Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

**madanthonywayne** · 08-31-07, 01:12 AM

Here's an interesting story. Apparently the latest survey reveals that less than half of all published scientist now accept the theory or anthropogenic global warming.

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://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 07:01 AM

For the non-believers, it is irresponsible to ignore data like this!

"Sea ice in the Arctic continues its record decline, thanks to unusually cloud-free conditions and above-average temperatures. For August 21, the National Snow and Ice Data Center estimated that fully one third of the Arctic ice cap was missing, compared to the average levels observed on that date from 1979-2000. Sea ice extent was 4.92 million square kilometers on August 21, and the 1979-2000 average for the date was about 7.3 million square kilometers. Arctic sea ice has fallen below the record low absolute minimum of 4.92 million square kilometers set in 2005 by about 8%, with another 3-5 weeks of the melting season still remaining. Reliable records of sea ice coverage go back to 1979."

http://www.wunderground.com/hurrican...822_extent.png

Sorry but it is happening now!

**cosmictraveler** · 08-31-07, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Here's an interesting story. Apparently the latest survey reveals that less than half of all published scientist now accept the theory or anthropogenic global warming.

That means the other half understand the data they see as true to their eyes and experiments. So why not err on the side of caution and do somethin to stop the spread of the pollution in our waters, air and lands so that we can live healthier lives as well as our future generations?

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 08:36 AM

Wake up America!

**spidergoat** · 08-31-07, 09:00 AM

Did you notice the .gov on the end of that address? It's the Inhofe Blog!

James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (born November 17, 1934) is a conservative American politician from Oklahoma. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is among the most vocal skeptics of climate change (global warming) in Congress. Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues.

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

[wiki]

This scumbag cannot be trusted to report anything correctly when it comes to science.

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 09:05 AM

Looks like his money is rooted deep in oil!

**spidergoat** · 08-31-07, 09:08 AM

Typical of global waming deniers, it's a deliberate campaign on the part of fossil fuel companies to distort the public debate.

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 09:40 AM

Here is a nice little list of the nasties we breath!

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...08&pageindex=3

**oreodont** · 08-31-07, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by cat2only

Here is a nice little list of the nasties we breath!

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...08&pageindex=3

Your link actually helps the original poster prove his point. You are mixing up global warming with other pollutants. It's a bit sad that those like yourself who advocate for action still don't know what you are advocating for but are more like a mob of mindless cultists.

I agree with an above poster that it is better to err on the side of caution but, as a scientist myself, I don't put much credibiity into much of the science of global warming. There may be a human-based influence and it's best to mitigate that influence. However, once fudgy numbers are thrown into the mix and words like 'consensus' used then the word 'science' should be left out. There may be some good science out there on greenhouse gasses but there's so much garbage science that we are accepting one opinion or another more on some political or ideological agenda than really knowing anything about the nitty gritty science. I haven't sudied the properties of gas, thermodynamics, or drawn a carbon atom since first year university. Darn if I can wade through the complexities of a thousand variables interacting with eachother that make up the climate.

I agree with reducing emissions as a precaution. I don't, however, equate the cult of global warming with science.

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 10:18 AM

Warming is just part of the issue. Lets bring it all out and get particular about the particulates. This is just one piece of the puzzle!! There are hundreds of issues with this global problem we face!

**spidergoat** · 08-31-07, 11:41 AM

I don't, however, equate the cult of global warming with science.

This is exactly the sort of confusion deliberately instigated by those with alot to lose if we ever stop burning fossil fuels. The science is well understood, and anthropocentric global warming is real. The link between CO2 and warming is clear.

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 11:50 AM

Idiots like that never worked in a fossil power plant!

**spidergoat** · 08-31-07, 11:53 AM

I think cat2only is saying that there is more than one reason to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. It's not as if we can keep on using this stuff even if there isn't any global warming. Just the implications of peak oil mean that we are soon to hit an economic wall with this energy source.

**spidergoat** · 08-31-07, 12:14 PM

In a related story, Inhofe almost got shot today flying out of Iraq.

**cat2only** · 08-31-07, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

I think cat2only is saying that there is more than one reason to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. It's not as if we can keep on using this stuff even if there isn't any global warming. Just the implications of peak oil mean that we are soon to hit an economic wall with this energy source.

More than one hunderd reasons to say the least!

**iceaura** · 08-31-07, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by madanth

Here's an interesting story. Apparently the latest survey reveals that less than half of all published scientist now accept the theory or anthropogenic global warming.

The article you posted was not a survey of the opinions of published scientists, but a survey of the contents of scientific papers.

To misrepresent it as a survey of a consensus of the best judgments of scientists is to badly mislead.

Few scientific papers are published as endorsements. This is not a political arena, of votes and endorsements. To have 38% of published papers contain an explicit endorsement of a particular prediction is far more significant than to have no or neutral positions - normal positions on matters of uncertainty - in the majority remaining.

btw: Weren't we just hearing about the oppression suffered by those who did not affirm Global Warming in their research? I could have sworn I read posts about how impossible it is for any poor scientist who does not toe the Global Warming line to get a fair hearing in the journals and among the grant granters. Must have been wax in my ears.

**madanthonywayne** · 09-01-07, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by iceaura

The article you posted was not a survey of the opinions of published scientists, but a survey of the contents of scientific papers.

To misrepresent it as a survey of a consensus of the best judgments of scientists is to badly mislead.

Ok, Ice, Ice baby. Did you read the first paragraph?

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.

This study used the same methology as the often cited study by Naomi Oreskes. It was simply updating the findings. This study is no more or less misleading than that one.

**Exhumed** · 09-01-07, 11:49 AM

It did not say that the methodology was the same. It said the database was the same (odd considering parts of the database are probably outdated), and the "search terms" were the same (I suppose meaning the database was on some computer program and he looked at articles brought up by the terms).

I'm curious what these articles are that "neither accept or reject the hypothesis". Could that mean that articles which say "there is a 90% chance of global warming being caused by man" were considered not accepting it?

Assuming that is not the case, articles that don't say one thing or the other don't seem important. You can't have much content in the topic of whether man causes global warming without accepting or rejecting the idea...even for the most wishy-washy. If you can't support it while not rejecting it that means you don't have anything to add on the subject.

The important thing is scientists who support it vastly outnumber those who do not. And it seems that those who reject it are almost all paid to do so.

**madanthonywayne** · 09-01-07, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Exhumed

You can't have much content in the topic of whether man causes global warming without accepting or rejecting the idea...even for the most wishy-washy. If you can't support it while not rejecting it that means you don't have anything to add on the subject.

That's not necesarily true. A given paper might study the effects without going into the cause.

The important thing is scientists who support it vastly outnumber those who do not. And it seems that those who reject it are almost all paid to do so.

That conclusion is completely unsupported by the facts. Furthermore, I'm sick of people dismissing any study they don't agree with because of who funded the study. That's nothing but an adhom.

**Exhumed** · 09-01-07, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

That's not necesarily true. A given paper might study the effects without going into the cause.

Right, which would mean it has nothing to say on the subject of whether humans are the cause, which is the consensus being referred to. In no way can an article that does not address causes of global warming be viewed counting towards whether scientists believe in man made global warming or not.

That conclusion is completely unsupported by the facts.

The part about all those who reject the idea are being paid to do so? It does have support. Numerous topics on sciforums have noted this in the past.

Or was it that I said the relevant thing was that only 6% disagreed? I'm assuming not, because it is backed up by your very source.

Furthermore, I'm sick of people dismissing any study they don't agree with because of who funded the study. That's nothing but an adhom.

It has to be worth noting that when people are selling their opinions when it comes to judging the value of the opinions. It wouldn't matter much if what was being discussed was the content of their ideas, but we were only discussing the number of scientists who support or oppose man made global warming.