Very few biology papers "explicitly endorse" evolution, and for the same reason.
Do you have any reason to think this sample was not representative? If anything I would expect AGW doubters to be more likely to reply than those who accept the consensus, in order to ensure that their minority view was well represented.
By WHOM?
There is a difference between "Climate Change" and AGW just like evolution vs creationism. I fully support evolution so we can move past this strawman.
Of course, you are implying that the phrase "Global Climate Change" is common in the debate, it is not. She clearly left out 11,000 papers so she could make the claim that no peer-reviewed paper exists disputing AGW. My list disputes this lie.
That can be said about any paper, if popularity now determines what is science.
Which is not Nature's peer review process nor being published in their journal. It is shown how science has always been determined, reproducible results. So your subjective attachment to the journal nature is irrelevant.
It's an analogy, not a strawman. Papers often assume accepted science, they rarely explicitly endorse it. Nothing was implied about your belief in evolution by my use of this analogy. Pretending there was such an implication, so you can refute that rather than the point I was making - that's a strawman. See the difference?
This reply has nothing whatever to do with the quote from my post that precedes it. My question was about your reaction to the survey that showed that 97% of active climatologists accept AGW. You can tell by the looking at the quote from your post that precedes it.
That is a strawman argument as you are comparing peer-reviewed publications to non peer-reviewed ones. "Reputation" is subjective. Nature tarnished itself by publishing fraudulent science. I had nothing to do with it.
That's a great non-answer. A paper's impact has nothing to do with popularity but by its IMPACT. If it is cited by bloggers and nobodies, it has no impact. If it is published in the nothing journal, it has no impact.
The analogy using evolution is when it is brought into an AGW discussion (which is frequently). No I don't see the difference as it is far too common an occurrence in these discussions, sorry. Regardless my point still stands as "Climate Change" and AGW are two different things. A paper talking about "climate change" in not way means it is in endorsement of AGW unless explicitly stated.
"Impact" is subjective and not a scientific criteria.
Yeah to you everything seem to be "subjective" when you have no answer to it.
Of course it is subjective as it is merely people's opinion.
No I believe "prestige" has no bearing on science.
Sorry man. Some of the other meds like Buspar or the SSRIs don't work quickly and if the Xanax is not working, I wouldn't recommend any others until you talk to your Doc.
No only things that are subjective are subjective.
Reputation is always subjective and there is no evidence "all" scientists read it.
A papers impact is always subjective as it is merely the popularity of a paper determined by other's opinions.
Actually that is not true and that papers have had a significant "impact" on the actual science, since most of them have to do with other scientists not actually doing the science.