Over Half of Scientists Global Warming Skeptics

Words, once spoken, cannot be recalled. We all at times develop a case of foot-in-mouth disease. Politicians are some of the worst offenders. President Bush 41 said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." much to his regret. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin proclaiming "New Orleans is a Chocolate City", and Richard Nixon's claim that "I am not a Crook" are further examples of the illness.

But today, lets look at the Global Warming Alarmists who quote Al Gore's Global Warming headline, "... the scientists agree. It is Settled" in light of the latest post at Michael Asher's Blog (Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory). The blog is part of the Daily Tech Web Site. As a historical base line, this paragraph lays the foundational basis for most Global Warming Alarmists arguments.

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.

Recently the survey has been updated by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte. Dr. Schulte used the same database and search terms as Professor Oreskes to examine all published papers from 2004 to 2007.

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."

In the analysis of these papers, it is interesting to examine the definition of consensus view as used in the original report.

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. [emphasis in original]

The changes represented by Dr. Schulte's review reflect the increasing amount of data resulting from new Research. In other words, the more research data we accumulate, the more likely it becomes apparent that Global Warming, or rather Global Climate Change is not the catastrophic event the Global Warming Alarmists broadcast. The facts show we need even more research before legislating Political Solutions to what may turn out to be a Natural Set of Events.

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. [emphasis mine]

This survey is another blow for the "Chicken Little Alarmists". It clearly shows we need to take more time and do more research before embarking on a Political Course of Action which creates more problems than it solves.