So Much for the "consensus"...

[cyphen]

and so much for the fear mongering catastrophic viewpoint...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966

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.

[cyphen]

There's MUCH more on the site...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id=

An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

phew! we can now all return to our regularly scheduled lives!

[Beemer]

Do you think it will be any better this time around?
NASA changes US surface temperature record

[Shipuuden]

Do they even know how the global climate really works or is everything just models and theories?

[cyphen]

did you read the link, Beem?

And ship - the big scary enviromental destruction claims are all based on models extrapolated, without knowing that much of the full picture. It seems now that the more we begin to understand it, the more we realize that it's a self-regulating system.

[Beemer]

I did. I picked up right away that a Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research of Oreskes. Oreskes I'm familiar with as I showed in the link to the other thread. I'm no scientist so I'm letting the experts go over the data. The results should be finished by the end of the day I figure.

You can watch the unofficial process on this site. The process is in the comments.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...s_on_globa.php

The paper has been sent for review and hasn't been published yet. We'll see if it passes the unofficial peer-review soon and if it does or doesn't will pretty much match what will happen in the offical peer-review process.

You jumped the gun with your opening comment. "and so much for the fear mongering catastrophic viewpoint..."

[cyphen]

no i didn't.... only ONE of the peer reviewed papers even mentioned catastrophic results... out of well more than 500 peer reviewed papers. around 45% only IMPLICITLY acccepted man-assisted global warming... and several peer reviewed papers have shown the incorrect estimations of the carbon effect, as well as showing that the warming trend is scheduled, and showing the earth's natural feedback loop for temperature control. And several dismissed the catastrophic claims.

[SiliconJon]

"and so much for the fear mongering catastrophic viewpoint..."

Ironic. I though that was the take with those opposed to Global Warming theory. Seems they keep telling me the safe route is a catastrophic one, and I should fear all those telling me it needs to be done.

[Beemer]

I linked to the Deltoid page dealing with this submitted paper, (That’s why I said you jumped the gun) which already has dealt with some of the papers cited in the paper.

Searching for "global climate change" in the Web of Science and restricting the search to "Papers" and "since 2004" gave me 576 results. A bit more than Schultz, but some were published after Feb 2007. I've put all the results on the web here. Christopher Monckton has posted seven of the papers that Schultz reckons explicitly reject the consensus. [One guy posting 7 equals one scientist] You'd think that those would [be] the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really [d]o reject the consensus.

Cao just says that there are uncertainties in our understanding of the carbon cycle. Leiserowitz just studied public opnion[sic] of the risks of climate change. Moser was not one of the 576 papers. Lai et al ends up implicitly endorsing the consensus by suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming.

The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn't explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn't changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published. [I've commented on this paper as well in the thread I linked to earlier. Published in a low impact journal.] (What is the next number in this sequence? 60. Their answer is 60.)

So the people that are concerned with the integrity of information regarding Global Warming are going over the papers that supposedly confirms a lack of consensus.

Anyway, feel free to pick a month or a year at random and classify some abstracts. Just post a comment something like this:

July 2007 endorseex: 123 126 endorseimp: 156 rejectex: 234 rejectimp: 678 methods: 789 paleo: discuss: unrelated: undecided:

In post #2 you posted a link to the who's who of GW denialism. To show the integrity of the research on the page here's a fine example:

Prominent scientists speak out to calm CO2 emission fears

Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball [cough, cough, NOT!] recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. 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,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK) [ ]

That alone puts the entire page into question. I'm willing to bet the rest of the information cited on the page has problems and has been dealt with which they aren't telling you about. There’s still a bit of work to be done before this study will be officially published.

Don't get me wrong. I hope this whole Global Warming senario is a crock of shit.

One thing that is known is that hurricanes are intensifying and Bush has just about completely ignored warnings of the importance of emergency preparedness. Katrina is a fine example of the Bush Admin securely placing their fingers in their ears and singing la-la-la-la-la....We can't hear you la-la-la-la We don't need no stinkin' 50 year plan!

[Beemer]

Looks like this whole affair smells bad and I was right in my scepticism in a medical researcher. As explained, not trained to analyse the science in the papers and the web site in cyphen’s post #2 is just another denialist site that carries no weight in the scientific community. Boy did I smell this coming. lol
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfrui...to_schulte.php

Total misrepresentation. Ball.....lol Still can't get over them putting him in the argument on the 2nd link.

Better luck next time cyphen. Need some crutches or would that be a wheelchair, until your wounds heal?

[Shipuuden]

did you read the link, Beem?

And ship - the big scary enviromental destruction claims are all based on models extrapolated, without knowing that much of the full picture. It seems now that the more we begin to understand it, the more we realize that it's a self-regulating system.

That is what I tought but I was not sure.

[Beemer]

It was a self-regulating system all things being natural. Of course things aren't natural anymore due to anthropogenic forcing. Be skeptical of second hand unqualified info posted on forums Ship. Much of the info in the denialist camps is not peer-reviewed and lots has actually circumvented the peer-review process in exchange for promoting bias.

You'll find this site is full of this kind of BS.

[BettaBuy]

Much of the info in the denialist camps is not peer-reviewed and lots has actually circumvented the peer-review process in exchange for promoting bias.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares....Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

http://hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/9...%20Warming.pdf

[Beemer]

Consider the source and look at their data. Hudson Instutute is funded by Corporate contributors including Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble. Their Board includes Scooter Libby, Robert Bork and Richard Perle.

A hard group to trust at first blush to say the least.

From a comment on the page.

[BettaBuy]

The Hudson Institute is not the source.

Sources are listed in the pdf file from pages 3 to 23.

[Beemer]

Have you looked into who Avery and Singer are? They aren't known for their credibility. Before you go and waste money on Avery's book you may want to look into the thorough scientific point by point debunking that's been done.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air