This article by James Lawrence Powell is making the rounds: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart. (Also posted here.) The premise appears to be: look at the vast number of peer-reviewed articles that support human-caused climate change (13,926) vs. those that do not (24). Based on this ratio, we can conclude (per the title) that climate-change deniers "have no scientific credibility".

OK. I see what you're trying to do. But is that really how science works? Put two piles of papers on either side of a scale to see which side is "righter"?

For whatever it's worth, I am in favor of taking action to curb potential causes of global climate instability. But 24 peer-reviewed papers which refute global warming? That's 24 more than I thought there were. Interesting.