Le réchauffement climatique est un mythe !. październik 2004. [dostęp 2008-05-30]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (2005-10-12)]. Cytat: „In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a ‘scientific’ deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC.” (fr.).
Richard Black: Climate science: Sceptical about bias. BBC, 2007-11-14. [dostęp 2008-04-22]. Cytat: This saga has also been so well documented, not least on Dr Peiser’s website, that again there is little new to say, except that Dr Peiser now says he is glad Science decided not to publish his research because „my critique of Oreskes’ flawed study was later found to be partially flawed itself”.
Colin DouglasC.D.MathersColin DouglasC.D., Climate change and the denial of reality [online], Colin Mathers, 12 października 2019 [dostęp 2021-01-12](ang.), Recenzja 24210 abstraktów artykułów o zmianie klimatu z lat 2013 i 2014 znalazła tylko 5, które bezpośrednio odrzucają wpływ człowieka na globalne ocieplenie. Jako że dwa z nich były opublikowane przez tego samego autora, daje to wynik 1 na 17352, albo 0,006%.
StephanS.LewandowskyStephanS., Ullrich K.H.U.K.H.EckerUllrich K.H.U.K.H., JohnJ.CookJohnJ., Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era, „Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition”, 6 (4), 2017, s. 356, DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 [dostęp 2021-12-14], Cytat: „the minimum qualification required to be a signatory of the Oregon Petition is a Bachelor’s degree in science: thus, the 31,000 signatories comprise only around 0.3% of the 10.6 million U.S. science graduates since the 1970/71 school year. [...] Further, and perhaps most important, according to the breakdown of areas of expertise listed on the petition website, fewer than 1% of the signatories have any expertise in climate science.”(ang.).
N.N.OreskesN.N., BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, „Science”, 5702, 306, 2004, s. 1686–1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618, ISSN0036-8075, PMID: 15576594, Cytat: „The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”(ang.).
W.R.L. Anderegg, J.W. Prall, J. Harold, S.H. Schneider. Expert credibility in climate change. „Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”. 107 (27), s. 12107–12109, 2010. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. ISSN0027-8424. Cytat: „Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”. (ang.).
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson i inni. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. „Environmental Research Letters”. 8 (2), s. 024024, 2013. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN1748-9326. Cytat: „We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 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. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”. (ang.).
Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland i inni. Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming. „Environmental Science & Technology”. 48 (16), s. 8963–8971, 2014. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e. ISSN0013-936X. Cytat: „Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively.”. (ang.).
Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban i inni. Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. „Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”. 95 (7), s. 1029–1040, 2014. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1. ISSN0003-0007. (ang.).
J.S. Carlton, Rebecca Perry-Hill, Matthew Huber, Linda S Prokopy. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. „Environmental Research Letters”. 10 (9), s. 094025, 2015. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025. ISSN1748-9326. Cytat: „Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures.”. (ang.).
Joel R. Norris, Robert J. Allen, Amato T. Evan, Mark D. Zelinka i inni. Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record. „Nature”. 536 (7614), s. 72–75, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature18273. ISSN0028-0836. Cytat: „The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.”. (ang.).
elsevier.com
linkinghub.elsevier.com
StephanS.LewandowskyStephanS., Ullrich K.H.U.K.H.EckerUllrich K.H.U.K.H., JohnJ.CookJohnJ., Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era, „Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition”, 6 (4), 2017, s. 356, DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 [dostęp 2021-12-14], Cytat: „the minimum qualification required to be a signatory of the Oregon Petition is a Bachelor’s degree in science: thus, the 31,000 signatories comprise only around 0.3% of the 10.6 million U.S. science graduates since the 1970/71 school year. [...] Further, and perhaps most important, according to the breakdown of areas of expertise listed on the petition website, fewer than 1% of the signatories have any expertise in climate science.”(ang.).
IPCC: Streszczenie dla decydentów politycznych (Summary for policymakers). [w:] Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis [on-line]. s. 2,10. [dostęp 2008-04-20]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (13 stycznia 2013)]. rosnąca liczba obserwacji daje zbiorczy obraz ocieplającego się świata i innych zmian w systemie klimatycznym... Istnieją nowe i mocniejsze dowody, że większość ocieplenia zaobserwowanego w ostatnich 50 latach spowodowana jest działalnością człowieka. (ang.).
Causes of twentieth-century temperature change near the Earth’s surface Cytat: „Observations of the Earth’s near-surface temperature show a global-mean temperature increase of approximately 0.6 K since 1900 (ref. 1), occurring from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to the present. The temperature change over the past 30–50 years is unlikely to be entirely due to internal climate variability2, 3, 4 and has been attributed to changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols5 due to human activity.”.
N.N.OreskesN.N., BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, „Science”, 5702, 306, 2004, s. 1686–1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618, ISSN0036-8075, PMID: 15576594, Cytat: „The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”(ang.).
Richard S. Lindzen: Don’t Believe the Hype. OpinionJournal.com. [dostęp 2007-04-12]. Cytat: „Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact.”
Trochę prawdy o klimacie [online], PolskieRadio.pl, 24 stycznia 2009 [dostęp 2021-12-09], Cytat: „Na pewno człowiek zawinił również. Natomiast czy aż w takim procencie, o którym się go posądza w tej chwili, ja na przykład byłabym daleka od tego, żeby w stu procentach powiedzieć: tak. IPCC stwierdziło, że człowiek jest... że są przekonani, że w 90% człowiek zawinił, jeśli chodzi o ocieplenie klimatu. Nie podpisałabym się pod tym, czy aż w takim procencie. Na pewno tak, ale w jakim procencie, trudno w tej chwili określić.”.
Dana Nuccitelli: Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists. The Guardian, 2015-11-25. [dostęp 2016-08-01]. Cytat: „I reviewed all 53 of the papers referenced by Exxon’s spokesman, and they indeed consist of high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.” (ang.).
Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller i Ian Snowball: How unusual is today’s solar activity?. Nature, 2005. [dostęp 2008-05-23]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (2006-01-08)]. (ang.). s. E3-E4.
IPCC: Streszczenie dla decydentów politycznych (Summary for policymakers). [w:] Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis [on-line]. s. 2,10. [dostęp 2008-04-20]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (13 stycznia 2013)]. rosnąca liczba obserwacji daje zbiorczy obraz ocieplającego się świata i innych zmian w systemie klimatycznym... Istnieją nowe i mocniejsze dowody, że większość ocieplenia zaobserwowanego w ostatnich 50 latach spowodowana jest działalnością człowieka. (ang.).
Anthropogenic and natural causes of twentieth century temperature change Cytat: „In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects.”.
Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller i Ian Snowball: How unusual is today’s solar activity?. Nature, 2005. [dostęp 2008-05-23]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (2006-01-08)]. (ang.). s. E3-E4.
Le réchauffement climatique est un mythe !. październik 2004. [dostęp 2008-05-30]. [zarchiwizowane z tego adresu (2005-10-12)]. Cytat: „In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a ‘scientific’ deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC.” (fr.).
N.N.OreskesN.N., BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, „Science”, 5702, 306, 2004, s. 1686–1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618, ISSN0036-8075, PMID: 15576594, Cytat: „The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”(ang.).
W.R.L. Anderegg, J.W. Prall, J. Harold, S.H. Schneider. Expert credibility in climate change. „Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”. 107 (27), s. 12107–12109, 2010. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. ISSN0027-8424. Cytat: „Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”. (ang.).
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson i inni. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. „Environmental Research Letters”. 8 (2), s. 024024, 2013. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN1748-9326. Cytat: „We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 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. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”. (ang.).
Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland i inni. Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming. „Environmental Science & Technology”. 48 (16), s. 8963–8971, 2014. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e. ISSN0013-936X. Cytat: „Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively.”. (ang.).
Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban i inni. Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. „Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”. 95 (7), s. 1029–1040, 2014. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1. ISSN0003-0007. (ang.).
J.S. Carlton, Rebecca Perry-Hill, Matthew Huber, Linda S Prokopy. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. „Environmental Research Letters”. 10 (9), s. 094025, 2015. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025. ISSN1748-9326. Cytat: „Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures.”. (ang.).
Joel R. Norris, Robert J. Allen, Amato T. Evan, Mark D. Zelinka i inni. Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record. „Nature”. 536 (7614), s. 72–75, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature18273. ISSN0028-0836. Cytat: „The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.”. (ang.).
