Saturday, November 24, 2012

Pie chart: Why climate deniers have no scientific credibility

| »

Think what you will of simplified charts, but they do carry a point across with devastating clarity:

Pie chart: “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012 / 24 reject global warming”

A little more detail:

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.

The author also explains why the remaining 99.83% of published peer-reviewed climate articles aren’t just blindly assumed to support the reality of anthropogenic climate change:

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.

More precious data to keep in your back pocket for the next time some denialist tries to make it sound like there’s any kind of a debate within the scientific community concerning the reality of (almost certainly anthropogenic) climate change. You know, like they do when pretending there’s any real scientific disagreement about the Theory of Evolution. Or that vaccines cause autism. Or that HIV doesn’t lead to AIDS. Or any other bogus idea that flies in the face of any other thoroughly well-established fundamental of the scientific world.

(via Pharyngula)