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.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

Interesting, Frogger. Of course you know all the chicken little's in the crowd will hate it, but I found it very informative.

All one has to do to realize how small the human race is in comparison to this big ole planet is fly in a plane over some of the hundreds of thousands of miles of uninhabited terra firma. To think we could actually do anything as significant as changing the climates is putting way too much importance on our existence. With or without us, this world would just keep right on turning.

:)
SMW

I'm kind of inclined to agree with you there, SMW. However, I am not a scientist, and I really have no idea whether global warming is real or caused by man or catastrophic or anything. So I think it's better to err on the side of caution and try to do everything I can to save energy. I just don't bend over backwards to do it.

I save energy when I can, too. But not because I think it'll stop global warming. Have you seen the price of gasoline lately?? And electricity???? Hell, my water bill is so high, I take baths in the river!

OK, maybe I don't.. but you get the picture.

;)
SMW

...only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outrightFigures don't lie, but liars do figure.

With or without us, this world would just keep right on turning.
You bet. The question is whether or not the environment will be such that we can still be here turning with it. It utterly stuns me that people don't see the flat wrong in disregarding the environment, and go to extremes to try and discredit those who are sounding the warning bells! We are the stewards of this place, and no other species is going do a damn thing but us, and still the Right cries "It's cow farts, not coal plants!" God forgive us.

Shilohproject,

I am surprised at your post. You are acting like some of the liberals who post here with their Jeremiads and hand wringing.

I have not read a single comment by a conservative writer on this board or anywhere else that suggest we do nothing about the environment. What I have read is posters saying we should not heed the doom and gloom posters who are predicting the end of the world unless mankind drastically changes his lifestyle. The Al Gores of the world want us, not them, but us to change our lifestyles to ones less comfortable and less productive. The proponents of the Kyoto Protocols wish the industrialized nations of the world to severly limit their production capacity while allowing other nations to not only maintain their production capacity with its concomitant pollution but to even increase it or to go so far as to sell their pollution credits to other countries for profit.

I thing all posters are agree that pollution is bad, that rampant fossil energy use should be lessened. Where those posters differ from the hand wringers is in what the extent of the danger is, what is causing it and what should be done about it.

So far the dire predictions of an almost uninhabital world have not come to pass, not even remotely. Snow cover on Kilamanjaro is decreasing and the Goreites blamed it on global warming. They kept quiet when the cause was found to be farming methods of those living in the area. We have been told that temperatures are getting warmer but we have had unusually cold winters. Some glaciers are shrinking but others are increasing in size. Every climate and even weather anomaly is being blamed on global warming caused by people even though scientists have stated that other factors, including your cows breaking wind have a greater effect on the climate than man's activities.

We should be looking for alternative energy sources not simply curtailing energy use. We should be developing wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, river, atomic and other energy sources but until we do we should not abandon our present energy sources. Better scrubbers should be found for factories. Factories should not be shut down. Cleaner ways of burning coal should be found. Coal shouldn't be abandoned as a fuel. Cars should be made to get increased gas mileage. SUVs shouldn't be banned.

The Draconian measures called for by the global warming alarmists will serve no useful purpose and will instead be counterproductive as people resist them. Rather than screaming, "the sky is falling" scientists should be telling the truth about global warming and suggesting feasible ways to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels short of crippling national economies.

Shilohproject,

I am surprised at your post. You are acting like some of the liberals who post here with their Jeremiads and hand wringing.

We have several time touched on differences re this issue, Frogger.

I suppose I am just getting tired of posts, newstories from the Right, and so-called studies that are so obviously one-sidedly against looking at human activity because of animal produced methane, etc. Your post quoted an article which, though an obvious piece against the Gore et al position, showed only 6% of papers "flatly rejected" the consensus. Which mean that 94% either supported it or at least didn't disagree, yet conservatives want to see thing through the lens of "I hate the messanger, so I'll ignore the message."

Look at your own, most recent, post: Kilimanjaro is being impacted by human activity. That's the point. Sure, better scrubbers are needed; but they don't happen until they have a reason to happen. Sure better milage is to be prefered in SUV's, but automakers don't change until forced by something to do so. Sure we should be seeking alternative energy sources, but also not wasting energy. All of the energy possibilities you mention are championed by the very people you complain about, except "newkuler," I'd bet.

The dire predictions are related to the future for humans. And certainly you're right that they have not yet come to pass. That's why it takes a bit of vision (visionaries) to look down the road and recognize where we're headed. To bad they have to fight the old guard along the way.

I have not read a single comment by a conservative writer on this board or anywhere else that suggest we do nothing about the environment.

And I haven't seen any of these "hand wringers" suggest we should do away with coal, or SUV's or any other drastic suggestions you've claimed they want.

Shilohproject,

You used a bit of selective editing in your response and you misinterpreted what you selected.

Read it again. The fact that only 6% rejected the concept of Global Warming outright does not mean that 94% believe man is a significant factor. Only7% believe that.

"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."

Reread the article and you will see your 94% figure is simply a twisting of statistics. I could just as easily say 93% don't think man is a significant factor in Global Warming.

Reread the article and you will see your 94% figure is simply a twisting of statistics. I could just as easily say 93% don't think man is a significant factor in Global Warming.No, it's not a twisting of anything. It's an effort to illustrate how data can be used multiple ways. And, it is an honest correction of an obviously slanted article. Only 6% disagreed.

You are, of course, free to believe what you wish. It's later generations who will decide the correctness of our positions. But consider: with any significant shift in paradigm, resistance to the new is common. The world is made of only four elements. The gods throw lightining bolts. The cause of illness is evil spirits. The world is flat. Man was created a few thousand years ago. The list goes on and on, including: The environment and world are so vast that man has no meaningful impact on them.

Frogger, you're obviously ignoring the 45% "implicit" endorsement.

P.S. Is it possible we can get a link to the publisher's study, not a political spin of his findings?

No, I'm not. 45% is not a consensus. There is no consensus concerning Global Warming. The article is not slanted as Shilohproject states. It merely revisits some fifteen year old statistics and revises them based on present responses.

The article is not slanted as Shilohproject states.
If one can find so obvious a problem as I've as only 7% reject consensus, the article is flawed and seriously biased. As an educator, would you honestly have accepted the article as written, or ripped it a new one for the glaring mistreatment of data? C'mon, we're friends here.

And I haven't seen any of these "hand wringers" suggest we should do away with coal, or SUV's or any other drastic suggestions you've claimed they want.

But, at least some of them want us to conform with Kyoto. In practice that means doing away with coal and SUVs.

And I haven't seen any of these "hand wringers" suggest we should do away with coal, or SUV's or any other drastic suggestions you've claimed they want.
one has claimed that every dam should be torn down...flood control, human water supplies, and hydroelectric power be dammed! (pardon the pun)

you know his name-it's in the title of the thread.

If one can find so obvious a problem as I've as only 7% reject consensus, the article is flawed and seriously biased. As an educator, would you honestly have accepted the article as written, or ripped it a new one for the glaring mistreatment of data? C'mon, we're friends here.

You are misreading the statistics. It isn't only 7% that are rejecting concensus. It is 7% that are accepting the consensus. "Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. You can't count those who don't agree with the consensus as part of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.

Where are you getting this 93% who agree with the consensus figure from?

You are misreading the statistics. It isn't only 7% that are rejecting concensus. It is 7% that are accepting the consensus. "Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. You can't count those who don't agree with the consensus as part of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.

Where are you getting this 93% who agree with the consensus figure from?Sorry, it was only 6% which reject, not 7%. The rest were either endorsing (Explicit 7%, implicit 38%) or unwilling to reject (48%) endorsement. (My earlier posts had it correct, but in the last I got the numbers crossed. Sorry.)

By the way, I didn't say that the 90+% agreed with the consensus position, but rather that only 6% reject the hypothosis. (Their numbers don't total 100% due to rounding, I presume.

only 6% reject the hypothosis.

Only 7% specifically endorse the hypothesis, hardly a consensus.

only 6% reject the hypothosis.

Only 7% specifically endorse the hypothesis, hardly a consensus.You may ignore the rest of the figures cited in your own article if you like, but the writer tells at least part of the truth when he refers to a 45% endorsement (explicit+implicit). The 48% so-called neutrals no doubt recommend further investigation and point to important areas of caution regarding conclusion-making.

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, I suppose. The truth is: I doubt your objections are based on the science involved, or the reasonableness of making personal changes in energy use, as you've outlined your own steps in that direction. This seems more a problem with what you may see as following the "Liberals."