[Note: This is devastating new climate research submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, which continues to show how the entire man-made global warming fear movement is “falling apart.” See earlier EPW Blog: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Breaking News:
Excerpt: 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.
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Marano – at least get your basics right and how about STOPPING the total misrepresentation.
e.g. In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. WRONG !!!!!
New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle: Excerpt: The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007 (LINK)
WRONG OVERALL CONCLUSION – TALK TO THE AUTHORS !! WRONG !
After various publications in that rag Energy and Environment you might as well write this journal off as a waste of space. I mean they actually published the Archibald paper – you’d have to be ******* yourself quoting this stuff as source.
If Marano is going to quote E&E as something definitive, mainstream AGW types will be simply ROTFLing.
The UK Met office absolutley conceded global warming stopped and they asserted it would begin again in earnest in 2009. That is a fact. Follow the links.
As for the Camp, Tung paper, I am quoting directly from Science Daily, not making my own assertions. Again, follow the links. It is a signifcant study, regardless of the author’s personal opinions.
Funny, how out of over 4000 words, you have yet to find any errors. Keep trying.
“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.””
So Luke, all 528 are wrong and the auther should talk to all 528 of them.Is that what you are saying.?
Luke, Luke, it gets worse. I recently published another paper in Energy and Environment. My research shows that there is no downside to higher atmospheric CO2. Higher atmospheric CO2 is wholly beneficial. In the interim, it will be 2 degrees colder next decade due to a weak, and delayed, Solar Cycle 24.
So instead of saying “the Archibald paper”, from now on you will have to say “the Archibald papers”, because people would otherwise be asking themselves which paper, in that vast corpus of work, is he referring to? But wait, there’s more. I have another one in the works. Only 90 more sleeps until it comes out, Luke. For you the pain of waiting combined with the pleasure of anticipation.
Try reading the papers mate instead of Science Daily – you and Inhofe couldn’t lay straight in bed. You’re quoting Science Daily are you – and haven’t read the papers or the authors comments – says it all. Do you guys think you’re really getting anywhere with drivel like that? Might work if you’re preaching to the converted.
You’re a shonk for misrepresenting and spinning the work.
Malcolm you might as well ask 528 people down the street. Science is a big field and the issues a tad complex. E&E as a source – heheheheee .. ..
More utter crap here “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.” The leaked copies were out and we haven’t heard boo since final publication.
Morano – what a shill.
Next !
David – well it shows E&E’s quality standards if they’ve invited you back – come on over to Nexus6 and defend your paper.
Luke
I think the boot to the **** is wholly deserved. Morano needs to do his job properly. At the moment, all he does is fly any kite can find. If he claims to be presenting scientific findings, he needs to take his job seriously.
For some light relief (but to show Marc how it’s done – I’m sure he’ll recognise the tricks of the trade) http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/
Marc
don’t you think that if you are going to put information on an official government web site, you would actually read what it says first, and not rely on another website to tell you what it means?
I have read the studies and I quote directly from them. I also had the studies cited in the Senate report reviewed by several scientists before publication. I am familiar with the co-author’s personal opinions in the case of the one study pointed out above. I also state the publication, dates and link to the articles or actual studies if available online so readers can further investigate.
The EPW blog reports are extremely comprehensive. If only the mainstream media were a fraction as fair and conscientious as we try to be, we would have a much more honest international debate about man-made global warming. Please keep enjoying the EPW blog as you wish. They are going to continue.
Marc
Once again, Luke demonstrates that he is the mad mullah from “Bullshitistan”.
The lead post deals with a survey of 528 papers which were classified under four categories, expressly pro-AGW (7%), implicitly pro-AGW (38%), neutral papers (48%), and rejecting AGW (6%).
And instead of checking to verify these classifications, Luke quotes from one of the 7% pro-AGW papers in some sort of pathetic hope that it will distract the gullible.
Toss in the usual undergrad sneers, attacks on the journal for publishing it, and some liberal doses of defamation without any of the statutory defences, and we get the standard MO of Spivanthropus climatecretinenesis.
So where does that leave us?
No scientific consensus on catastrophic AGW.
No warming for a decade and unlikely for another decade.
No warming beyond the historical range. And
Nothing to show for a 42% increase in CO2 since 1921.
Hhmmn, better go back and redo those sensitivity analyses, eh Sheik?
Come on. Concensus is a crap way to determine science.
In the 1800’s a concensus of scientists named a planet URANUS.
Need I say more?
PS Marc – You convinced me. 🙂
SJT,
You are shouting without thinking. It’s known as dogma.
Criticizing the messenger and the medium only looks like a desperate bid to distract from the message. Regardless of one’s own certainty about AGW the claim of an overwhelming scientific consensus supporting it is clearly untrue. It is also scientifically irrelevant and only amounts to an appeal to authority to bolster dubious evidence. Continuing to make this claim is deliberate dishonesty that discredits both those who make it and the scientific enterprise itself.
Marc – “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.”
Not having the access to the search terms that he used it is extremely unlikely that any scientific paper would explicitly endorse that AGW is happening. Scientists are cautious beasts and know full well the uncertainties of their science.
The figure that is really striking is that only 6% specifically reject the theory of AGW while the other 94% are either positive or neutral. Further examination of the abstracts surveyed I am sure would lead to the neutral papers actually supporting or in a related field leading to strengthening the case for AGW.
You however, automatically assume that the neutral papers are not supporting without looking at them and as you only have a pre-publication which has not been peer reviewed it is a bit premature to trumpet that the consensus is falling apart. Benny Peiser had to retract his criticism of Oreskes paper and you may get yourself into the same situation here.
Finally it is extremely unlikely that a scientist will publish a paper that mentions catastrophe. As the degree of resulting climate change is extremely uncertain there is very unlikely to be anything in the peer reviewed literature like this about the completely seperate issue of climate change.
I am in total agreement with no one except me.
The science is definitely not settled. Consensus is not science, consensus is politics.
Me I reckon the sun and the universe are at play, like they have been for a very long time in the past and as they will be in the future. Man is a very naughty animal as my ol’ mate Darwin explained to me a while back and he can change major environments slightly at this stage but not the universe just yet.
I am in consensus that the comment “the mad mullah from “Bullshitistan” is slightly funny though off topic as an insult and “MO of Spivanthropus climatecretinenesis” is on topic and funny as an insult, demonstrating intellect and wit.
So says Me, agree or disagree. I don’t care.
Wheat futures hit an all-time high last night based on fears Australia’s SE wheat crop may see a 10 million tonne reduction (14mmt to 4mmt) if there is no decent rain in the next 10 days.
Whilst you can debate AGW theory you can’t debate the dismal output of wheat from this year’s global dryland crop (yet again). Wheat is heading for $10 a bushell and that is not very good for the global economy, your hip pockets and very dangerous to every investment people have. Anybody concerned on this forum?
Oh and there is no rain forecast for the next 14 days …
http://www.wxmaps.org/pix/prec7.html
How do we make it rain Aaron? A rain dance perhaps?
Science historian Oreskes started the survey thing, and I don’t think it was peer reviewed.
The significance of the Camp and Tung paper is a the link between the 11-year solar cycle and surface temperature, which we wouldn’t expect to explain all the warming, based on what we currently know
Warming stopped after 1998? Cherry picking at it’s finest. 1998 was the year when there was an exceptional temperature rise. If the rate of warming had continued at the 1998 rate, we’d all be living in the Sahara by now.
Look at the temperature record, look at that leap in 1998. Seriously now, does Carter expect us to take that seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
“does-Carter-expect-us-to take-that-seriously…”
Take what seriously?
Oh that, the leap in 1998. Does Carter expect us to take the leap in 1998 seriously? Dunno ’bout you, but I havent the foggiest.
Of course, how could anyone take 1998 that seriously. Last time I took a leap was in Feb 2007 and it made 1998 worth it.
If you have a look at http://www.eldersweather.com.au/synoptic.jsp
there is rain forecast for most of next week in SE Australia.
Seems like the forecasters cant reach consensus what will happen over the next seven days let alone the next seven decades!
Does Carter expect us to take his cherry picking seriously? Look at the temperature record. He waits for the time after a massive jump in global temperatures, then says there has been no warming since then. He is a fraud and a liar.
No you can’t make it rain but in acknowledging there is a problem in weather at the highest levels of society means that pressure can come to bear on changing the way we continue to farm so we can provide food security for all. You see if you don’t ackowledge a problem, no solutions are at hand for when the brick walls are hit. I’m just a passionate food producer who knows I can’t continue to farm the way I do. Its hard to innovate without any support networks. No prizes for being contrarian. Disincentive to be passionate about owning an uncertain future. There’s a pretty strong sense of urgency to idenify those individuals who are truly right in this world because we appear to be running short of resources and hence the ability to politic around problems are such huge proportions. If wheat is at $8 a bushell there are clearly problems ahead for food production systems and hence mankind.
In any case isn’t it simply prudent to have a Plan B (even if it is just for local food security if that is all that is possible in an overpopulated world) in case somethings are wrong with weather systems and the food production system? Maybe thats too instinctual for the lulled sense of security we all have. The point I am getting at is that there is a lot of intellectual capacity which is being misallocated and I feel it is a real shame because there are clearly some very bright people on this forum. The agricultural system needs some of that capacity.
So Aaron – tell us why wheat is $8 a bushell. Can you give us the short summary round the world roundup.
Drought ? harvest damage? disease ? or new demand ?
Luke, the reason is that farmers have got just a little bit smarter. Not too smart, or you would be growing your own food, but, at least a little bit.
Most of them will no longer plant a crop on hope, & then loose a lot of money when it fails. Some of them are even refusing to grow crops which don’t offer a worthwhile return. That makes wheat a most unlikely crop, for my mate at Jandowie.
When he has a good moisture profile he grows dry land cotton. If it’s only moderate, he’ll plant sorghum for the Dalby ethanol plant. These 2 options offer a worthwhile return.
It is unusual for him to plant more than 400 of his 1600 acres these days.
His kids would rather drive a truck, at the mines, than farm. Their not stupid.
The farm gate price of wheat will have to double, again, before he would put any in the ground.
Thanks Hasbeen – I wasn’t aware of the local issues of crop substitution – Aaron what about the rest of the world?.
Luke there were major production problems last year in key exporting nations like the US and Australia as a result of drought (2 of the top 3 exporters). This year the case is similar but worse. Australia is shaping up to have another shocker if the forecasts are correct. So too for Argentina which has not had any large rainfall events over the key southern areas combined with extremely late planting. Key eastern European producer the Ukraine had drought and slapped an export ban on what grain it did produce. UK crops were flooded up to their ears in some areas. Hot weather across the whole of Europe without adequate rain crucified yield on maturing crops this spring because the water requirements are at their greatest (when the crop has its largest biomass). India has turned from a net exporter of wheat into a net importer (last year) though its production problems are also linked to poor input access (fertilizers have been in short supply and traders hoard).
Thanks Aaron. I note ABARE has been out to lunch with the monetarist pixies this year. They were predicting an excellent year for farmers, due to higher wheat prices. They forgot to take into account the dreaded externalities which appear to be pushing the price up.
I just hope everyone realises. That paper that kills of AGW is based on mathematical modeling, right? Just one guy, writing a simple model, that hasn’t even been tested on existing data?