In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,855 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming.â http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2014/03/26/nearly-every-scientist-says-global-warming-caused-humans/
what total misrepresentation... you are a fraud. the vast majority of those papers take no stand. only .3% support the consensus and those are dated papers which used now failed computer models. â0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%â PRESS RELEASE â September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This nonsense has been debunked over and over and over again. and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.
Only a few papers support the consensus and only a few countered the consensus. The vast majority did not address the consensus. So he lied when he crated the title of this thread. There is no meta analysis of that database saying nearly every scientist says global warming is caused by humans. That is a complete misrepresentations of the findings.
No jerm, it really is a 97% consensus and it really is true that essentially every science organization in the world agree. This is true regardless of your insanity.
And why should there not be total consensus. The science is obvious and common sense. Only idiot denialists refuse to see it.
Hey asshole.... The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
Bonafide scientific papers rejecting the consensus There are some papers that conduct original research and reject the consensus. It's useful to look at the actual arguments they present to reject AGW: Shaviv 2005 claims cosmic rays are causing global warming. While the link between cosmic rays and clouds are still under question, the more serious problem is that the correlation between cosmic rays and temperature ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began. More on cosmic rays... Zhen-Shan 2006, performs statistical analysis on the temperature record and finds temperature doesn't linearly follow CO2. Looking at global cooling from 1940 to 1970, they conclude "The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect". Ignoring aerosol cooling and solar forcing while failing to recognise that temperature's relationship with CO2 is logarithmic, not linear, are serious failings. More on mid-century global cooling...
The Self-Ratings As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings. The 97% Consensus Results Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun? This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists "...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees" However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper. We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.