[TheMMAn]

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming TheoryMichael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less...rticle8641.htm



I'll be the first to say that i don't beleive the underlying methodology used here is sound or accurate. Oreskes' original study had some serious errors that she was forced to admit. The methodology was pretty well slammed as well. Since this "study" is a revisist of her work, it is only fair to call into question the methodology of the new work.

One usefull idea here, is the fact that the results can be used to compare and contrast the results from a few years ago with the results of the recent survey. Although the underlying methodology is questionable, there should be no problem using the results to identify a trend, if the methodology is consitant with the original study.

[AmericaOverAll]

But Al Gore said...

I honestly dont know all the details about global warming, but people are acting like there is 100% consensus on it in the scientific world. And people questioning it are basically flat earthers.

[J-Fight]

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the majority of papers in this study lean to the left than to the right, bitches

[kingstu]

Any real scientist will admit that there is a great deal of uncertainty in climate modeling. It is also extremely difficult to distinguish between natural climate cycles and man made changes. With that being said, is there ONE person here posting right now who is willing to give up their: computer, fans, lights, car or stop buying products which use a TON of energy from fossil fuels to produce?

Everybody wants somebody ELSE to sacrifice but they are unwilling to sacrifice themselves. I take the bus and I do my best to turn off the lights but beyond that I’m not giving up the Internet and all the wonderful porn.

[YeahBee]

bottom line is IMO: having a more enviromental thinking with recycling, less gas-exhausts etc etc is a good thing nonetheless. having mroe people tkae the train, not ship groceries across the globe, recycling bottles(not buying bottled water) havingm ore solar energy isntead of fossil fules and many other things are good things

[kingstu]

BTW, I learned that natural variations in the solar cycle will make the Earth uninhabitable in about 500 million years and a few hundred million years after that the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda so all bets are off.

Most planets are harsh, barren and cannot support any life. The fact that Earth can support life for just a short period of time (a few hundred million years) is nothing short of miraculous (although I won’t go so far as to say Miraculous so as not to offend you atheists).

I think human beings have a vastly over inflated sense of self importance. Thinking that we could damage the climate on a global scale is almost the epitome of narcissism.

Earth > Humans

[J-Fight]

I think human beings have a vastly over inflated sense of self importance. Thinking that we could damage the climate on a global scale is almost the epitome of narcissism.

That's ridiculous. Go dump some waste oil in your front lawn and see what happens.

[groo]

I think human beings have a vastly over inflated sense of self importance. Thinking that we could damage the climate on a global scale is almost the epitome of narcissism.

Have you heard of these things called nuclear weapons.??? Nuclear Winter would "damage" the climate some............





And LOL @ a blog as a source for anything factual.

[YeahBee]

Originally Posted by J-Fight

That's ridiculous. Go dump some waste oil in your front lawn and see what happens.

There was a dude in my neighbourhood who dumped motorcleaning fluid in a nearby valley, really fucked it up, it took weeks to ship the sand/dirt away

[TheMMAn]

Originally Posted by YeahBee

bottom line is IMO: having a more enviromental thinking with recycling, less gas-exhausts etc etc is a good thing nonetheless. having mroe people tkae the train, not ship groceries across the globe, recycling bottles(not buying bottled water) havingm ore solar energy isntead of fossil fules and many other things are good things

I agree we should seek cleaner, more effecient fuels, and concentrate on new technologies that conserve energy. But that isnt what the IPCC is all about. When we start talking about drastic changes in enegy use now, at who-knows-what cost, and a new global taxation system which resembles a global wealth redistibution scheme, we had better damn well make sure we basing our hysterical fears on scientific truth, not hype.