No Consensus 

Not by Fire but by Ice

THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

Discover What Killed the Dinosaurs . . . and Why it Could Soon Kill Us

Google
 
Web www.iceagenow.com

31 August 07

BACK TO HOME PAGE

Generate income from 
your website with
Google Adsense
..

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists 
Endorse Global Warming Theory
.
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


 




               

BACK TO HOME PAGE

Order Book I Q & A I Book Reviews I Plant Hardiness Zone Maps I Radio Interviews I Table of Contents I Excerpts I Author Photo I Pacemaker of the Ice Ages I Extent of Previous Glaciation I Crane Buried in Antarctic Ice Sheet I Ice Ages and Magnetic Reversals I It's Ocean Warming I E-Mail Robert at rwfelix@juno.com l Expanding Glaciers