Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
DailyTech ^

Posted on 09/03/2007 6:33:02 AM PDT by fabrizio

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: convenientfiction; convenientlie; environmentalism; globalwarming; treehuggers

1 posted on 09/03/2007 6:33:04 AM PDT by fabrizio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

and, to this Owl Gore replies “Consensus? We don’t need no stinkin’ consensus!”


2 posted on 09/03/2007 6:35:55 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Made in China: Treat those three words like a warning label)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

bookmark


3 posted on 09/03/2007 6:36:13 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (Fight the illegal Mexican colonizers & imperialist conquistadors! Long live the resistance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio
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 study is flawed, because papers with a unique, new perspective are more likely to be published than papers that repeat the same positions. A better method would be to interview scientists directly.

4 posted on 09/03/2007 6:39:37 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

So you’re saying 7% IS ‘less than half’??? Where’s your proof?


5 posted on 09/03/2007 6:40:40 AM PDT by CRBDeuce (an armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

This should silence the Global Warming Debate Deniers.


6 posted on 09/03/2007 6:46:47 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

But it won’t, alas.


7 posted on 09/03/2007 6:47:08 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes ....

Ah-Ah! A femi-nazi, this explains it.

(I knew that 19th Amendment thingy would create havoc, but nobody listened.)

8 posted on 09/03/2007 6:50:42 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

BUSH cronies!!!!
/lib rant off

:-)


9 posted on 09/03/2007 6:55:55 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom, Bible Thumper and Proud to be an American! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CRBDeuce
So you’re saying 7% IS ‘less than half’??? Where’s your proof?

Hey stop being so picky!

7% is big improvement in accuracy figures for those moonbats!

Last month Al Gore claimed multiple times that Two Billion people participated in Live Earth yet they can only account for less than Forty Million of them. That's not even 2% of their frequently claimed attendance figures!

10 posted on 09/03/2007 7:11:26 AM PDT by Wil H (Islam translates to "submission", not "peace" - you can figure out the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Is Naomi Oreskes the author of the one paper that predicts doom?


11 posted on 09/03/2007 7:11:51 AM PDT by Thebaddog (My dogs are asleep paws up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The study is flawed, because papers with a unique, new perspective are more likely to be published than papers that repeat the same positions. A better method would be to interview scientists directly.

Another fly in the ointment is what I percieve to be lowered standards for publication, at least in my field. There is brilliant work being done, but a higher number of repackaged derivative works compared to 15 years ago. For example, just last week there was an "Exciting Energy Thing" involving the high reactivity of an aluminum amalgam with gallium rather than mercury. The latter has been known for half a century. The work was intuitively obvious, but the Energy Buzzword was introduced.

Likewise, "Global Whatever" is a growing "industry" that produces funding and revenues. It would be very easy to get funded and published if one took the Party Line.

12 posted on 09/03/2007 7:19:15 AM PDT by Gorzaloon (Food imported from China = Cesspool + Flavor-Straw™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

First of all, where is the paper referred to? He makes no reference to where you can find Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s work.

Second, in addition to published material, has anyone conducted a simple poll of noteworthy climate scientists, that could consist of two questions?:

1) The Earth is in a period of Warming on a global scale.

—a) I agree with this statement.
—b) I do not know if the Earth is in a period of warming, cooling, or general stability in temperature on a global scale.
—c) I disagree with this statement.
—d) The statement does not adequately describe what I know.
—e) I refrain from comment.

2) Current, not extraordinary, human activity can have a significant effect on Earth’s climate on a global scale.

—a) I agree with this statement.
—b) I do not know if the human activity can have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate on a global scale.
—c) I disagree with this statement.
—d) The statement does not adequately describe what I know.
—e) I refrain from comment.

Such a poll would strongly clarify both who believes that Global Warming is taking place, and who believes that Man Made Global Warming is taking place. And who does not, or cannot definitively say, one way or another.


13 posted on 09/03/2007 7:30:05 AM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

14 posted on 09/03/2007 8:02:06 AM PDT by flattorney (Fred Thompson for 2008 President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CRBDeuce

“So you’re saying 7% IS ‘less than half’??? Where’s your proof?”

I believe the truth can be found when one is working with large values of 2 (not traditional values of 2). When working with large values of 2 there is reasonable doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. I hope this helps.

Best regards


15 posted on 09/03/2007 8:05:51 AM PDT by dozer7 (Love many, trust few and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

16 posted on 09/03/2007 8:09:08 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
***Is Naomi Oreskes the author of the one paper that predicts doom***

Yep, that's the way I read it.

Examining peer-reviewed papers ... 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.

Just a wild guess, but she's 'prolly' a godless commie who votes straight Dem too. (not sarcasm)

17 posted on 09/03/2007 8:21:18 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dozer7

Thanks, I failed to consider the possibility of large values of 2.

Speaking of which:
1) The Earth is in a period of Cooling on a global scale.
2) Current, not extraordinary, human activity can not possibly have a significant effect on Earth’s climate on a global scale.
Which section of a University library should I be able to find current research on these obvious truisms?


18 posted on 09/03/2007 8:30:34 AM PDT by CRBDeuce (an armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

ping


19 posted on 09/03/2007 9:22:40 AM PDT by r-q-tek86 (Sometimes too much to drink is not enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

A climate scientist Von Storch (sp?) did such a survey and found a ~50:50 reply for and against AGW


20 posted on 09/03/2007 11:27:52 AM PDT by Freep EE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; gruffwolf; ...

FReepmail me to get on or off


Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.


rehash of last weeks story
21 posted on 09/03/2007 3:09:01 PM PDT by xcamel (FDT/2008 -- talk about it >> irc://irc.freenode.net/fredthompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio; xcamel; AFPhys; Cyber Liberty
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.

It is “interesting” to note that Bush is cursed by the AGW extremists for “throttling science” and “suppressing science” by requiring Hansen (NASA’s screaming AGW extremist) to vet his POLITICAL conclusions about economic and energy policy with his superiors and the WH before making international statements - and the Bush WH has NEVER edited Hansen’s scientific statements, but the IPCC ACTUALLY EDITS their science statements to match their political statements!

22 posted on 09/04/2007 4:32:49 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
First of all, where is the paper referred to? He makes no reference to where you can find Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s work.

Check the article’s comments - This is a preview of what will be published.

23 posted on 09/04/2007 4:36:25 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Skeptical Inquirer has concluded that global warming due to CO2 emissions is real, and that opposition to that conclusion is uninformed and biased against science.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-03/


24 posted on 09/04/2007 4:39:40 AM PDT by mountaineer1997
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Here is a more substantive link:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/global-climate-change_1.pdf


25 posted on 09/04/2007 4:41:38 AM PDT by mountaineer1997
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer1997
From the “Skeptical” article in that link.

CFI’s paper on global climate change, written by Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D, offers compelling evidence from a large body of research that global climate change caused by global warming is already underway and requires our immediate attention. As the paper explains, the probability is extremely high that human generated greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide as the major offender, are the primary cause of global warming and that this global warming will produce harmful climate change. The paper also points out, however, that much can be done now to mitigate the effects of global warming and the associated climate change. Difficulties in addressing the problem are not caused primarily by unavailable technology, but by the lack of sufficient incentives to implement the new technologies more aggressively.

Dr. Stuart D. Jordan is a Senior Staff Scientist (Emeritus) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Jordan is a Rhodes Scholar and he has published dozens of articles in refereed scientific journals.

Saying something, or claiming something, does NOT make it true. Their “conclusion” above requires destroying the US economy for ???? - what? Reducing CO2 emissions to the 1990-levels, 1970 levels, or even to the 1890’s will NOT change global temperatures. But it will destroy the US economy, the AGW extremists’ goal.

26 posted on 09/04/2007 5:32:56 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer1997; xcamel
I can refute (by observation and by fact) the premise of every sentence in this article’s first 20 paragraphs.

Nuff said.

I repeat, simply CLAIMING that AGW is “established fact” and is a “major threat” does not make it so.

Destroying America’s economy - and that is the stated and understated goal of the EU bureaucrats, the AGW extremists, and the international socialists who wish to begin charging these carbon taxes - will NOT impede, slow down, nor stop AGW.

Because the measured 1/2 of one degree increase in mid-level atmospheric temperatures is NOT due to the presence, or absence, of the American economy. Nor of human life elsewhere on this planet.

27 posted on 09/04/2007 7:47:55 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

consensus is just code for majority by plurality.

It is a negotiation trick used in messy negotiations with no one opinion and often with people who have ego agendas.


28 posted on 09/04/2007 7:53:07 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson