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.
###
Said it before and I'll say it again, when it comes to human endeavors, if the facts don't add up, follow the money.....
I think the problem is more general than just "most who adhere to global warming." I think that the newswire - AP - functions as an oracle for liberals. If it's not "on the wire", goes the rationale, then it doesn't matter. My tagline puts it a little differently, but it comes to the same thing.If you think what is not on the wire - at any given time, that would include
Journalists treat the wire, which has everything bad and everything abnormal - to the near-perfect exclusion of anything qualifying for our attention under Philipians 4:8 - as their Oracle. And then people wonder why journalists aren't conservative . . .
- the Bible.
- encyclopedias,
- the whole of the Library of Congress, save only for the newspapers/news magazines (if it has those).
- everything that went as expected yesterday.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and IllegitimateFinally, brethren,whatsoever things are true,
think on these things. - Philipians 4:8 (KJV)
whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue,
and if there be any praise,
bump
Or that other place he seems pull stuff out of...
read later
I am going to reduce my carbon footprint this weekend. I’ll be laying on the couch so as not to produce excessive CO2 from exhaling. Exercise is the cause of global warming.
The definition of modern day liberal political dogma.
I disagree. I think they are chasing grant money.
If there is a human-race-threatening crisis, then there will be plenty of grant money showering down on scientists working on global warming, If there is no impending environmental catastrophe, then there is no big paycheck at the end of the rainbow.
Too many scientists these days are whores. They tell the grant writers what the grant writers want to hear, so that they will get grant money. The government grant writers want a crisis, since that justifies a big-budget "War on Global Warming".
Fascinating revelation.
That's been widely known, at least here on FR, for quite some time. They've been doing it that way since the IPCC first started issuing it reports.
“post this over”
Work in process
Nah, I could feel my intellect slipping away as soon as I opened the site! Those phools are too dim for real life...
Only God can control the weather. Some people would like to believe that humans have more control than they do, and they attempt to place more blame on humans because of that. Global warming is a crock...one day, everyone will have no choice but to realize that!
Oh, I wouldn’t disagree with your comment here. You are speaking of the televangelist. I was speaking of those who write the checks.
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.