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.
and, to this Owl Gore replies “Consensus? We don’t need no stinkin’ consensus!”
bookmark
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.
So you’re saying 7% IS ‘less than half’??? Where’s your proof?
This should silence the Global Warming Debate Deniers.
But it won’t, alas.
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.)
BUSH cronies!!!!
/lib rant off
:-)
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!
Is Naomi Oreskes the author of the one paper that predicts doom?
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.
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.
“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
If the other threads on this very same topic didn't, this thread won't either. Besides, there is a Global Warming Debate.
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)
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?
ping
A climate scientist Von Storch (sp?) did such a survey and found a ~50:50 reply for and against AGW
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.