2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[Crick]

Modeled? You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?

"GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"

Hmm... odd name for a model.

 

[RollingThunder]

And BoobyBobNutJob spews more demented drivel.....as usual.

The Planet Just Had Its Hottest October On Record

 

[Billy_Bob]

Modeled? You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?

"GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"

Hmm... odd name for a model.

So you are now the grammar and spelling police as well?

 

[RollingThunder]

Modeled? You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?

"GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"

Hmm... odd name for a model.

So you are now the grammar and spelling police as well?

Your moronic error of confusing instrumental data with "models", which Crick was pointing out, has absolutely nothing to do with either "grammar" or "spelling", you flaming fruitcake

Even after some experience with you and your retarded drivel, sometimes your outright imbecile-level stupidity is just jaw dropping, BoobyBob.

 

[Crick]

Grammar and spelling? How do you manage to be that stupid? "GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data" was the label on the graph you claimed was the output of a model. Do you not understand what it means? Were you aware that TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are satellites with altimeters used to measure sea level? Did you not comprehend that the data on the graph came from the altimeters of those satellites? Where the fuck did you get the idea it came from a model?

 

[Old Rocks]

As I have stated before, either Billy Boob is an adolescent, or he or she is slightly retarded.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did anyone ever claim that the oceans would have swallowed up Florida by now. No. Just starting to happen by now - yes. Rising sea levels are already impacting Florida, as most of the residents are well aware, even if most of the rightwingnut politicians are in denial.

And yeah, nutbagger, the North Pole has melted enormously, no matter what crackpot myths and lies you've moronically fallen for.

Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate
The New York Times
By CORAL DAVENPORT
MAY 7, 2014

Scenes of street flooding, like this one on Alton Road in Miami Beach in November, are becoming increasingly common. Credit - Angel Valentin for The New York Times

MIAMI BEACH — The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door.

“This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”

Down the block at an electronics store it is even worse. Jankel Aleman, a salesman, keeps plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around his feet when he trudges from his car to the store through ever-rising waters.

A new scientific report on global warming released this week, the National Climate Assessment, named Miami as one of the cities most vulnerable to severe damage as a result of rising sea levels. Alton Road, a commercial thoroughfare in the heart of stylish South Beach, is getting early ripples of sea level rise caused by global warming — even as Florida’s politicians, including two possible contenders for the presidency in 2016, are starkly at odds over what to do about it and whether the problem is even real.

“The theme of the report is that climate change is not a future thing, it’s a ‘happening-now’ thing,” said Leonard Berry, a contributing author of the new report and director of the Florida Center for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University. “Alton Road is one of the now things.”

Sea levels have risen eight inches since 1870, according to the new report, which projects a further rise of one to four feet by the end of the century. Waters around southeast Florida could surge up to two feet by 2060, according to a report by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. A study by the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that over the next 35 years, rising sea levels will increasingly flood and damage smaller local roads in the Miami area.

The national climate report found that although rapidly melting Arctic ice is threatening the entire American coastline, Miami is exceptionally vulnerable because of its unique geology. The city is built on top of porous limestone, which is already allowing the rising seas to soak into the city’s foundation, bubble up through pipes and drains, encroach on fresh water supplies and saturate infrastructure. County governments estimate that the damages could rise to billions or even trillions of dollars.

The world will get serious about dealing with climate change only when the seas begin to flood the beachside homes of the rich and powerful.

In and around Miami, local officials are grappling head on with the problem. “Sea level rise is our reality in Miami Beach,” said the city’s mayor, Philip Levine. “We are past the point of debating the existence of climate change and are now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.” In the face of encroaching saltwater and sunny-day flooding like that on Alton Road, Mr. Levine has supported a $400 million spending project to make the city’s drainage system more resilient in the face of rising tides.

But while local politicians can take action to shore up their community against the rising tide, they are powerless to stop what scientists say is the heart of the problem: the increasing fossil fuel emissions that continue to warm the planet. Scientists say that the scale of emission reductions necessary to prevent the most dangerous effects of global warming can only come as a result of national and international policies to cut carbon pollution.

In particular, climate experts say, national policies to tax or regulate carbon pollution are required by the world’s top emitters, chiefly the United States and China. Such efforts have to date met a wave of political opposition in Congress — bills aimed at putting a price on carbon pollution have repeatedly failed. President Obama plans to use his executive authority to issue a regulation that would cut carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, but Republicans, who call the rule a “War on Coal,” want to overturn it.

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, supports carbon-cutting efforts, even as he acknowledges that they will come with some economic cost. In April, he convened a packed hearing at the Miami Beach City Hall on the encroaching waters.

“With sea level rise, you’ve got to get to core of the problem,” Mr. Nelson said at the hearing. “You have to lessen the amount of CO2. It’s politically treacherous and costly. But at the end of the day, something like that is going to have to get passed. Otherwise the planet is going to continue to heat up.”

But three prominent Florida Republicans — Senator Marco Rubio, former Gov. Jeb Bush and the current governor, Rick Scott — declined repeated requests to be interviewed on the subject. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Bush are viewed as potential presidential candidates. Political analysts say the reluctance of the three men to speak publicly on the issue reflects an increasingly difficult political reality for Republicans grappling with the issue of climate change, particularly for the party’s lawmakers from Florida. In acknowledging the problem, politicians must endorse a solution, but the only major policy solutions to climate change — taxing or regulating the oil, gas and coal industries — are anathema to the base of the Republican Party. Thus, many Republicans, especially in Florida, appear to be dealing with the issue by keeping silent.

“Jeb likes to take positions on hot-button issues, the same with Rubio,” said Joseph E. Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami. “On immigration they are further mainstream on that than the rest of the G.O.P. But on this, Republicans are dead set against taking action on climate change on the national level. If you have political aspirations, this is not something you should talk about if you want to win a Republican primary.”

Over the past year, Mr. Rubio has signaled his skepticism about the established science that fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change. When asked in a 2013 Buzzfeed webcast interview if climate change posed a threat to Florida, Mr. Rubio responded: “The climate is always changing. The question is, is manmade activity what’s contributing most to it?” He added that “I’ve seen reasonable debate on that principle” and “if we unilaterally impose these sorts of things on our economy it would have a devastating impact.”

But in 2008, while serving in the Florida State Legislature, Mr. Rubio supported a bill directing the State Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules for companies to limit carbon emissions.

As governor from 1999 to 2007, Mr. Bush pushed several environmental initiatives, particularly efforts to protect Everglades National Park, which scientists say is highly vulnerable to encroaching seawaters. Political scientists say that Mr. Rubio’s shift and Mr. Bush’s current silence on the issue appear to reflect the position of lawmakers who are mulling transitions from the state to the national stage and the realities of satisfying their party’s base in the 2016 primaries.

hahahaahahaahhahahahaahhahaha...................................hahaahhahahahahahhahaahhahaahaa, It's ashame you don't know what weather is. I'm not surprised though. Keep it up, I enjoy the comedy!

Vacuous insanity! As we've all come to expect from ol' JustCrazy, who is actually stupid enough to think that persistent increasing flooding equals "weather".

Naw... I know that when the tides are high, the moon is most likely full. And I know that when it rains 9 inches of rain in a day, that streets will most likely get flooded.

LOLOLOLOL.....sooooo retarded......JustCrazy pretends to think that when they talk about "sunny-day flooding" , they really mean "when it rains 9 inches of rain in a day"....LOLOL.

MIAMI BEACH — The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door. “This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”

And ol' JustCrazy also pretends to think that Florida officials are wackos who are just making it all up......LOLOL....

In and around Miami, local officials are grappling head on with the problem. “Sea level rise is our reality in Miami Beach,” said the city’s mayor, Philip Levine. “We are past the point of debating the existence of climate change and are now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.”

I believe the man stated high tide. I believe that was in my post, so not sure what your point is since you never have one.

Edit: BTW, the sun can shine after a storm mr. braindead!!!!

OMG it's high tide we're all gonna drown!!!! ROFL

 

[RKMBrown]

As I have stated before, either Billy Boob is an adolescent, or he or she is slightly retarded.

Say's the dumb ass that believes cow farts and human breathing is destroying the planet. ROFL leftards are sooooo funny. Everyone know global warming is a hoax, get with the program.

 

[Crick]

He's made no mistakes. You seem to make nothing but. This one short post has three major errors, not counting the juvenile syntax.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Modeled? You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?

"GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"

Hmm... odd name for a model.

all data from those platforms are run through a model which generates the plotted data. They make adjustments to the raw data in the model. But hey, you cant have the real unaltered data out for others to use..

 

[mamooth]

Billy, is it part of your Ph.D program to auto-declare how all the data is a socialist conspiracy?

 

[RollingThunder]

all data from those platforms are run through a model which generates the plotted data. They make adjustments to the raw data in the model. But hey, you cant have the real unaltered data out for others to use..

Moronic lies from the insane retard BoobyBobNutJob.

 

[RollingThunder]

NOAA's October analysis just came out and it confirms that the Earth just experienced its second consequetive 'hottest 12 month period' on record, surpassing the previous record set last month. October is the third consequetive month and the fifth month in the last six months to be the hottest month of that name on record. April of this year was tied with April 2010 as the hottest April on record. With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has ranked among the four warmest on record for its respective month. The 2014 calander year will almost certainly be the new official 'hottest year on record' globally.

NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20thcentury average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest).

The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere was record warm overall with a record high land surface temperature for the month. The Northern Hemisphere was third warmest on record for October, with a record high average sea surface temperature.

The first ten months of 2014 (January–October) were the warmest such period since record keeping began in 1880, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 and tied in 2010 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record.

The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record, at 0.68°C (1.22°F) above average, with November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 all record warm for their respective months.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

Riiiiight.....I point out what the world's scientists are saying, almost unamimously, and, to you, that makes me a "moron"....but you deny the testimony of the world scientific community and the massive amounts of direct evidence that everybody can see, and instead cling to idiotic pseudo-science and crackpot conspiracy theories cooked up by the people with the deeply vested financial interests in the fossil fuel industry, and that makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.....LOLOLOLOL.....you are either a paid troll or a bamboozled moronic dupe of the propaganda campaign.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

Indeed........but ROLLING THUNDER is a priceless gem in this forum!! To myself, JC, Frank, SSDD et. al..........he cant post enough in here for our liking.
We are not in here to try for a nanosecond to change the minds of mental cases..........we just sit back and watch their heads explode with the content in every post..........the misery, anger and rage!!!

Curious people wandering into this forum to get a barometer on the real deal with climate change get it............

 

[RKMBrown]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

Riiiiight.....I point out what the world's scientists are saying, almost unamimously, and, to you, that makes me a "moron"....but you deny the testimony of the world scientific community and the massive amounts of direct evidence that everybody can see, and instead cling to idiotic pseudo-science and crackpot conspiracy theories cooked up by the people with the deeply vested financial interests in the fossil fuel industry, and that makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.....LOLOLOLOL.....you are either a paid troll or a bamboozled moronic dupe of the propaganda campaign.

You're nothing more than a mouthpiece for a political agenda. Here, read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to asurvey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

Riiiiight.....I point out what the world's scientists are saying, almost unamimously, and, to you, that makes me a "moron"....but you deny the testimony of the world scientific community and the massive amounts of direct evidence that everybody can see, and instead cling to idiotic pseudo-science and crackpot conspiracy theories cooked up by the people with the deeply vested financial interests in the fossil fuel industry, and that makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.....LOLOLOLOL.....you are either a paid troll or a bamboozled moronic dupe of the propaganda campaign.

You're nothing more than a mouthpiece for a political agenda. Here, read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

You are a deluded retard. Your fraudulent article was written by the president of the Heartland Institute, a corporate propaganda outlet that is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to pump out deceitful propaganda and lies. Dr. Spencer is one of the very few actual denier cult scientists but he is a quack whose work has been shown to have a constant bias towards reporting less warming. In addition...
Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"
Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[19]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[20]

Meanwhile.....in the real world.....
Dr. James L. Powell

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 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. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it.

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.

The top ten countries represented among the authors of all the articles are, in order: USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. Roughly 35 percent of the articles were about the impacts of global warming, 30 percent about mitigation, 30 percent about methods, and 5 percent about paleoclimates, without much change over the 20 years.

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming. Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. To sample the most recent 500 articles, click here. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

Here I bring my previous study up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.

You're a moron.

Riiiiight.....I point out what the world's scientists are saying, almost unamimously, and, to you, that makes me a "moron"....but you deny the testimony of the world scientific community and the massive amounts of direct evidence that everybody can see, and instead cling to idiotic pseudo-science and crackpot conspiracy theories cooked up by the people with the deeply vested financial interests in the fossil fuel industry, and that makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.....LOLOLOLOL.....you are either a paid troll or a bamboozled moronic dupe of the propaganda campaign.

You're nothing more than a mouthpiece for a political agenda. Here, read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

You are a deluded retard. Your fraudulent article was written by the president of the Heartland Institute, a corporate propaganda outlet that is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to pump out deceitful propaganda and lies. Dr. Spencer is one of the very few actual denier cult scientists but he is a quack whose work has been shown to have a constant bias towards reporting less warming. In addition...
Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"
Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[19]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[20]

Meanwhile.....in the real world.....
Dr. James L. Powell

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 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. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it.

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.

The top ten countries represented among the authors of all the articles are, in order: USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. Roughly 35 percent of the articles were about the impacts of global warming, 30 percent about mitigation, 30 percent about methods, and 5 percent about paleoclimates, without much change over the 20 years.

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming. Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. To sample the most recent 500 articles, click here. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

Here I bring my previous study up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.

I think the funniest thing about that is.........over 10,000 articles and still, nobody is impressed!!!


As Ive said so many times in this forum........even if we all concur that there is a "consensus" on the science, is still not mattering in the real world!!

Heres the analogy.........in the motorsports world, there is a fringe breed of racing called tractor pulling!!! High horsepower tractors pull sleds down a dirt strip. Fans of the sport say there is nothing like it in the world. But nobody cares about tractor pulling racing.....they have about 179 fans.

The AGW world has spent 20 years telling us about their "consensus" science for the expressed purpose of getting people to buy into renewable energy. 20+ years and still nobody is caring........renewable energy is still an extreme fringe energy source. Both wind and solar account for less than 3% in the US = the science isn't mattering. In 2040, all energy projections, including that of Obama's EIA say renewables will still be <10%.

Which means, Mashimoto, when seeing Rolling Thunders latest mega-post said..........