2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RollingThunder]

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.

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

Well, "nobody" in the circle of ignorant anti-science rightwingnut retards that you know, anyway.

In the real world, most of the people in most countries consider AGW/CC one of the biggest threats their country faces.

Many around the world see climate change as a major threat
Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 39-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2013. A median of 54% across these countries said global climate change was a major threat to their country, slightly more than the 52% who said this about international financial instability. High levels of concern were also expressed about Islamic extremist groups, as well as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

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

Well, "nobody" in the circle of ignorant anti-science rightwingnut retards that you know, anyway.

In the real world, most of the people in most countries consider AGW/CC one of the biggest threats their country faces.

Many around the world see climate change as a major threat
Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 39-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2013. A median of 54% across these countries said global climate change was a major threat to their country, slightly more than the 52% who said this about international financial instability. High levels of concern were also expressed about Islamic extremist groups, as well as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

Who fucking cares.........."across these countries".................


s0n...........I hate to break it to you and not sure what little Bumfook town you live in but words don't mean shit in life. Only behavior matters.

So......how is this perception of a "major threat" translating in the real world............stupid??!!!


The "ignorant rightwingnut retards" are winning.............big. The science the AGW OCD's thump their chests about hasn't has ANY impact on world policymakers who continue to use coal, oil and natural gas in silly-ass quantities. ( go look at any graph you want ).........and will continue to use coal, natural gas and oil in silly-ass quantities for decades.


Maybe if you make that font a bit bigger s0n, it might change the whoooooooooooooooole landscape for the AGW OCD's!!

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

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

Well, "nobody" in the circle of ignorant anti-science rightwingnut retards that you know, anyway.

In the real world, most of the people in most countries consider AGW/CC one of the biggest threats their country faces.

Many around the world see climate change as a major threat
Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 39-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2013. A median of 54% across these countries said global climate change was a major threat to their country, slightly more than the 52% who said this about international financial instability. High levels of concern were also expressed about Islamic extremist groups, as well as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

Who fucking cares.........."across these countries".................
...........I hate to break it to you and not sure what little Bumfook town you live in but words don't mean shit in life. Only behavior matters. So......how is this perception of a "major threat" translating in the real world............stupid??!!! The "ignorant rightwingnut retards" are winning.............big. The science the AGW OCD's thump their chests about hasn't has ANY impact on world policymakers who continue to use coal, oil and natural gas in silly-ass quantities. ( go look at any graph you want ).........and will continue to use coal, natural gas and oil in silly-ass quantities for decades. Maybe if you make that font a bit bigger s0n, it might change the whoooooooooooooooole landscape for the AGW OCD's!!

More idiotic drivel from the forum's resident retarded kook.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Legates Et Al. The anthology of the SKS kooks Cook and Bedford is amazing.. And some here reflect it too in their blind belief in a fools errand called CAGW.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am 80% sure we will get the recon on Giss and Noaa. The 20% is the fact that the land masses are seriously cooling off and if that keeps up it could threaten to take the record away.

The energy is going back into the oceans.

 

[Judicial review]

I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!

Do you have a data set? The closes one is UAH..Which is also heading for a record! http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/October2014/october2014_GTR.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!

Now that is the level of intellect and debate to be expected from a 'Conservative'.

 

[jc456]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Moron.

Yes, you are, in spades. A fact you make crystal clear every time you post your ignorant insanity, ReallyBrownShit.

 

[jc456]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.

 

[jc456]

You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.

again, so are you jealous of those who don't believe what you do? Do you wish you had the ability to use your mind and expand? Still haven't stated why it bothers you that I think differently than you? Are you afraid of me? Boooo!!!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.

again, so are you jealous of those who don't believe what you do? Do you wish you had the ability to use your mind and expand? Still haven't stated why it bothers you that I think differently than you? Are you afraid of me? Boooo!!!!!

I bet he cries a tear for everyone that refuses to live life in fear of our atmosphere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming. Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
"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."

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.

again, so are you jealous of those who don't believe what you do? Do you wish you had the ability to use your mind and expand? Still haven't stated why it bothers you that I think differently than you? Are you afraid of me?

More demented drivel with no connection to reality or the topic of this thread. The usual denier cult attempt to distract from the topic and derail the thread with meaningless nonsense, whenever their bogus myths get debunked by the facts.

In the real world....

NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014
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. (originally published as 0.69°C, corrected 20 Nov 2014)

 

[jc456]

so what is your intentions with this? Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?

My "intentions" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"Trying to change minds" like yours "that are already made up" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.

Why does it bother you what someone else believes? Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind? Are you jealous? Do you lack something? Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k. Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question. hmmmm... why is that?

The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.

again, so are you jealous of those who don't believe what you do? Do you wish you had the ability to use your mind and expand? Still haven't stated why it bothers you that I think differently than you? Are you afraid of me?

More demented drivel with no connection to reality or the topic of this thread. The usual denier cult attempt to distract from the topic and derail the thread with meaningless nonsense, whenever their bogus myths get debunked by the facts.

In the real world....

NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014
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. (originally published as 0.69°C, corrected 20 Nov 2014)

Dude we don't give a shlt! We don't agree with you, accept it and stop fighting it, you look foolish.