.
29 Aug 07 - In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes examined
peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from
1993 to 2003 concerning climate change. She found a majority supported
the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least
some effect on global climate change.
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.
Of 528 papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit
endorsement of the so-called consensus on climate change. 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. 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.
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.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and
publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
See entire article by Michael Asher:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=
Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
Thanks to Steve Hollar, Tom Weatherby, Matt
Nicholson and Craig Adkins for this link
|