Examining peer-reviewed scientific papers (which we are repeatedly told is the gold standard) from 1993 to 2003, Professor Naomi Oreskes found a majority supported the view that humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. It appears now, after reviewing papers from 2004 to 2007,the results are quite different:
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 catastrophe
This has caused some scientists to declare that the fears of catastrophic man-made global warming were vastly overstated. Others reach this conclusion on the basis that the warming effect of CO2 is overestimated in climate models.
We will await the response from RealClimate.org and their ilk. These are the likely tactics:
- Ad hominem attacks on anyone doubting Anthropomorphic climate change. (Watch it Mr. Stephen E. Schwartz, your masters degree in planetary science from Caltech will be compared to an on line degree in muffler repair)
- Everyone will be called an denier and accused taking money from Big Oil, Big Energy, or Big Something Bad.
- The new study has some merit, but is not climatically important.
- Or, just threaten to destroy the careers of scientist who do not espouse the party line.
Could it possibly be that the climate scientist have a vested interest in the alarmist predictions of Anthropomorphic climate change? Is it they who are backed by a well funded lobby? Parish the thought. These scientists are only concerned with pure science. But why then take a political position on the Kyoto treaty?