that Jones destroyed the basic data for the study and it was not ever reconstructed. Everything was based upon the “manipulated data” and thus destroyed any possibility of the study being reviewed or replicated. No real scientists would ever allow the basic data be destroyed and still claim the study valid.


35 posted on 01/12/2014 7:53:46 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet (It's difficult to differentiate between a hog calling contest and a Senate rollcall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Something is rotten in Denmark, as they say! The putrid smell is wafting everywhere!


36 posted on 01/12/2014 7:56:06 PM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> 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%.

And of course, an a priori consensus of 99.99% is perfectly normal.


37 posted on 01/12/2014 7:57:44 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Real scientists don't ascribe to the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

I'd love to know the breakdown of these scienticians, and what their politics are, and whether they have any knowledge germane to "climate science".

OR, as I suspect, are OVERWHELMINGLY leftists, who REALLY REALLY like leftist redistributionist schemes.

Once every single one of them has been eliminated from the "consensus", let me know the results.

38 posted on 01/12/2014 7:58:04 PM PST by boop (Liberal religion. No rules, just right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I could be convinced that the world is getting warmer. I am not convinced it’s man made. Nor do I think we can do a damn thing about it.


39 posted on 01/12/2014 8:00:46 PM PST by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

are you telling me that the people who received funding / grants / permission to publish a book are in agreement?

gee, sounds exactly like propaganda to me.


40 posted on 01/12/2014 8:04:07 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Scientific American was, at one time, both scientific and American.

No longer.


41 posted on 01/12/2014 8:09:35 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

More like when Stalin was elected.


42 posted on 01/12/2014 8:27:54 PM PST by Kozy (Calling Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Dear Climate Change scientists:

LAST WEEK THE SUN, the source of all energy on earth: either on the ground, under the ground in pools or rock strata, or above the ground as wind, solar, thermal, waves, batteries, or whatever;

Reversed it’s magnetic poles, so that the Sun’s north pole, became it’s South pole, fully changing its proton emissions.

Please Mr. Scientist, explain the impact of that change to the Sun, as it relates to the next few centuries of life on the Earth!

I’m, waiting!


43 posted on 01/12/2014 8:29:28 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
There is no money in denying globull warming.

And there could be serious career danger, especially when publications like Scientific American come out explicitly against those who disagree with the zeitgeist. They're clearly not interested in REAL science, just 'popular' science.

44 posted on 01/12/2014 8:37:24 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999
Actually, the sun reverses poles every 11 years or so. We're supposed to get enhanced radio propogation at the sunspot peak. Ham radio has been for crap this cycle, compared to previous cycles.

/johnny

45 posted on 01/12/2014 8:48:28 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

..............Actually, the sun reverses poles every 11 years or so..........

Yes, I totally understand the 11 year cycle.

Do our esteemed climate change experts, like Algore, also understand that the Sun is ever changing, and what possible impact could that be for all the planets within our solar system???


46 posted on 01/12/2014 9:23:35 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

..............Actually, the sun reverses poles every 11 years or so..........

Yes, I totally understand the 11 year cycle.

Do our esteemed climate change experts, like Algore, also understand that the Sun is ever changing, and what possible impact could that be for all the planets within our solar system???


47 posted on 01/12/2014 9:23:49 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If you write a serious scientific paper disputing the human cause of global warming, your paper will not be published.

We know this from Mann's leaked emails. There is a coordinated effort to suppress dissent. You agree with them or your career is over.

And the reason they do this is so they can write articles like this, trumpeting "consensus."

48 posted on 01/12/2014 9:26:50 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yeah. And 100% of the Politburo voted for Stalin.


49 posted on 01/12/2014 9:33:03 PM PST by EternalVigilance ('The simplification of anything is always sensational.' -- G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I hope to God that those that fear Global Warming are right. If you look at Geologic History, life and man thrived during the inter glacial periods. The Inter glacial periods have lasted from 10 to 20 thousands years with glacial periods of 100 thousand years or more. The normal state of the earth is glaciation and not our present and probably short lived state of inter glaciation.

CO2 did not start or end the last ice age. Orbital mechanics and the magnetosphere of the sun is the cause of ice ages and the brief periods between in which life flourishes.

“Pray for global warming,” as the alternative is a vast lose of life and diversity of living things on our planet.


50 posted on 01/12/2014 10:42:13 PM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson