Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[ProfJohn]

Two threads in one! What a deal!

The first article seems to throw out the whole BS ?consensus? argument. Looks like the scientific world is not 90% behind Global Warming as being man made or being a massive threat to our future.
link

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.

 

[ProfJohn]

Part says that CO2 may not be the devil we have been told it is.
link

Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.


Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared. Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it.

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that

 

[bbdub333]

This should be good

 

[heartsurgeon]

To many references, to much reading, does not fit into standard P$N dogma...

this thread will either descend into oblivion, or turn into a flamefest with personal attacks on the posters.

I posted a thread about an provocative article by a Princeton professor, and the illiterati in P&N promptly dismissed what the Professor from Princeton said because he was "not qualified" to discuss global temperature trends (unlike the posters).

Good luck on this doomed thread.
I will read the links, but I doubt any of the usual suspects will....

 

[blackangst1]

Nice find PJ.

/sits back with a lawnchair to watch the apologists get their panties in a bunch....

 

[NaughtyGeek]

I for one am not surprised in the least. Yet another taxpayer abuse brought to light. Unfortunately, the facts will likely die as is the norm so the government can continue to piss away our money on fruitless research.

 

[umbrella39]

LMAO at the neocon planet haters. Not surprising they wouldn't stop at just hating America.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
LMAO at the neocon planet haters. Not surprising they wouldn't stop at just hating America.

Dave? Is that you?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: umbrella39
LMAO at the neocon planet haters. Not surprising they wouldn't stop at just hating America.

Dave? Is that you?

Keith? Is that you? It is a shame Gore ever had to open his mouth about this issue. If Bush were the one trying to bring this real problem to light, you lapdogs would be humping his leg. See sig.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Zealots are not easily convinced.

While the new research is interesting I think you will find the same people who openly mock organized religion will revert to the very same tactics they claim religion uses to keep their own views.

 

[theeedude]

So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

 

[Vic]

Ah... nothing like the pungent irony of watching the brainwashed calling the brainwashed brainwashed.

Please do continue. Don't let me or science get in the way of your bickering or your armageddon (respectively).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: umbrella39
LMAO at the neocon planet haters. Not surprising they wouldn't stop at just hating America.

Dave? Is that you?

Keith? Is that you? It is a shame Gore ever had to open his mouth about this issue. If Bush were the one trying to bring this real problem to light, you lapdogs would be humping his leg. See sig.

Don't worry, I'm sure that everyone has seen you calling everyone on the right stupid. I'm a little surprised that you are proud of being ignorant though.

I disagree with many on the left, and I also disagree with a lot of liberal views, but I don't think that those people are stupid.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

They DON'T take a position though. A few outright reject, a few outright support, a lot say there isn't enough information to say either way, and the remainder don't really say either way but just go with the flow.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

They DON'T take a position though. A few outright reject, a few outright support, a lot say there isn't enough information to say either way, and the remainder don't really say either way but just go with the flow.

We really need to get away from this idea of consensus. That is not true science, but politics.

Also, there is a study out there that shows that CO2 levels follow temp increases, not the other way around. If you need it I will have to find the link.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What's that word for a clever argument for a false premise? Sophjohn should know.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Part says that CO2 may not be the devil we have been told it is.
link

Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.


Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared. Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it.

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that

Just two words "PEER REVIEW".

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

That logic is so flawed it's ridiculous.

According to you, if 1000 people did not think there was enough evidence to say one way or the other, and 5 people accepted the view, you would say that there was 100% consensus among the people who took a position.

Maybe those people who you so casually rule out because they don't take a position, are not taking a position for a reason.

I don't understand how you can even take yourself seriously with such a terribly idiotic argument.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Part says that CO2 may not be the devil we have been told it is.
link

Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.


Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared. Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it.

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that

Just two words "PEER REVIEW".

It doesn't look like you even made it past the first line of the linked article.

Why are you assuming that these papers weren't peer reviewed?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Part says that CO2 may not be the devil we have been told it is.
link

Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.


Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere. It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree.

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming. That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected. And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared. Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy: "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming. They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it.

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that

Just two words "PEER REVIEW".

And the studies were peer reviewed. Do you people actually read any of the things you preach, or are you just more "go with the flow"ers?

 

[MonkeyK]

First of all published papers != published scientists

Second why does a research papers on climate change need to take a position one way or the other. For example, I would imagine that there would be a large number of papers on measurement techniques for which taking a position would be irrelevant.

The only thing in the OP first article of interest is the increase in the percentage of papers that reject the "consensus view" Since healthy discourse requires opposing views, I welcome the increase (since the 2004 paper concluded zero opposing views).

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

Nice spin. You think there's a consensus in favor of MMGW when 48% say that they can't determine one way or the other? You simply dismiss them?

How about this: The consensus is, "We don't know"

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

Nice spin. You think there's a consensus in favor of MMGW when 48% say that they can't determine one way or the other? You simply dismiss them?

How about this: The consensus is, "We don't know"

Nice spin yourself. 48% do not say that they can't determine one way or the other. 48% of the papers do not take a position.

 

[heartsurgeon]

LMAO at the neocon planet haters. Not surprising they wouldn't stop at just hating America.

just as i predicted, the first leftie posts a personal attack....downhill from there.

a computer model is just that, a model. It is not a proof.

and on a personal level, exactly how many of you man-made global warming believers leave your computer on 24/7?

why are you killing the polar bears?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

Nice spin. You think there's a consensus in favor of MMGW when 48% say that they can't determine one way or the other? You simply dismiss them?

How about this: The consensus is, "We don't know"

Nice spin yourself. 48% do not say that they can't determine one way or the other. 48% of the papers do not take a position.

Your semantics are meaningless, because it is the exact same methodology as the original study, which claimed that there was an overwhelming consensus in favor of MMGW, which is clearly not the case here.

If you discount this study, you must also discount the original, which is so often cited by pro-MMGW pundits.