Jump to content
GaryC

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

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+Than+...article8641.htm

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Al Gore's gonna be pissed.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Filed: Timeline
Posted
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."

7% - explicit endorsement

38% - implicit endorsement

6% - explicit rejection

48% - neutral

Given that 45% endorse the theory and only 6% reject it, it's clear which way the winds are blowing.

Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted

Daily Tech? :lol: Nice try, Gary.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Posted
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."

7% - explicit endorsement

38% - implicit endorsement

6% - explicit rejection

48% - neutral

Given that 45% endorse the theory and only 6% reject it, it's clear which way the winds are blowing.

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.

Yep, they are blowing away from the idea that we are causing GW.

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
I wonder where Steve is? He can't use the word "consensus" any more. I bet he goes though withdrawal!!

You two are always trying to get each others attention. It's like you two are gay for each other :P

I did say he was handsome in another thread. :P Nah, Gary is just the big brother I'm thankful I never had.

Posted (edited)
Daily Tech? :lol: Nice try, Gary.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This is the same publication that several years ago said there was a consensus. It's been held up by the GW nuts as proof that everyone agreed in human GW. Now that the new data is out you want to marginalize it.

Nice try but the consensus now is that there is no consensus. People are wising up finally!!

Edited by GaryC
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Daily Tech? :lol: Nice try, Gary.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This is the same publication that several years ago said there was a consensus. It's been held up by the GW nuts as proof that everyone agreed in human GW. Now that the new data is out you want to marginalize it.

Nice try but the consensus now is that there is no consensus. People are wising up finally!!

Gary, you're splitting hairs here. There have been NO scientific publications that refute global warming. While there may be room for scientific discussion over 'how much' of an impact the use of fossil fuels have had on global warming, the fact remains the climate is changing. The question is whether it's worth looking into alternative forms of energy that have less of an impact on not only our climate, but also the environment in general.

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

Posted
I wonder where Steve is? He can't use the word "consensus" any more. I bet he goes though withdrawal!!

You two are always trying to get each others attention. It's like you two are gay for each other :P

I did say he was handsome in another thread. :P Nah, Gary is just the big brother I'm thankful I never had.

:lol::lol::lol: :lol: :lol:

LUZ.gif

Bible.jpgcm66.gifFor my dear Mother - May 10 '44 -Sept 14 '07

Posted
Daily Tech? :lol: Nice try, Gary.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This is the same publication that several years ago said there was a consensus. It's been held up by the GW nuts as proof that everyone agreed in human GW. Now that the new data is out you want to marginalize it.

Nice try but the consensus now is that there is no consensus. People are wising up finally!!

Gary, you're splitting hairs here. There have been NO scientific publications that refute global warming. While there may be room for scientific discussion over 'how much' of an impact the use of fossil fuels have had on global warming, the fact remains the climate is changing. The question is whether it's worth looking into alternative forms of energy that have less of an impact on not only our climate, but also the environment in general.

I know that's why you're vehemently against global warming, because you resent public policy being shaped by science. Are we not stewards of this earth or is it merely here to be pillaged and used to our discretion even if the end result can have detrimental effects on our quality of life? On a small scale, Gary - would it be okay if your neighbor pours toxic waste into his backyard?

I still get the feeling that you react to the title and not read the words. To refresh your memory:

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.

The doom and gloom that AlGore and others try to spread is not supported by the scientific community. (something I have been saying all along) This isn't a scientific study done by a fringe group with a political ax to grind. This is a survey of ALL the GW papers done by EVERYONE. The facts are the facts. At best 7% give outright endorsment of man made GW. The rest are not making that claim. Spin that Steven.

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted (edited)
Spin that Steven.

Here's the spin, Gary. What, if any responsibility do we (humans) have with regard to this planet and the rest of its inhabitants? Should we not be concerned about our impact on the environment? If we could curtail the amount of greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels significantly, through conservation and alternative energy sources, should we? Should public policy ever consider environmental impact?

That's what I wish you and I would be talking about instead of this 'yes it is' , 'no it isn't' game of verbal ping pong.

Edited by Mister Fancypants
Posted

Science is politicized by those who don't understand the concepts of how science works.

Climate is a hugely complex system. No ones knows completely how it works, not even scientists do. But climate scientists know much more than your average republican. Yet, Republicans try to make policy on concepts they don't understand and thus refuse.

There are things we know for certain. The average temperature has been slowly rising over the last century. Taking into account thermodynamics, this requires a huge amount of energy.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, have grown significantly since the beginning of human industrialization.

As we are able to capture more data and create more complex climate models, are understanding of climate systems, and our effect on it will only become clearer. Many scientists, who have taken a netrual view in their research now, might take a more favorable view once they get better data.

Scientists make reports based observations and data. Republicans with press releases (and to hell with the scientific method).

keTiiDCjGVo

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
Posted
I wonder where Steve is? He can't use the word "consensus" any more. I bet he goes though withdrawal!!

You two are always trying to get each others attention. It's like you two are gay for each other :P

I did say he was handsome in another thread. :P Nah, Gary is just the big brother I'm thankful I never had.

you two get a room :D

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...