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?