Some Many Climate Deniers But... [Pic]

Submitted by: DrShrinker 3 years ago in Science


Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Pie Chart



In reviewing more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications, authored by over 9,000 authors between November 2012 and December 2013, geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming.
Writes Powell, inviting others to replicate his findings:

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wishall 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.
That the number of authors agreeing with human-accelerated global warming comes in at over nine-thousand(!) is arguably less surprising than the almost total lack of cogent counter-positioning. As SciAm"s Ashutosh Jogalekar puts it:

Isn"t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.




Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough?
There are 51 comments:
Male 316
So there`s a chance it isn`t true.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
emmettyville-"rising seas lapping at your feet?

I live ~150 feet from the Gulf....I`m less than worried.

patchgrabber-"Peer review would suss out any bad/biased research"

Or, could suss out any research that doesn`t toe the political agenda (& financially viable) line, weather it`s viable or not (see what I did there?).
0
Reply
Female 655
tldr
0
Reply
Male 1,015
WOW !!!! Seems to hurt you very bad that scientists do agree on the subject.
0
Reply
Male 579
Whatevers! A bunch of lefties pushing a lefty agenda. Is this surprising in any way?
0
Reply
Male 714
Let`s see here... 2000 papers by 9000 authors. Each paper had at least 4 authors. My experience with journals of this kind is that when you research a subject, the same names continuously pop-up. I think that it would be incredible that each of these journal articles was written by 9000 different authors.

I also find it difficult to believe that the one journal that rejected AGW had just the 1 author.

Now, to this commonly held belief that peer review = unquestionably true. Read some of the `social sciences` and that will kill your belief. Undoubtedly, the evidence has to be well researched and the methodology sound, but science is all about debate - there are few laws and lots of theories. It`s laughable how those who claim that science is on their side are the least willing to act in a scientific manner and resort to name-calling.
0
Reply
Male 308
1) Younger-Dryas
2) No, in today`s America, you cannot have an opinion that is contrary to the established politically correct norm.
0
Reply
Male 160
Yeah the earth never had any climate change until the 20th century
0
Reply
Male 5,811
There is no way such an orchestrated system as right-wingers claim exists could really be. The overwhelming majority of scientists and journals would have to be in on it, and that`s just not possible.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
This tin hat nonsense is getting old. Peer review would suss out any bad/biased research. Reviewers have no stake in any given paper. I`ve reviewed many papers so I`ll explain the process:

Journal with a submission contacts you via email. They get your email either from publications you`ve done in the field or from papers you`ve submitted to that journal or recommendations.

As a reviewer, you don`t see the name of the submitting author or institution. You also don`t get paid to peer review, it`s an expectation. You read the paper, submit any questions or responses to the author(s) you want, and then make a recommendation to the journal whether to:

1) Publish
2) Publish with minor/major revisions
3) Not publish

There are typically 3 reviewers for a paper. The journal takes their input and decides whether to publish. The author(s) make revisions based on reviewer feedback and submit answers/explanations for reviewer questions/comments.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Lots of tin foil being used in both camps here it seems.
0
Reply
Male 1,983
Ollie is again trying to convince everyone that he is smarter than every climate scientist on the planet who has spent decades learning their craft and studying their subject.

Ollie *thinks* he`s smarter.

Ollie is an idiot.
0
Reply
Female 8,055
i have always held that even if AGW is not correct( which I firmly believe it is) all we stand to lose by assuming it is is a grubby planet- it seems just foolish to gamble with the only home we have..
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"It`s nothing but a pretext for liberals to boss people around and take their stuff"

.. And all of a sudden i saw an image of a porch with a rocking chair, big gutted naked belly redneck in it, shotgun to his side yelling: you stay `wy from my car ya hear.

dáww does the big mean teacher want to take your toy`s? there there..
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Apropos of nothing: Anyone know what became of CrakrJak? Is he OK? I know he had a medical issue not too long ago.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: "Where are the 30-year-old climatologists who don`t bow at the altar of AGW?"

I dunno. But riddle me this, Batman: Where are the 30-year-old medical researchers who don`t bow at the altar of CCCT?*

*Cigarettes Cause Cancer Theory. See what I did there? Clever, huh? Go on, admit it. Few rodents make you chuckle like I do.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Ollie, You`re an ass.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Broizfam: No worries. Ollie and I seems to coexist fairly well 97% of the time (or thereabouts). I acknowledge that he knows probably more physics than anyone else on the site and he acknowledges that I`m a squirrel. Both parties seem content with the arrangement.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
broizfam, I don`t need the Republican Party to tell me you`re a f***tard. BTW, I`m a libertarian.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
S4S, both of them are close to 60 years old. Their careers were well established before AGW became a cause celebre for the left and the doors started closing. The AGW lefties would dearly LOVE to excommunicate them if they could. Just Google `Roy Spencer denier` if you don`t believe it.

Where are the 30-year-old climatologists who don`t bow at the altar of AGW?
0
Reply
Male 6,077
@Squrlz,
Keep talking like that and Ollie`s gonna call you a liberal f**ktard. That`s his fallback argument when the Republican party hasn`t told him what to say yet.
0
Reply
Male 871
the fact that politicians are jumping on the bandwagon and charging you money for AGW does not negate AGW, it just means politicians are doing exactly as they have done for centuries, screwing the public for as much as they can, elect better politicians to run your country, they will still have to deal with GW.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Yes, Ollie. You DO get your "science" from politicians.
"Can you name one single "remedy" for global warming that DOESN`T involve liberals bossing people around and taking their stuff?"
Yes. It`s called "we work together". It`s definitely NOT called, "call anyone with a different opinion a liberal f**ktard. That`s just brainless, knee-jerk conservative stupidity. I`ve noticed you do that a lot. It`s a complete and utter rejection of the kind of compromise that made this a great country. That rejection is present on both sides, and is now ruining this country. Wake up. Grow up. Start using your mind, for a change, instead of letting it be used.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: You didn`t address two points in my last comment. First, that NASA is giving important climate research work to Dr. Spencer despite the fact that he is an outspoken opponent of AGW. Second, that Dr. Curry is head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Inst. of Technology. You think Dr. Curry, the chair of the department, is "closing the door" (to use your phrase) on PhD candidates who are AGW skeptics?

If so, I`ve got to wonder when you`re going to start telling us that the doors are being closed on researchers who can prove that cigarette smoking has nothing to do with cancer. You know, because the anti-smoking establishment prevents them from getting doctorates and refuses to publish their papers.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@broizfam I don`t get science from politicians. That`s what your side does. It`s called "projection" -- accusing others of doing what you do.

[quote]And it`s not over-politicized because liberals want your stuff. [/quote]
Can you name one single "remedy" for global warming that DOESN`T involve liberals bossing people around and taking their stuff?

And BTW, what`s the difference between "consensus" and "groupthink?"
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Ollie,
No. It`s science. It`s WAY over-politicized science but it`s science. And it`s not over-politicized because liberals want your stuff. It`s over-politicized because your beloved Republican Party is so afraid to lose the big business dollar that they`ll happily let us all die instead of recognizing that any danger exists at all. Yeah, the liberals get really noisy about it but they might not have to if you take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and actually look at what we`re doing to our land, our water and our air. The longer we wait to do anything about it, the harder, longer and more expensive it will get.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
S4S, Curry and Spencer are outliers, and they`re old. Curry got her BS in 1974 and her PhD in 1982 which was before they closed the doors to skeptics. Likewise, Spencer got his BS in 1978 and his PhD in 1982. They`re both nearing retirement.

Who will the AGW crowd be able to point to as their token skeptics after that?
0
Reply
Male 6,077
@bophus,
Don`t bother, man. For Ollie, science is whatever the Republican party says it is and, of course, it says AGW can`t exist because it would cost Big Business way too much to stop effing up our environment. They never heard the admonition, "Don`t crap where you sleep."
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts presented and repeatable. You analogy is completely wrong.[/quote]
Oh, I see your problem. You think AGW is science. It isn`t. It`s politics. It`s nothing but a pretext for liberals to boss people around and take their stuff.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
I could paint a zebra brown and call it a horse. If I got 9000 others to call it a horse too it would still be a zebra.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: I disagree with your charge that climate science is a club that excludes anyone who doesn`t subscribe to mainstream AGW theory. Witness Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Inst. of Technology, and Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist at the Univ. of Alabama. Even though Spencer has been sharply critical of the mainstream AGW science that NASA, as an organization, subscribes to, NASA continues to give Dr. Spencer important roles in climate research.

Frankly, the reason you see fewer and fewer peer-reviewed papers published that contend that global warming is unrelated to man is that, as the data accrue, the case is getting harder and harder to make.
0
Reply
Female 4,440
`yawn....` hows it goiung there in th U.S? nice and warm? rising seas lapping at your feet?
0
Reply
Male 497
@OldOllie

"This is about as convincing as surveying priests to prove the existence of God."

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts presented and repeatable. You analogy is completely wrong.

Also, all of the magazines, universities, etc are controled by people who believe in global warming? you could have just said that Scientists are in control of them.

In closing, you are a complete idiot. Please stop breathing, you are ruining the air for the rest of us.
0
Reply
Female 1,478
So many*

*sigh*
0
Reply
Male 871
nooo shurly not cause some random not fact based paper that I totally believe before the thousands of peer reviewed papers says it aint so.
0
Reply
Male 819
@OldOllie: Your conspiracy theory is about as credible as a Holocaust denier claiming that there aren`t more shows proving that the Holocaust never happened because Jews control the media.

I and quite a few people I know are and have been involved in academia and while perhaps a very specific department in a specific university might have an agenda; as long as you have something intelligent and credible to research you will eventually find an institution organisation etc. to fund/back you research/publish you.

The idea that thousands of independent academic institutions throughout the world are all suppressing research is ludicrous.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
How many times do I have to explain this? The global warming f***tards control all the University departments, funding organizations, and journal publishers. You must FIRST profess your faith in AGW before your work will even be considered for publication.

This is about as convincing as surveying priests to prove the existence of God.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
I don`t wish to be rude, but with a name like DrShrinker, surely you could you should have learned to `shrink` the pics to fit the post. My poor index finger is getting RSI from excessive scrolling.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

Correcting or even slowing global warming is too expensive to corporations, there for it does not exist. They control the guv`ment.
0
Reply
Male 1,743
Haha, you should try clicking on the articles submitted by randomxnp. One of the articles published by Nature was an open letter to Nature. Umm...yah, that was peer-reviewed. MANY of the other journals aren`t even peer-reviewed. They have scientific-sounding names, but there is no peer-review process at all before the paper is published.

I could also find hundreds of articles with scientific-sounding names written by non peer-reviewed letters and non peer-reviewed papers. And then I could also post the title "peer reviewed" at the top. It`s effective and sounds super science-y.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
The `if you do not toe the party line you will not be published` mentality tends to screw the numberes. (not a believer = not published = not counted in bullsh|t pie charts).

Saddam Hussein re-elected as President of Iraq by 99.96% of the vote in 1995 & re-elected with 100% of the vote in 2002, using pretty much the same ideology (i.e. fudging the numbers)

SmagBoy1-"Them damned liberals keep telling me the Titanic is sinking"

Do you REALLY want to associate liberals with the Titanic at the moment.

0
Reply
Male 4,431
Well, 5Cats, it`s like someone said on Twitter the other day, "Them damned liberals keep telling me the Titanic is sinking. But my side is 500 feet in the air!"
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Well since it`s a matter of record that Mann & company worked to prevent ANY non-AGW supporting papers from being published? Obviously there aren`t a lot of them. Duh!

Plus this information is bullship. I mean there were thousands of scientists who signed anti-AGW petitions...
0
Reply
Male 1,346
BS
0
Reply
Male 1,015
WOW !!!! Seems to hurt you very bad that scientists do agree on the subject.
0
Reply
Male 514
of course a lot of scientists who claim its a hoax are often denied funding by universities etc, it kind of weeds out unbiased opinions.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
So is that like the Cook et al paper, where they lied through their teeth about the meaning of the papers, turning 0.3% into 97% supporting CAGW?

Of course given the known corruption of peer review to prevent publication of sound sceptical papers and ensure poor alarmist papers are pulished it is kind of irrelevant, isn`t it?

Despite this there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers disputing CAGW. Here are over 1100:

http://bit.ly/ZJuK4s

There are plenty more, of course.
0
Reply
Female 4,427
"lemmings"
0
Reply
Male 85
I was reading until I got to "over 9,000"
0
Reply
Male 2,578

0
Reply
Male 43
Link: Some Many Climate Deniers But... [Pic] [Rate Link] - Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough?
0
Reply