The CO2 agenda, lacking current science, is mere propaganda . See the movie : the Slant of Slate !
Well, this is not shocking. Something called 'Slate' has picked up upon a blog piece, that made it's way around the left of liberal blogging circuit. The Slate 'author' of this piece did nothing as far as original content AND further, managed to only repeat the religious mantra of the enviroloons. Slate evidently lets anyone walking in their door create content to fill their column inches. Or is this an example why Seattle needs to raise the minimum wage, supposedly to attract better left of liberal 'talent' ?
The Slant of Slate
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.
The Powell "investigation" was nothing of the sort, it was just more unsupported close minded, climate warming alarmism. It was simply a web based search.
1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in all the results was never determined.
2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".
3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.
4. It is a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
There are hundreds of peer reviews papers that cite other causes than CO2 for global warming (which which exists but is inside natural variation) including the CERN actual experiments on clouds and cosmic rays which all data is published and replicable. One other item regarding Powell. He lumped all the neutral web based results as rejecting global warming which invalidates his numbers. Next time Slate could do just a little research before citing idiots ?
Michael Crichton said: “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” Thales of Miletus, Abu Ali Ibn al Haytham, Newton, Einstein, Popper and Feynman thought much the same and said so. Science by head-count is mere politics. Consensus by fraud is only worse.
Doran and Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010) each concluded that 97% of a few dozen carefully-filtered climate scientists held Man guilty of some of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
Cook et al. (2013), in a recent me-too article in Environment Research Letters, conducted the largest-ever sensational epic blockbuster cast-of-thousands drama survey of scientific papers on climate change. They concluded that 97.1 % of abstracts expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed the “scientific consensus”.
Here’s how they did it.
They examined 11,944 abstracts. But they arbitrarily threw out almost 8000 of them on the ground that they had not toed the Party Line by expressing the politically-correct opinion (or any opinion) on climate change.
Next, they ingeniously interchanged three separate versions of the imagined “scientific consensus”: that Man had caused some warming; that Man had caused most of the warming since 1950; and that man-made warming would be catastrophic unless the West were shut down and climate skeptics were put on trial – as the appalling James Hansen has suggested – for high crimes against humanity.
It was this last definition – in fact untested in Cook et al. or, as far as I know, in any other paper – that Mr Obama’s Twitteratus plumped for when he tweeted that 97 % of scientists consider climate change not only real but “dangerous”.
The introduction to the Cook paper said that the survey was intended to examine the standard or IPCC “scientific consensus” that most of the warmer weather since 1950 was our fault. The authors, having consigned 7930 abstracts to the Memory Hole because they had not parroted the Party Line, were left with 4014 abstracts. They marked just 64 of them, or 1.6 % of the 4014 abstracts, as endorsing the standard version of “scientific consensus”.
Further examination by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41 of the 64 abstracts, or 1.0% of the 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, or just 0.3% of the original 11,944 abstracts, had said Yes to the standard version of consensus.
The incredible shrinking consensus
(A) Cook et al. claimed 97.1 % consensus among 4014 abstracts; but (B) that was only 32.6 % of all 11,944 abstracts in their sample; and (C) only 1 % of the 4014 papers or (D) 0.3 % of the entire 11,944 sample actually said Yes to the “scientific consensus” as Cook et al. had defined it. However, since 32.6 % of all 11,944 abstracts, or 97.1 % of the 4010 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, had said or implied that Man causes some warming, Cook et al. concluded by saying that 97.1% of all abstracts expressing an opinion had said that Man had caused most of the warming since 1950. The totalitarian news media (that is just about all of them), ever careless with their logical quantifiers, dutifully reported that 97.1 % of all scientists had stated their support for the “scientific consensus” that all global warming since 1950 was man made.
For Further Reading