More Global Warming News

So much for Pope Algore's consensus. What consensus? (Got here via Rodger and Moonbattery).

Less than half of all published scientists endorsed global warming theory

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.

But nothing's changed, right?

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.

More scientists support the Religion of AGW, right? Pople Algore is correct that the debate is over, right?

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."

No consensus? WTF? We're not gonna burn up? We're not destroying the planet? Pope Algore will be out of a job?

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.

OMFG! We don't have ten years from whenever Pope Algore says to change our ways or we're doomed?

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.

Especially since it was warmer from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Centuries than it is now. No Chicken Little the sky is not falling. Yes, an Inconvenient Truth was total bullshit.

Posted by denny at August 30, 2007 10:34 PM