The fact that articles that have negative outcomes are not published nearly as much as articles with positive ones (and by positive and negative, I mean in terms of rejecting or confirming a hypothesis) is relatively common.

It's called "the file drawer effect" (no wikipedia article yet, sorry) and is well known throughout the scientific community. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were hundreds of articles which find either no evidence of warming in a certain area or no damage found in an area, and they were not published.

Global warming is of course one of the many examples for the reason why these NEED to be published... when the mass media comes along and says: "5000 articles on the negative effects of global warming have been published, and only 1000 that have found no evidence", people will draw conclusions based on the faulty assumption that there is no evidence to the contrary.

That said, I believe that global warming is happening (personally, I think it is a combination of a natural warming and man's effect, which is why it is so rapid), yet this is one of my pet peeves, so I thought I'd share.