You had not read "Methodology" when you posted this. Powell did not search the internet. He searched the Web of Science, a website allowing access to peer reviewed literature on all topics.
When you say reject a paper, I presume you mean reject a paper for not being about global warming or global climate change. That was done simply by his search terms "global warming" or "global climate change".
When you suggested we discuss a single study, I thought you had something to work with. That doesn't seem to be the case. Would you consider simply abandoning your position and adopting the one vastly more popular with the experts in the field: that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions? You can still claim they are wrong or stupid or lying, but that the views expressed in their work overwhelmingly support AGW seems inarguable.
Yep, I assumed he searched the web, but he did not, it was a much narrower search, of a specific science forum?
Web of Science (previously known as (
ISI)
Web of Knowledge) is an online subscription-based scientific
citation indexing service maintained by
Thomson Reuters that provides a comprehensive citation search. It gives access to multiple databases that reference cross-disciplinary research, which allows for in-depth exploration of specialized sub-fields within an
academic or scientific discipline
Web of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Powell, what was his criteria? He did not simply count articles that stated AGW was a fact, he counted articles as fact based on a specific criteria, what was that criteria? It looks like Powell assumes that those who do not flat out reject AGW, accept it. To me that is a pretty flawed methodology.
His stated intent was to find “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers reject AGW and what evidence do they present?" He therefore searched for papers that rejected AGW. There is no flaw in his methodology.
There is zero proof that the vast majority of Scientists are making the claim that Humans are causing the Earth to warm.
When will this end? Whenever... when EVER, in conversations on this board, on these topics, that you think to use the word proof, prove or proven, a little alarm should go off in your head. Science does not use proofs, it uses evidence. Period. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. It may be found in the Wikipedia's articles we've already attempted to discuss:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No matter how you state it, it is a small fringe of people making claims to Scientists opinions based not on the Scientists opinions, but upon their "methodology".
That was not an easy sentence to parse, but might I throw up John Cook, et al's study, in which after examining peer reviewed studies, as did Powell, he contacted over 9,000 of the study's authors and directly asked them their opinion on AGW. He received a higher validation than he got from his analysis of their papers: 97.2% of those who believed their papers expressed an opinion one way or the other endorsed the consensus; a direct measure of their opinions.
BTW, you still do not appear to understand the word methodology
Scientists are expressing their views as well as the science?
Their views are based on their own studies and the results of other studies that they have read. Are you attempting to move the goalposts here? The debate WE are supposed to be having is whether or not Powell's study shows that a majority of climate scientists endorse the IPCC conclusion, that AGW is valid.
Post a study or two, to begin, and once we reach 100 I will concede.
Fuck you. We are debating Powell. This whole website has been debating the science for the last five years and I don't see a lot of concessions from your lot. The sole purpose of THIS discussion is the validity of Powell, not the science of global warming. If you cannot show there is anything wrong with Powell's work, the proper response is to admit it and accept that Powell's work seems to be valid. But, instead, you try to derail the conversation to other topics. Very impressive.
But you will not be able to do that. You will have to say it is so because you believe Powell.
You don't think I could find 100 studies supporting AGW or assuming its validity?!?! Powell found 13,000. You said you found 60 million. Do you think I cannot operate Google?
Nobody knows what is said by the majority of scientists, because the vast majority of the AGW work is not made public.
What the FUCK are you talking about? Wait, let me guess. You will now claim that the world's climate journals will not allow denier authors be published. Is that your claim here? If so, we can move to a study which directly queried scientists rather than looking at their published output. Three guesses what we will find and the first two don't count.
How about you sum up your findings, your views, your opinions, your conclusions about POWELL, the purported topic of our debate. I will take any further attempts to alter the topic under discussion as an admission of the failure we will all know it to be.
