Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

Wed, 2014-01-08 05:00Guest
Guest's picture

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.

I have brought my previous study (see here and here) 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. (Download the chart above here.) 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.


My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish–all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards.

Previous Comments

Well, you sure showed those Sky Dragon Slayers.

How about us serious followers of the issue who follow blogs like Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, Climate ect and WUWT?  We're interested in real solutions like clean burning natural gas and nuclear instaed of feel good measures like propping up wind and solar for minimal effect. We're not against wind and solar per se. We favor a realistic sense of proportion.

I realize you don't like Desmog, but you understand that from the get go they have only reported exact facts.  Like Natural Gas is dirty dirty dirty.  New EPA regulations will require flaring to clean up all that, but that's just a start.   (This is after years of denial from your crowd Canman.) Once regulations are in place, natural gas will have half the emmissions of coal.  Hardly an improvement to brag about, and hardly clean.

Nuclear Power and Oil and Gas are excessively subsidized.  Nuclear reactors currently have their insurance capped as do oil tankers.  The result is that you and I have to foot the bill when those private companies screw up.  Why are you so pro-subsidy Canman?  CATO calls this corporate welfare.

On top of that renewables are still making inroads.  If you read conservative news sources you'd know this.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities...

The reason solar is doing well is not subsidies, but because its cheap and affordable to do it.  Many people are switching to save money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYBfAW0fGNc

If I want advice from a university drop out, I go to WUWT.  But intelligent people go to the science to get their facts.  Its never too late to see real science.

I recommend you start here;   http://www.ipcc.ch/

… is James Hansen. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

It was his studies of Venus which derived much of the math used today.  You might want to look that up sometime.

Nice Gish Gallop by the way.  It doesn't prove anything but its funny.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Lindsay Abrams has an artice at Salon that refers to this study. It has the title:
 
 
Does James Powell agree this headline is a misrepresentation of what his study has shown? 
 

There was a recent paper in Nature Climate Change (a peer reviewed journal) which, while not rejecting climate change, did conclude that the IPCC models have significantly overestimated temperature predictions over the past 20 years.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html

 

… but I'll wait until I see more papers to that effect.

Surface temperatures appear low, but energy intake (ocean heating) is huge.

The article shows that it's time to move the debate away from whether global warming is happening to discussion about what we can do about it. Climate scientist James Hansen has proposed a global carbon tax with the dividends to be distibuted to everyone. I have posted a petition based on Hansen's proposal on Care2. You can view the petition (and hopefully put your name on it) at www.thepetitionsite.com/286/384/042/petition-for-a-referendum-on-a-globa...

There aren't.