If only 0.001% of peer reviewed literature rejects AGW...?

well we CAN'T ignore publication bias, it is real and occurs in every scientific field. research describing a relationship is more likely to be published than research which finds no relationship, the few exceptions occur when a ground-breaking study is not replicated by other scientists (eg the autism link to vaccination).

anyway, the public don't get their info from peer reviewed sources, they get it from the internet and news media. there are so many pathways for the denialist hive mind to infiltrate an unsuspecting individual's defences by twisting the truth it is inevitable that many people will fall in line to this way of thinking. after all, there are at least 6 billion humans alive today who believe in gods despite the lack of scientific evidence for their existence! people in general tend to suffer from selective acceptance based on their socio-economic background.

It all boils down to exaggerated claims on the warmon front.

Science has had over 150 years to get everyone on board yet here we are still trying to convince everyone and today it's even easier to convince people. Find someone willing to ban water without knowing what the hell they are signing and you've found a believer. Visit a 3rd world country and tell them living in a desert or on a flood plain isn't the problem, tell them it's not where they live or the lack of modern infrastructure causing the problems, tell them it is caused by AGW, tell them they're not killing each other because of religious differences, tell them it's bad weather, and tell them Western Civilization is the cause and you've found a believer.

Maybe it's simpleton analogies comparing the effects of CO2 to poison, perhaps it's the claim that you must believe in climate science or you reject all science. Edit: not that you must believe in climate science, that you must believe in the conclusions.

I'd be more interested in knowing how many of those peer reviewed articles contradict one another. I also like the stance of warmons that peer reviewed contradictions aren't contradictions at all. It's not the sun peer review is great, some claim the sun is having a negative impact on warming and another says it's 30% of the current warming. I wish my history teach would have given me credit when my answers weren't quite the same as everyone else's.

I believe idiot claims of natural occuring events or animal behavior being caused by AGW also smacks rational intelligent people in the face. To further insult rational intelligent people warmons claim those who disagree simply don't understand science. When we disagree that AGW was the cause of devastation caused by an event when we know failed levies, failed pumps, building in the wrong area, ignoring warnings, plus the fact that the event is not out of the norm, we've named a season because events of this type occur during that season, and a pitiful response was the reason for the devastationtation. When we disagree that male polar bears are eating baby polar bears because of AGW, when we disagree that farmers daughters are becoming prostitutes because of AGW, when we are told that snow will become a thing of the past and subsequently told that it was one scientist who hadn't stated how far in the future or that his remark wan't peer reviewed, when we are told that God is punishing us with earthquakes and tsunami's and killing people in tornado alley because we've failed to implement cap and trade.

I also find it ironic when a non-warmon makes a sarcastic claim about shoveling global warming, that the warmon response is, no single weather event, but this (which happens to be historically the same) is exactly the weather we are supposed to be getting in an AGW induced climate changed world.

Either a majority of the population is ignorant or, after 150 years, climate science is doing a piss poor job at proving their point.

"John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles.."

You the great thing about this question is that I don't even need to address the above line or whether this "study" or article or blog or whatever it is you want to call it is peer reviewed or not (love the methodology by the way).

All I need to do is refer to my handy question a few days ago which can now be used as a reference: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As...

AGW is not rejected. The amount of AGW vs natural variability is questioned. The amount of AGW in the future is questioned. The effects of warming in the future is questioned. The correct policy response is debated.

Your attempt at misdirection is lame at best. You should stick to trying to find genetic defects in skeptics or perhaps jump on the Lewandowsky bandwagon number two. I can't wait for his next survey.

I have no doubt you think the science is fully settled since you haven't been talking about it for a long time. The warmer side is officially going full nutbar.

"..how can there be so much uncertainty in the public's perception?" You'll really can't answer that question can you?

First, I think your percentage is off, 24/13950 = 0.2% (to one sig. digit). But I also think it doesn't matter too much whether it's 90% or 97% or 99.8%. Frankly, there is more than enough evidence that it is a significant problem that we should not ignore it. And that comes from physics and atmospheric science that is completely non-controversial.

We need to deal with it rather than trying to pretend it isn't there.

EDIT: And as to jim z's point, there are 535 members of Congress (536 if you count the vice-President), so the smallest meaningful percentage we could speak of regarding them would be 1/535 = 0.187%

Of course that's assuming that the entire Congress is Democratic (2014?), so the smallest meaningful percentage of Democrats in the present Congress would be even larger.

8 out of 10 owners said their cat preferred whiskers.

Assuming for the moment that your statements are correct, the simple reality is that no one any longer believes the field as a whole is honest or scientific.

1) When the weather cooled, the cry went up that our wanton industrial prosperity was polluting us into an ice age. When the weather warmed, the cry went up that our wanton industrial prosperity was polluting us into a period of global warming that (somehow) would cause a great drought. It became clear that the problem was industrial prosperity, not the environment. They are foresworn.

"And the little boy cried 'Wolf! Wolf!'"

And the environmentalists have claimed the end was nigh - for half a century.

2) When you hear of failure to adjust the data for urban heat island effects as the result of urbanization, all respect for the honesty and/or competence of the field lies dead.

Aside from that, you need to read Richard Feynman's essay "Cargo Cult Science". It's the last chapter in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You%27re_Jokin...

You are expecting people to descend into poverty for inadequate and unverified data on phenomena as yet subject to a partial and uncertain comprehension when no one outside the field of investigation can properly check the primary data. When added to points one and two, you should feel relief that you meet only derision.

3) If it was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.

If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

If only 0.001% of the Democrats in Congress reject Obama's statist positions, how can there be so much uncertainty in the general public that statism really is the way of the future?

Like minds think alike. Sometimes they don't think.

Note: You are correct David. It is all about politics. That was my point exactly.

It is pretty funny that you think Republicans have anti-science overlords. I wonder just who these overloards are. Adam Smith? John Locke? Ronald Reagan?

We've been around this one before, and more than just a few times. The public is easily deluded about even simple things (especially in a country where one party has embraced ignorance and lying and the other (its "opposition") feel-good spineless hand-wringing), and climate change is not simple, and there are very deep-pocketed vested interests in support of pro-active deluding.

So some guy did a google search and made his own chart. How convenient.

The "touted" 97% is a complete joke. It floors me that people still repeat it. They sent out 10,257 survey invitations. Only 3,146 were answered. Of the 3,146, only 77 were actually eligable to answer. Of those 77, 75 thought GW could be influenced by humans. It was a yes/no question.

Therefore, 97% of 77 were counted. There's at least 30,000 scientists. So only .3% of all scientists were counted. So 99.7% of scientists were not included in the so called 97%.

Will the number fudgeing ever stop! I doubt it.

BTW, 9 out of 10 dentists choose Crest toothpaste. Pffft....sure...

WE've been here before, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

In other words, you pass my BS and I'll pass your BS.