Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (76281)	4/19/2017 1:22:26 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86355

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