Between 1993 and 2003 928 papers were published...?

That's not quite accurate. You're referring to the study by Naomi Oreskes in which she took a sample of 928 papers which were published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject and didn't find any rejecting the consensus on global warming. However, that was just a sample and there were actually many more such published studies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

As for where they're publishing, in the rare case where deniers actually attempt to publish scientific studies, usually they end up in Energy & Environment. This is a social science journal which is not considered peer-reviewed and whose editor has admitted she "follows her political agenda" in selecting the studies that the journal publishes.

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub...

Some 'skeptics' like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen who don't dispute that humans are causing global warming but don't think future warming will be severe do publish in valid peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Ottawa Mike refers to a study by Benny Peiser who attempted to rebuke Oreskes' study. Unfortunately for global warming deniers, he instead confirmed her results were correct.

Peiser initially claimed to have found 34 studies which refuted man-made global warming. However, upon further examination of these studies, it was revealed that:

4 of these studies assumed the existence of climate change as a given

23 of the papers did not refute man-made global warming

2 probably didn't refute it, but were borderline

1 was not a peer-reviewed journal

2 were very old papers with very old data

1 may have doubted man-made global warming from a minor journal

1 was a personal view not based on scientific data

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/peiser.php

Peiser eventually admitted "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique" and eventually conceeded that he had only found one, which was the one that didn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So like Oreskes, Peiser didn't find a single peer-reviewed study which refuted the consensis on man-made global warming.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.htm...

*edit* Hah I love how Ottawa Mike now starts whining because Peiser admitted he hadn't found any peer-reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. Oh boo hoo the "hound dogs" actually looked at his results instead of taking his word for it, and it turns out he was wrong. Poor Peiser!

And of course most papers don't explicitly endorse the consensus. Most biology papers don't say "we believe the evolutionary theory is true," and most physics papers don't explicitly state "we believe the theory of relativity." There's no reason to explicitly endorse something which everybody who's reading your paper knows is true.

Global warming deniers want us to believe there's thousands of climate scientists out there who doubt or disbelieve the AGW theory. Yet there are virtually no papers which refute the consensus. Oreskes and Peiser caught you with your pants down. Only when he opened the door, Peiser didn't expect them to be around your ankles!

Here's a survey of scientists which further proves the consensus.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.p...

Ottawa finishes by saying "it's fairly easy to manufacture a consensus on an issue that has lots of unknowns."

Which proves that Ottawa Mike is not a scientist. It's almost impossible to get scientists to agree on a consensus about any subject, *especially* one for which there are numerous unknowns.

Since then, there have been 700+ papers that disagree with AGW (or some of the effects, as pegminer pointed out):

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

That's

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

You also worded your question poorly. I agree that almost all peer-reviewed articles believe in global warming; whether or not it's man-made is an entirely different story.

I love how Dana brought up the EOS "consensus". About 10,000 scientists were invited to take the survey; of that, about 3,000 took it. The magical 98% so often cited comes from a selection of 79 of those scientists. So of over 10,000 scientists, 76 out of 79 believe in AGW.

I hate to cite the Oregon Petition yet again, but for alarmists to suggest that over 29,000 of the names are fake is ridiculous. Actually, the EOS survey keeps the names of its subjects private, so we don't know how many of them are "fakes."

He also says that Energy & Environment isn't considered peer-reviewed, and then cites a paper that's about a totally different journal, Climate Research. The only reference to E&E in the paper was to their editor, who says she publishes articles that contest AGW because other journals smother dissenting evidence. Perhaps our "Master of Science" (Dana, if you haven't been around very long) should begin reading his own papers.

Benny Peiser's paper has no longer been refuted. Propaganda web content proceed to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser's sparkling place in this: "I even have under pressure repeatedly, Oreskes finished argument is improper because of the fact the entire ISI data set includes purely thirteen abstracts (under 2%) that explicitly propose what she has observed as the 'consensus view'. in certainty, virtually all of abstracts do no longer point out anthropogenic climate exchange." - Benny Peiser the certainty keeps to be that Oreskes intentionally and deceptively observed as a paper "The scientific consensus on climate exchange" whilst utilising the quest term "international climate exchange" for that reason leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This on my own debunks her learn. Even nevertheless as an instantaneous criticism, the coolest deal of Peiser's learn stands different than that as quickly as you criticize purely Oreskes' cherry picked papers (928 no longer 12,000) the 34 papers Peiser got here across doubting AGW will possibly no longer have been coated in Oreskes' paper. No kidding! So he withdrew purely this as an instantaneous criticism of her paper. something of his criticism keeps to be alongside with purely thirteen (a million%) explicitly propose the 'consensus view'. eliminating the 34 papers is beside the point as Peiser's learn cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes grew to become into no longer finding at each and every of the papers (928 out of 12,000). end: Oreske's paper is debunked and valueless.

Dana,

That is completely untrue when you make the statement so general as to not be in doubt.

The consensus that you have managed to reach is that DUHHH CO2 is a GHG. And DUHHHH. CO2 can cause some warming, so man can cause some warming.

You have nothing more. You certainly don't have the consensus of the crazy 7-9 degree rise scenarios that you and your merry band of spin-doctors like to eagerly promote. You certainly don't have the "we're all going to die if we don't do something now" consensus that your fellow scare-mongerers propagate. So why do you constantly pretend as if you do? Intellectual integrity anybody?

Dr Benny Peiser analyzed the work of Naomi Oreskes and her consensus study and found the following:

Oreskes:

75% accepted consensus view, either explicitly or implicitly.

25% took no position (neutral)

0% disagreed with consensus

Peiser:

-Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

-322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.

-Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

-67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

-87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.

-34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".

-44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

-470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

*****************************************************************

And even more interesting is his trouble getting this letter published:

Dear Dr. Peiser,

A couple of weeks ago, you submitted a Letter to the Editor on Naomi Oreskes' Essay "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. In its current form, it is too long for a Letter, but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue.

Best regards,

Etta Kavanagh

Associate Letters Editor

SCIENCE

*****************************************************

And after doing the requested revision:

Dear Dr. Peiser,

After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.

Best regards,

Etta Kavanagh

Associate Letters Editor

SCIENCE

**********************************************

Read Peiser's response at the end of my source.

**********************************************

Edit - As is the usual for true believers, Dana points to his hound dogs that tore into Peiser focussing on the rejection of the consensus aspect. And as is the technique of the twist, dodge and distort crowd, they completely gloss over the fact that only 13 abstracts explicitly endorse the consensus. And to implicitly endorse the consensus, anybody can come up with their own subjective guidelines for doing that.

The consensus was manufactured. And it's not really that odd either since it's fairly easy to manufacture a consensus on an issue that has lots of unknowns.

You seem to have missed the climategate news that the people involved in the scam were keeping opposing views from being published.

Also very few are denying that there is a warming trend because it's been warming since the last ice age. What is debated is whether man is adding to the effect in any significant way.

Blogs, op-ed pieces, bathroom walls, anywhere with a low bar for scientific integrity

All those trees killed so politically motivated hacks could lie...