Saturday, September 01, 2007

New Global Warming Consensus - NOT MANMADE

Global warming alarmists, following the lead of Al Gore, constantly throw out the idea that the world’s scientists have formed a consensus that man is responsible for global warming, and therefore man’s activities must be curtailed. Skeptics have steadily disproved with facts most of the “evidence” that they present, but until now, the “consensus” has been unchallenged by facts. This has now all changed.

Yes, I know that the NCPA is a conservative think-tank that accepts contributions from business and industry. Where else can we get some facts? From the liberal media? From liberal politicians? From jealous European socialists? Please.

Global Warming Consensus Nothing But Hot Air, Says NCPA

Literature Review Reveals Changing Viewpoints, Little Agreement, Says NCPA's Burnett

DALLAS, Aug. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Only seven percent of published papers on climate change agree with the "consensus view" that humans were having some effect on global climate change. In an updated study of peer-reviewed works published between 2004 and 2007, 48 percent of the papers were classified as "neutral," or refusing to agree or disagree with the consensus. This lack of agreement falls in line with previous polls that showed a similar reluctance to point the finger at humans, according to H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

"I've always argued that 'consensus' is limited to a narrow scope,"said Burnett. "The only agreement is that the Earth is getting warmer."

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated an earlier study that combed global climate change papers on the ISI Web of Science database. The first study purported to find a majority consensus that human activity contributes to global climate change. The original study covered published works from 1993 through 2004.

"I doubt very seriously that this new study will garner much attention," continued Burnett. "Especially because it doesn't carry the message that is currently en vogue: that humans are to blame and we must be stopped.

"Climate change will continue to stir debate, because it involves issues about which there is no consensus. Unfortunately, consensus or no, global warming will still be blamed by some activists for any number of weather phenomenon, including droughts, plagues and polar bears slipping under melting ice floes."

These results have also been published by a U.S. Senate committee and other sources.



Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

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.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 5:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Global Warming is nothing but a bunch of "Global Bologna." With that said; I've listened to top authorities who were interviewed on the Fox Network who have said that some scientists believe that it does exists, but man falls in the seventh position with volcanoes and other causes preceding man as a direct cause of Global Warming. I think that this Global Warming Bologna is just another Liberal ploy to blame the Republicans for poisoning the Earth's atmosphere. It's all about power. I still think that we have more immediate problems to worry about, like Iran having nukes, wacky Islamists, Stupid backstabbing Liberal Democrats, and fool banana republic dictators like Hugo Chavez.


Post a Comment

<< Home