|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Less then 1/2 of PUBLISHED scientists support global warming
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Less then 1/2 of PUBLISHED scientists support global warming
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| booybob |
The list gets smaller and small everyday.
the last paragraph is why some skeptics don't believe all the hype
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ec-6880767e7966
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007
Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)
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.
### |
|
|
| booybob |
The summary is written by politicians and every word is approved by political representative's
:rolleyes:
the report is edited to ensure compliance with the summary.
if the report is accurate, why would they have to edit for compliance???
here is the quote
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.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ec-6880767e7966 |
|
|
| Tech Difficulty |
| businesses dont care about global warming, why should i? |
|
|
| Richard Wagner |
| Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Classifying abstracts on global climate change
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: August 30, 2007 3:35 PM, by Tim Lambert
Via William Connolley I find another attempt to claim that there is no consensus in the scientific literature:
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."
This seems likely to be a rerun of Benny Peiser's effort. (Peiser said that 34 of Oreskes' abstracts rejected the consensus. Eventually he downgraded the number to just one. I've sent off an email to see if I can get a copy of the paper, but in the mean time we can check some stuff.
Searching for "global climate change" in the Web of Science and restricting the search to "Papers" and "since 2004" gave me 576 results. A bit more than Schultz, but some were published after Feb 2007. I've put all the results on the web here. Christopher Monckton has posted seven of the papers that Schultz reckons explicitly reject the consensus. You'd think that those would the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really so reject the consensus.
Cao just says that there are uncertainties in our understanding of the carbon cycle. Leiserowitz just studied public opnion of the risks of climate change. Moser was not one of the 576 papers. Lai et al ends up implicitly endorsing the consensus by suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming.
The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn't explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn't changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published. (What is the next number in this sequence? 60. Their answer is 60.)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...ts_on_globa.php |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
The summary is written by politicians and every word is approved by political representative's
:rolleyes:
the report is edited to ensure compliance with the summary.
if the report is accurate, why would they have to edit for compliance???
here is the quote
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.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ec-6880767e7966 |
That's a nice soundbite, but you failed to show how the assertions in the summary differed from those in the report.
Can't wait to see that :) |
|
|
| JTProcess |
It just doesn't compute that there are still fools who believe humans
"have absolutely no effect on climate change"
...but like with "the war" they'll put their hand on their harts and take another rough anal raping "for freedumb"... way to go truth denialists! |
|
|
| erik28com |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
It just doesn't compute that there are still fools who believe humans
"have absolutely no effect on climate change"
|
We're up against a mega rich industry that is constantly publishing articles that flub a little fact here, a little fact there and sow so much doubt nothing gets done. And for people that don't believe an industry could have such an effect on opinion based on science I have two words for you: TOBACCO INDUSTRY.
They did the same thing for decades. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
It's many of the exact same characters, also!
Fred Seitz
Willie Soon
Sally Baliunas
Richard Lindzen
All of them and more were bought and paid for by Tobacco companies and now are bought and paid for by Energy companies. |
|
|
| erik28com |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
It's many of the exact same characters, also!
Fred Seitz
Willie Soon
Sally Baliunas
Richard Lindzen
All of them and more were bought and paid for by Tobacco companies and now are bought and paid for by Energy companies. |
See I didn't even realize that. Wow. How can people be so gullible? |
|
|
| artiel |
The funny thing about all of this is that everyone insists on being an absolutist. I know we were all taught the scientific method in school and taught about heaven and hell in church or whatever as kids...
It just seems to me that it doesn't really matter whether there is global warming or not, because just in our own self interest we should not allow corporations to pollute our collective resources. First of all because if it gets too bad, eventually we all die, that's bad. Second of all, because a long time before it gets to that point, we no longer have lakes to go swimming in and even just to drink water from them we have to invent new technology to filter it.
I live in Cleveland, and not far from where I live there is a sewage overflow duct that dumps directly into the lake about 150 yards from the largest beach in Cleveland. Now to me, that is fucked up, but nobody does anything about it. Environmentalist groups get too distracted with trying to save the world and the politics that they forget about practical things, and the government and big corporations certainly aren't going to volunteer to clean up their act.
So that leaves me wondering if next time I go swimming I am going to be stepping on turds. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
The summary is written by politicians and every word is approved by political representative's
:rolleyes: |
...sounds like Gen. Petreaus' Iraq "report"...
:rolleyes:
Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to be such a DUPED SUCKER???
What kind of ignorant dip-shit mindlessly shills for Big Business??? Oh...a republican.
Sell-out Bitch. You are among the worst America has to offer... |
|
|
| hingefactor |
| Dude, do yourself a favor and read about what the rest of the world is saying about this issue. How the hell can you trust our government anymore. If you are so convinced that nothing is happening, read what the UK says and the rest of Europe. Stop reading only US sources. It's too one sided. |
|
|
| hingefactor |
| You know what kills me about people who are so vehemently opposed to the concept of Global Warming? Forget about the political crap that swirls around the issue. To me, whether or not it exists it has to be good for the planet, the people and the future of our planet to try and pollute less and be more environmentally responsible. Why can't people seem to get that? Why are we so fucking obssessed with maintaining our consume the hell out of everything mentality? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by hingefactor
You know what kills me about people who are so vehemently opposed to the concept of Global Warming? Forget about the political crap that swirls around the issue. To me, whether or not it exists it has to be good for the planet, the people and the future of our planet to try and pollute less and be more environmentally responsible. Why can't people seem to get that? Why are we so fucking obssessed with maintaining our consume the hell out of everything mentality? |
...there is no doubt a complicated social-psychological reason for these people being such willing stooges...
...but I just call them STUPID for expediency's sake...
:ps: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
The list gets smaller and small everyday.
the last paragraph is why some skeptics don't believe all the hype
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ec-6880767e7966
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007
Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)
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.
### |
Oops! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
20 Sep 07
[Thank to whoever submitted this link to Fark.com and thanks to all of you voting for this story on Digg.com. The mainstream media won't cover it so I appreciate all those who are taking a moment and helping spread the word!]
The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.
It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).
(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer.)
Boehmer-Christiansen's actual interest was in what she calls Schulte's "research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'." The good doctor (Schulte is an endocrinologist) has been quoted saying that his interest was sparked because some of his young patients are growing increasingly frightened by the public conversation about the potential effects of climate change.
This, of course, demonstrates that Schulte's patients are intelligent and well-informed.
If he actually has any valid research (beyond the realm of the anecdotal hunch), it will be interesting to see it. I just hope that we get to read it in a legitimate journal - after an appropriate scientific review - rather than having it foisted upon us, once again, by the legion of public relations people (Monckton, Morano, et al ) whose goal is to obfuscate the science and confuse the public on behalf of their oily benefactors.
Here is the email that I sent to Boehmer-Christiansen"
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Editor
Energy and Environment
Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen,
There has been a good deal of anticipation lately of an article by Klaus-Martin Schulte, which is reported to be under consideration for publication in your journal, Energy and Environment. The article is said to update an earlier survey of the scientific literature on global warming (Oreskes, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 2004), and purports to argue that a new survey yields a significantly different result.
Dr. Schulte's analysis has engendered both enthusiasm and controversy, but at least one arm's length "reviewer," Dr. Tim Lambert, has noted that Dr.Schulte's draft draws heavily from a document that it does not credit, an earlier letter on this topic by Dr. Benny Peiser. In fact, the overlapping content in these two documents is so considerable as to support a charge of plagiarism.
This, of course, must be awkward for your publication. Although you have not published Dr. Schulte's work, you have been "credited" with the intention of doing so and are now being discredited on the basis of a work that has clearly not received Energy and Environment's stamp of approval.
In the circumstances, however, I would request that you clarify whether you are considering Dr. Schulte's survey for publication and, if so, that you make available for independent review an actual copy of the draft currently under consideration.
Sincerely, etc.,
And this is Bochmer-Christiansen's response:
For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'.
His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.
Sincerely
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465349/466341/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-...not-going-to-be |
|
|
| Rike |
Duped Suckers :D on the left worship at the feet of fat Al Gore as he travels by private jet from his mansion to $25,000 per plate meet-and-greets and delivers speeches on how the north pole will be completely melted in 23 years if we elect anymore republicans.
the science is in on global warming. we will be accepting no further science. to believe there will be an unmelted polar icecap in 23 years is to believe no jews were killed in the holocaust. :D |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Duped Suckers :D on the left worship at the feet of fat Al Gore as he travels by private jet from his mansion to $25,000 per plate meet-and-greets and delivers speeches on how the north pole will be completely melted in 23 years if we elect anymore republicans.
the science is in on global warming. we will be accepting no further science. to believe there will be an unmelted polar icecap in 23 years is to believe no jews were killed in the holocaust. :D |
Ignorance really is bliss, eh Rike?
Maybe you are having trouble reading again, but the latest attempt to question the scientific consensus was just shot down by one of your fellow skeptics who runs that publication.
try reading BEFORE flapping your lips again. |
|
|
| Da Truth |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Duped Suckers :D on the left worship at the feet of fat Al Gore as he travels by private jet from his mansion to $25,000 per plate meet-and-greets and delivers speeches on how the north pole will be completely melted in 23 years if we elect anymore republicans.
the science is in on global warming. we will be accepting no further science. to believe there will be an unmelted polar icecap in 23 years is to believe no jews were killed in the holocaust. :D |
:rofl: how's it look up there?
 |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Where are all the guys who bought into this mess?
How do you explain how this "study" was rejected from peer review by a publication run by a skeptic? |
|
|
| Da Truth |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Where are all the guys who bought into this mess?
How do you explain how this "study" was rejected from peer review by a publication run by a skeptic? |
They clearly prefer to ignore anything they can't explain. |
|
|
|
|
|
