“Global Climate Change” and Peer Review

I know I haven’t actually posted about religion in a while.  Maybe January will be different when I’m on a different schedule.  For now, this is what you get (it’s a month old, but I hadn’t seen it before.  Thanks, Slate!):

Global Warming Pie Chart

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.  […]

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

Read the whole thing here “Why Climate Change Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility–In One Pie Chart”.  He doesn’t get into how many of those 13,950 articles included no evidence for climate change or suggested no cause, but I think we can be confident that N>24 present evidence for human activity being the primary cause of measured climate change.

Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause

One Response to ““Global Climate Change” and Peer Review”
  1. While I agree that the climate change ‘deniers’ are likely wrong, what is the solution? Ostracize them? Demand they be fired? Ban their work? Scientific paradigms are built on hypotheses, which should always be under question and never accepted as fact. To declare that a particular hypothesis is beyond question is a denial of both the ethic and spirit of science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: