Mar

31

‘The science is settled’ AGW study ‘update’ of the day

Filed Under Global Warming, Media | 12 Comments

This is the title of a story at Salon.com that many global warmist Gore-bots are pointing to: 10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

10,883 out of 10,885 studies agree with Al Gore? Wow, that’s a lot.

From the article:

Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming.

Wow, did he really wade through over 10,000 peer reviewed studies?

Check out this “update” way at the bottom of the story:

On his methodology, Powell notes, he only verified that two out of the 10,885 articles he found concluded that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is wrong: “It is a safe assumption that virtually all the other 10883 do not reject — that is, they accept — AGW but I can’t say for sure that each one of them does.”

Ha! It’s a “safe assumption” because it’s what he believes (or wants) to be true. Some science, eh?

Imagine Einstein “proving” a theory by writing ten percent of it on a chalkboard and then saying “it’s a safe assumption the rest works out the way I said so just shut up and believe it.”

Comments

12 Responses to “‘The science is settled’ AGW study ‘update’ of the day”

  1. doriangrey1 on March 31st, 2014 4:53 pm

    Minor quibble here Doug, but 2 out of 10883 does not represent 10%. More like, Imagine if Einstein wrote out .0038% of his equation and then claimed that the rest worked out.

    Speaking of corruption, Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

  2. Marshall_Will on March 31st, 2014 8:07 pm

    Why not? What's the big deal here Doug? It's simply the same way demonrats calculate the amount of Voter FRAUD they'll need to push their [tool] candidate over the top.

    Extrapolate how a district/town/county/STATE delivered for them in ____, ____ and ____ election cycle. Base all assumptions on "no one under 30 votes Republican!". Project % of [likely] deceased Rep.-registered voters, add back illegal swarm and it should tell you to the ballot card precisely how many votes to manufacture.

    Add your fudge-factor of 3% for extra measure but always make sure it looks believable by not exceeding above parameters/assumptions and you should be GTG…

  3. Truesoldier__ on March 31st, 2014 10:12 pm

    He probably is right that the majority of those articles agree that AGW is real….after all that is where the grant money is.

  4. Truesoldier__ on March 31st, 2014 10:14 pm

    O/T…this election season is already beginning to get entertaining.

    Bracing for a rough midterm-election outcome, Democrats aren't waiting until Election Day to start blaming one another for the party's problems. Anticipating the possibility that Republicans will flip the Senate, the finger-pointing game is already underway between the party's warring factions.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/preparing…

  5. writedoug on March 31st, 2014 11:44 pm

    Ha! Agreed. So I was being super generous in my Einstein comparison and even then it sounded ridiculous.

  6. writedoug on March 31st, 2014 11:47 pm

    Bingo.

  7. backwoodsconservative on April 1st, 2014 11:31 am

    The cream rises to the top. The AGW science has settled.

  8. Dexter_Alarius on April 1st, 2014 12:22 pm

    What we don't know is how many articles critical or skeptical of AGW were rejected for publication by the editors. Or, whether those "peer reviewed journals" even consider papers that don't toe the AGW line at all.

  9. Pete J on May 31st, 2015 10:08 pm

    Just who is the Powell you are referring to? Guess I'll have to search for him on salon.com. But it would be easier to verify the comments you attribute to him, (or her), if the person's full name were given.

  10. Pete J on May 31st, 2015 11:02 pm

    Turns out he is Geochemist, James Lawrence Powell, and the actual methodology he used can be found at this link:

    It turns out that the 10, 833 articles he examined, spanned the period between 1991 and 2012—they were not all published in one year alone. Here is a paste of how he described some of the methodology in his original research:

    Original Search

    To find articles about global warming, one naturally uses the search term “global warming.” Some articles might be under the topic “global climate change,” so I also used that as a search term. This search produced 13,950 articles for the period 1991 through mid-November 2012. This number does not capture every article on global warming, nor every article that rejects AGW, since some might be under other keywords. What it does capture is the number and proportion of articles with topics “global warming” or “global climate change” that reject AGW as I define reject. It turns out to be a very small number and a very small proportion.

    Only two of the articles in total, "rejected" AGW, And I don't see anywhere that Powell refers to these two exceptions as being "wrong."

    The assumption he made about articles he examined being in agreement and affirming AGW, were made about articles that were searched for under different key terms, but were still about global warming. For his study he only searched for articles about "global warming or, global "climate change" to assure accurate results. And yes, he apparently examined all 10,833 of them. As you can see he also updated his research in 2014. He had to define the word, "reject" global warming, in order to uniformly evaluate articles that definitely did not affirm AGW. This requirement to define search terms is a necessary and logical part of research!

  11. Pete J on May 31st, 2015 11:27 pm

    Here is a link that examines one of the peer reviewed links in Powell's data:
    http://www.jamespowell.org/Hug/hug.html

    It comes from a German journal and appears to contain many statements of opinion that are not peer reviewed.

    Scientific papers submitted by climate contrarians have always been accepted if they pass peer review, its just that a very small percentage actually do.

    But most on this site will consider the data itself to be manipulated in order to justify their denial. But, who exactly is behind this supposed government plot, President Obama–scientist found the same results during GW Bush's term, and perhaps tens of thousands of climate scientist worldwide also agree that global warming is real and primarily man made. Are all of the scientist in these nations under the thumb of Obama? In fact many of these countries disagree with the President on numerous issue–that's the reason diplomacy is such an important part of any President's required duties.

  12. Pete J on June 1st, 2015 1:16 am

    I thought I provided it previously, but apparently not. So here is a link where Powell's methodology is explained:
    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.htm…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.