Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5-6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676. Oh, and those four have ties to the fossil fuel industry.
100% of the first 4 papers cited in Powells list discussing the cause of warming say its the sun not man made co2. What a joke... the first 2 papers discussing real science in that list say its the sun. No peer reviewed papers saying its man made co2. Lets look at the references... 1. Anderegg W., Prall J. W., Harold J., Schneider S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109. , Google Scholar 2. Atkin E. (2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/ , Google Scholar 3. Avakyan S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721. , Google Scholar 4. Avakyan S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285. , Google Scholar ------ 1. The first paper is a joke its about he fake consensus not science. 2. The second paper down... is not even a paper its... internet rag called thinkprogress making crap up about ted cruz 3. The third papers says its the sun... Abstract This paper discusses the causes of present-day climate changes, obtained at S. I. Vavilov State Optical Institute in recent years. The main conclusions relate to the relationship of the contribution of natural sources (solar-geomagnetic activity) and anthropogenic sources of action on the weather and climate. It is shown that the determining mechanisms for controlling the weather-climatic characteristics are the processes of aerospace physical optics. The main source of the global warming observed in recent decades is an increase in solar activity on a secular scale, the chief channel of action of solar-geomagnetic activity is the control of the condensation-cluster mechanism of cloud nucleation, and the strongest energy effect is the regulation of the thermal radiation fluxes of the underlying surface by optically thin clouds. The greenhouse effect based on carbon-containing gases makes an insignificant contribution to global warming. 4. The 4th paper down... says its the solar geometric activity. Its the sun. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1019331613030015 The author associates the recently observed climate warming and carbon dioxide concentration growth in the lower atmospheric layers with variations of solar-geomagnetic activity in global cloud formation and the significant decrease in the role of forests in carbon dioxide accumulation in the process of photosynthesis. The contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant. Original Russian Text © S.V. Avakyan, 2013, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2013, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 425–436. Sergei Vazgenovich Avakyan, Dr. Sci. (Phys.-Math.), is head of the Laboratory of Aerospace Physical Optics at the Vavilov State Optical Institute and a leading researcher of the RAS Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory.
Of the references Powell cites... The first 5 which discuss the science and not the consensus are skeptical. Powell is a joke. My comments in Bold. I got bored after the first 5 showing Powell to be a liar or poor researcher. Anderegg W., Prall J. W., Harold J., Schneider S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109. , Google Scholar - discusses consensus not science Atkin E. (2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/ , Google Scholar - Soros type internet rag discussing Ted Cruz... not science Avakyan S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721. , Google Scholar Says - its the sun ... Avakyan S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285. , Google Scholar Says its the sun Cook J., Nuccitelli D., Green S. A., Richardson M., Winkler B., Painting R., . . . Skuce A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024. , Google Scholar Consensus discussion not science Doran P. T., Zimmerman M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23. , Google Scholar Consensus discussion not science Gervais F. (2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095. , Google Scholar "The tiny anthropogenic warming appears consistent with the absence of any detectable change of slope of the 130-year-long linear contribution to the temperature data before and after the onset of large CO2 emissions. " This seems to be saying man might be doing it regardless of the onset of co2 emissions. I call the abstract skeptical Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214500957 Happer W. (2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003. , Google Scholar A Freeman Dyson update. Dyson has become a famous critic of the IPCC. So this is probably a skeptical article in which he stated the models and the predictions are too far apart. Hug H. (2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO2 for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132. , Google Scholar Another Skeptical Article Kolbert E. (2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. , Google Scholar Kuhn T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. , Google Scholar Obama B. (2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from , Google Scholar Oreskes N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. , Google Scholar Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ , Google Scholar Powell J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. , Google Scholar Weart S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. , Google Scholar
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4] In the global warming controversy, some deniers do endorse the term, but other often prefer the term climate change skepticism[3] whereas scientists think it "inappropriate to allow those who deny [anthropogenic global warming] to don the mantle of skeptics"; in effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.[5][6] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[7] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism.[5][6] Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming.[8][9][10] In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism.[11] The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.[5] Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[12][13]the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[14][15][16] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[17][18]
Moar Pictures! Also, Al Gore had stated in that documentary of his that the snows on top of Kilimanjaro would be gone within a decade. Currently: It's not difficult to be a skeptic.
Global warming, the hoax, is a vehicle used by the left to achieve control of peoples lives. Its about control in the totalitarian sense. They believe it no more than we do. The leftist mind isn't happy unless it can force others to adopt similar ideas and lifestyles. FC is just a dolt with little else to fill his life. His anger towards the world stems from his own failures and his demeanor is a clear sign of poor parenting.