Since it seems to mean so much to you and others, I will happily explain.
Let me begin by assuming I'm the only one who has actually read it. It would be too depressing to think that others may have read it and weren't able to determine that it is completely without merit.
Here's the link:
http://www.jamespowell.org/
The person who put the post together (on principle, I refuse to call it "research" or dignify it with any other language that suggests it has merit) did a search of 10,885 articles that he said were peer reviewed. In his judgment, only two articles "rejected" anthropogenic global warming.
What did the rest say? We have no idea.
The person who crafted the post said the 10,885 articles were ones "with" topics or keyword phrases such as "global warming," "global climate change" and "climate change." No further details are provided regarding content.
The obvious questions for the guy who put the post together are:
-- How many of the articles "with" references to the climate were clearly addressing anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to changes in the climate that may have occurred through natural variants?: He doesn't say.
-- How many articles specifically support the premise of anthropogenic global warming?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that do support the premise, how many indicate that they believe the affect on the climate is significant enough to be a concern?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that support the premise, how many (if any) provide any evidence or valuable research into the matter: He doesn't say.
What can we conclude from this? Absolutely nothing.
To dismiss it as mere "propaganda" is an insult to people who produce propaganda. I honestly don't believe I can find the right words to effectively describe its utter uselessness.
Frankly, I find it a bit depressing that some of the people on here who claim to be believers in "science" would champion such extreme stupidity.