Umm no, really the debate is over among the climate science community. This evidenced by the fact that in 2013 there were over 9000 authors of climate papers and only one, yes one, of the authors rejected AGW .
"Itâs worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming â more than nine thousand. And thatâs just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there arenât even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. Itâs not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/
"I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here. Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here. Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science. Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it. What can we conclude? 1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it. 2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations. On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildrenâs future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization." http://www.jamespowell.org/
we already know your guy is a fraud... people linked to 71 recent papers stating the sun causes warming. plus... we know from the paper I quoted dozens of times... that only 41 of 11,000 papers support agw... and of those that i read... they were using failed models.
Not peer reviewed and they don't deny that man's release of CO2 is causing the recent warming. You crazy douche. I'm not bothering to once again debunk your ridiculous bullshit about only 41 papers. Hang it up jerm, the debate is over, done. You just sound like a fool now.
The debate's far from over, you delusional moron. The piece below has plenty of links to sources proving that. The more you libturds lie about the science and push your pointy headed agenda, the more you shoot yourselves in the foot The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false beliefâconstantly repeatedâthat almost all scientists agree about global warming? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Peer reviewed... only .03% of papers support the idea that most of the warm is man made. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.