You know how we keep being told that there is consensus view of scientists in favor of catastrophic man-made Global Warming? That is a lie.

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.

Indeed, the insistence that there was a consensus in the IPPC's report was in a section not written by scientists – it was written by politicians and bureaucrats. And the sections written by the scientists are edited to conform with the conclusion – in other words, the politicians and bureaucrats throw out what doesn't fit with a conclusion that is written and published before the actual research chapters.

In other words, the tail wags the dog.

And there is no consensus in favor of catastrophic global warming – cause by man or otherwise.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, DeMediacratic Nation, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 5 kb.