[T]he only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, [geochemist James Lawrence 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.Powell notes that very, very few of climate change deniers--who tend more towards filling Congressional hearings and cable "news" networks with their own carbon dioxide emissions--have ever written a peer-reviewed scientific article in support of their "position." That's because if you write an article subject to peer review for a scientific publication, you have to back it up with...evidence.
Many of the articles he reviewed contained multiple authors, which would yield an even starker divide (if that can be imagined). Powell also fairly debunks the two contrarian, single-authored studies as well.
Lindsay Abrams, assistant Editor at Salon, sums it up nicely, quoting Powell:
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.Business Insider adds some sharp perspective for those who would suggest that this overwhelming consensus is the product of some nefarious "groupthink." Quoting Ashutosh Jogalekar at Scientific American:
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.Powell's conclusion:
Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.
On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.This is what politicians discussing global warming will look like soon.
UPDATE: Salon updated the figure to 10,883 studies (previously 10,853) and confirmed many were by multiple authors.