Its worse than that. As always check the original presentation or study. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
I do this sort of research - with psychology though, accumulating the results of independent data to get an estimate of the relationship within the population, or meta-analysis. However there is nothing wrong with Powell's statistical methods in this case. It follows the base rules for any quantitative review. You can get more detailed information than a binary approach like what Powell used but its acceptable, especially when looking at the sheer numbers of studies. Of the13950 studies found since 1990 in peer reviewed scientific publications, ...24 or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. 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. (Powell, http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart). So lets quit the BS about this being some conspiracy. The data is too massively against such. Moreover with recent statistical methods and meta analysis being used to detect differing methods of fraud.(http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/Francis2013b.pdf for instance) , I'm pretty confident of these results. Global warming exists, and its human caused we do have evidence for climate change caused by natural events (eg.,Mount Pinatubo eruption in the early 90's as well as earlier eruptions) as wel as what is now considered human caused events (e.g., the little ice age, see http://www.today.com/id/28353083/ns/today-today_tech/43500158#.UTuwidFATog for a layman's explanation). Moreover by you can trace the source of many greenhouse gases found in the ice cores of the Greenland glaciers, to the industrial output of the Roman, Byzantine and Arab Empires as well as Medieval and Renaissance Europe. These emissions map very well with climate change based on cooling when the empires fell or warming when the industrial output of heavy metals or methane increased. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121003132322.htm So what does it take to get you to admit that human caused global climate change is happening and happening now, so we can get busy mediating its effects? On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting fact for those who claim that the entire scientific community > is in on a massive conspiracy. > > http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/11/chart-only-017-percent-peer-reviewed-papers-question-global-warming > > Only 0.17% of Peer Reviewed papers question the validity of global warming. > "The grand total of articles that questioned global warming or whether > rising emissions are the cause: 24." > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361813 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
