There is a pause consensus and its 100% http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...arming-is-real-100-say-it-has-nearly-stopped/ ... So, we decided to use Cook’s own (debatable) methodology to find out. We identified papers published between 2009 and 2014 and currently cataloged in the Web of Science database that included either the term “pause” or “hiatus” or “slowdown” and subsequently, the terms “global” and “temperature.” We then read the abstracts of those papers (or the papers themselves if further investigation was required) and assigned them to one of the following three categories: “not applicable,” “acknowledging the existence of a slowdown or stoppage in global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) in recent years,” and “arguing that a slowdown or stoppage of global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) has not occurred in recent years.” Of the 100 papers we identified, 65 didn’t have anything to do with recent global temperature trends (these typified papers published prior to about 2010). Of the remaining 35 papers, every single one of them acknowledged in some way that a hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring. In other words, we didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years. This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, and supports arguments that the amount of warming that will occur over the remainder of the 21st century as a result of human fossil fuel usage will be at the low end of the IPCC projections, or even lower. Low-end warming yields low-end impacts. We surely may have missed a few papers that were not cataloged in the database we used, or that weren’t captured by our search terms, but the evidence is overwhelming—virtually all (if not actually all) scientific papers that mention a hiatus or pause agree that it exists. So while 97% of scientists may agree that global warming is caused by humans, virtually 100% agree that global warming has stopped or slowed considerably during the 21stcentury. Tweet that, Mr. President!
You are admitting following Cook's protocol - which he uses to fabricate that 97% of scientists support global warming - is fatally flawed.
Gee, so all the papers searched for with terms pause slowdown and hiatus say the terms pause slowdown and hiatus. Who woulda thought?
We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary). We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence). Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching forexplicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24. We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.
So, these papers also would include any paper saying things like "We prove in this paper that man-made global warming is a massive hoax involving nearly all the world's scientists." Or..."Global climate change is a conspiracy to make Al Gore rich and have the UN take control of the US".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm The Self-Ratings As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings. The 97% Consensus Results Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongstclimate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009)surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewedclimate publications. They found that: "≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with thetenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]" In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change.
That can mean only one thing. Time to stop Capitalism to stop Global Cooling! Time to tax the shit out of fossil fuels, rich people, white people, meat eaters and all the rest to stop TEOTWAWKI due to Global Cooling!
1. So the tally is 24 reject and 41 support man made global warming and 0 produce any science showing man made co2 caused warming outside of natural variability. 2. 650 prominent scientists who dispute agw... http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport