

















(click on images to enlarge)



Per the tallies of peer reviewed abstracts (some 12,000), it is readily apparent that the vast majority of studies (68%) have failed to endorse catastrophic global warming - the classical alarmists' fear-mongering of climate change disasters. Or to put it another way, only 32% of the studies embrace (maybe?) the potential of catastrophic global warming science and its conjecture of an increased likelihood of disasters.

The above is the result of a new analysis of recent peer reviewed papers conducted by John Cook, founder of the 'Skeptical Science' blog. His analysis determined the following:

"They examined “11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

In another analysis of the same data, Marcel Crok determined essentially the same, which is shown in the above table on the right. Yet he concludes with the following:

"Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading"

Other informed experts on the global warming science debate are coming to the same conclusion (here, here, here, here , here and here).

Objectively, the John Cook analysis has quickly become a farcical flop. As many are pointing out, the peer reviewed tallies can be interpreted in many different ways, and by the way, using the abstracts of peer reviewed studies is a pretty lame excuse for an even more lame "science by authority" consensus claim.

The above left 'C3' interpretation of Cook's analysis is an example of just how flexible one can be when using his moronic study.

Note: The natural climate change denier site, www.skepticalscience.com, used 7 categories to rate peer reviewed papers (see table above right). The number count for each category is from Marcel Crok's analysis.

