So says the guy who is quoting stats that have been found to be totally fabricated.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
So says the guy who is quoting stats that have been found to be totally fabricated.
And you're totally off your rocker.
Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). (You can see his methodology here.)
What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.
The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.
"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."
And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.
What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.
The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.
"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."
And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.
Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
As outlined in your article, it summarized how 3,146 climate scientists responded to the survey.
Somehow the 'global warming' promoters deemed that 77 of these 3,146 were worthy of the title 'climatologists'.
So 75 of these 77 supported 'man-made global warming' - magically a 97% figure is invented.
Here is some news: 75 / 3146 does not equal 97%
I think Dr. James Powell didn't look very hard if he only found 24 out of the more than 1,100 peer-reviewed papers which dispute some aspect of AGW.
And he writes for Science Progress, the junk science division of the rabidly left-wing Center for American Progress.
As near as I can tell, Dr. Powell hasn't written any peer-reviewed papers on the subject... Although he has written a number of alarmist books, he is trying to sell.
Dr. Powell's assertion is similar to Oreskes, 2004, who found no dissenting papers.
I have about 3.6 Gb of papers on two thumb drives, all of which cast doubt on some aspect of AGW... Although, I doubt casting doubt was the intent of the vast majority of the authors.
Anderegg et al., 2010 found that 66% of "climate researchers" agreed with the IPCC and 34% disagreed. Anderegg (a grad student in the biology department) conducted a personal opinion (his own opinion) survey of the publications and statements of 1,375 climate researchers. In his opinion 903 agreed with and 472 disagreed with the IPCC. When he narrowed in on the most voluminously published researchers, he found that 97-98% agreed with the IPCC, in his opinion.
Part of the problem is that "climatologist" is a very fuzzy title.
Climatologists or climate scientists can have backgrounds in a wide variety of subjects, ranging from botany, paleobotany, geology, geophysics, meteorology, atmospheric physics or chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, oceanography, mathematics and/or physical geography. It is a highly interdisciplinary field.
The most widely referred to âsurveyâ on the scientific acceptance of AGW was Kendall-Zimmerman, 2008. This paper (summarized by Doran in Eos) asserted that 97% of climate scientists accepted the IPCC version of AGW. That 97% is from a sample of 79 people and none of the poll questions referred to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, never mentioned AGW" or greenhouse gas emissions...
1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman only invited 10,257 academic and government earth and atmospheric scientists to participate, 7,111 of which didn't respond. Over 100,000 earth and atmospheric scientists with real jobs were left out of the survey. I belong to three organizations (AAPG, SEPM and SEG) that were supposedly polled. I wasn't polled and neither was any other earth scientist working in the non-academic private sector. They only surveyed academic and gov't earth scientists.
How do you define "climate scientist"? Of the ~3,000 respondents to Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, only 79 described themselves as climate scientists. About 1/3 of the meteorologists and 1/2 of the economic geologists polled answered, "no" to both questions - And these were all academic and gov't meteorologists and economic geologists. Had they included industry earth scientists, the percentage of "yes" answers to question #2 would likely have been a lot lower.
If I had been polled, I would have answered "yes" to the first question and I might have answered "yes" to the second question... Land use changes have had a significant impact on regional and possibly global temperatures. Although, I think I would have recognized it as a "push poll" and answered, "no" to the second question.
The Doctor
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129796&page=2
And he writes for Science Progress, the junk science division of the rabidly left-wing Center for American Progress.
As near as I can tell, Dr. Powell hasn't written any peer-reviewed papers on the subject... Although he has written a number of alarmist books, he is trying to sell.
Dr. Powell's assertion is similar to Oreskes, 2004, who found no dissenting papers.
I have about 3.6 Gb of papers on two thumb drives, all of which cast doubt on some aspect of AGW... Although, I doubt casting doubt was the intent of the vast majority of the authors.
Anderegg et al., 2010 found that 66% of "climate researchers" agreed with the IPCC and 34% disagreed. Anderegg (a grad student in the biology department) conducted a personal opinion (his own opinion) survey of the publications and statements of 1,375 climate researchers. In his opinion 903 agreed with and 472 disagreed with the IPCC. When he narrowed in on the most voluminously published researchers, he found that 97-98% agreed with the IPCC, in his opinion.
Part of the problem is that "climatologist" is a very fuzzy title.
Climatologists or climate scientists can have backgrounds in a wide variety of subjects, ranging from botany, paleobotany, geology, geophysics, meteorology, atmospheric physics or chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, oceanography, mathematics and/or physical geography. It is a highly interdisciplinary field.
The most widely referred to âsurveyâ on the scientific acceptance of AGW was Kendall-Zimmerman, 2008. This paper (summarized by Doran in Eos) asserted that 97% of climate scientists accepted the IPCC version of AGW. That 97% is from a sample of 79 people and none of the poll questions referred to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, never mentioned AGW" or greenhouse gas emissions...
1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman only invited 10,257 academic and government earth and atmospheric scientists to participate, 7,111 of which didn't respond. Over 100,000 earth and atmospheric scientists with real jobs were left out of the survey. I belong to three organizations (AAPG, SEPM and SEG) that were supposedly polled. I wasn't polled and neither was any other earth scientist working in the non-academic private sector. They only surveyed academic and gov't earth scientists.
How do you define "climate scientist"? Of the ~3,000 respondents to Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, only 79 described themselves as climate scientists. About 1/3 of the meteorologists and 1/2 of the economic geologists polled answered, "no" to both questions - And these were all academic and gov't meteorologists and economic geologists. Had they included industry earth scientists, the percentage of "yes" answers to question #2 would likely have been a lot lower.
If I had been polled, I would have answered "yes" to the first question and I might have answered "yes" to the second question... Land use changes have had a significant impact on regional and possibly global temperatures. Although, I think I would have recognized it as a "push poll" and answered, "no" to the second question.
The Doctor
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129796&page=2
I wonder how the Koch bros are paying the author.
He starts off talking about Powell and the "24 out of the more than 1,100 peer-reviewed papers which dispute some aspect of AGW.", and finding nothing there to criticize, moves on to Andregg, conflating the two. Brilliant obfuscation there. There, he finds a little more meat but not much really.
"only" 10,000 atmospheric scientists polled?\The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth). To maximize the response rate,
the survey was designed to take less than
2 minutes to complete
And only 79 pure climatologists ended up being polled
Hmmm. Well there aren't that many pure climatologists out there to begin with. Economic geologists and meteorologists are simply not the same thing. Climatology specialists almost by default have to work for the govt or academia. There are very few climatologists working solely for private interests.
and 77 said "Yes , man is changing global temperatures. 97%
BTW , if anyone doubts that the climatologists are not talking about CO2 as the predominant factor, then I have some good swamp, I mean land to sell ya.
Total nonsense.