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.
Dang. So why do all these apocalyptic pronouncements about catastrophic climate change seem to appear every hour, on the hour, on The Weather Channel? It’s been especially bad the last two days, what with yesterday being the second anniversary of Katrina and all. Inquiring minds most certainly want to know.
Oh, Hell. Let’s not be coy. I already know why the BS is there; I just want to see what sort of tap-dance the “climate expert” is gonna come up with to discredit this latest bit of news. Probably something about revoking their credentials. Frickin' apostates. They never think about the polar bears!
Today’s Pic: No coffee and cigars on the verandah today. It rained for at least four hours straight this morning…a good, steady, soaking sort of rain. And that’s somewhat unusual for this part of the world, in that our rain usually arrives in fast-moving cloudbursts that deposit buckets of rain on semi-parched ground. But not today. Today we get a soaker. And I think that’s good (assuming Jenny’s husband got the hay cut).