Could this end up a topic of discussion tomorrow on TSN?!
Posted on 08/30/2007 10:50:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.
Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.
DAILYTECH
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
Michael Asher August 29, 2007 11:07 AM 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.
###
bump
Could this end up a topic of discussion tomorrow on TSN?!
Well Al, what are you going to demagogue now?
Back to selling snake oil to Monks.
Yep. You know, that movie of his is going to make some great fodder for comedy skits in the near future. What a clown...
Ha, ha—the Al Gore Support Center. He needs some support and probably an intervention.
Y’know what? I really do think there are those on the Left who care nothing about “Global Warming” but get behind it because they have been feeling sorry for Al Gore for six years and just want to humor him and make him “feel better.”
Oy.
CONSENSUS
Christians would view it as worshipping false Gods. Atheists may view it as the "God part of the brain" manifesting itself.
Interestingly, the majority who "believe" don't "practice." This is why we see the hypocrisy in global warming nutcases. They fly around in private jets, then preach or make movies for their atonement.
It is the same thing as drinking and carousing on Saturday night, then going off to Church to be forgiven on Sunday morning.
Some global warming nuts only attend "church" on holidays (free concert), others weekly (Prius drivers) and still others approach Taliban levels of "devotion" (politicians outlawing conventional light bulbs). Most all of them rely on faith, while there are some who will invent bad science to justify their religion.
And you saw how effective THAT was in deterring kids from smoking rope.
Yep, I agree.
No bears were drowned making this thread.
I don’t think anyone really knows if “Man made” global warming is true or not. There seems to be credible evidence on both views. I do resent anyone who expects me to just take their word for it and feel guilty for driving a big vehicle. Al Gore is a bag of wind.
Ah, finally it's starting to become clear to the keenly open minded thinkers! : )
Fascinating revelation.
There is only a finite number of rabbit's that can fit in a hat.
I just wonder how many of the scientists are funded by human caused global warming proponents, and for how many years they have been funded with, perhaps a vested interest in human causes of global warming? Could there be a conflict of interest for some of these scientists?
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.