I guess by that statement you must not be reading the science journals:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook 1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli 2,4, Sarah A Green 5, Mark Richardson 6, Bärbel Winkler 2, Rob Painting 2, Robert Way 7, Peter Jacobs 8 and Andrew Skuce 2,9
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2
Abstract
Download video
Transcript
View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
iopscience.iop.org |
