Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[CGowen]

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

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.

.......

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm

[GliderGuider]

1. I wonder

How Schulte decided whether a paper fell into the category of ""implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement)" or "neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis". That seems like a distinction without a difference to me, and it reeks of an underlying agenda.

I don't know who Shulte is yet, but I'll be very interested to do some digging.

[n2doc]

7. suspicious

Hopefully this can be confirmed or rejected independently by someone with a scientific background in an environmental field. "medical" researcher could mean damn near anything.

I also agree with the poster who noted the efforts of the fossil fuel co's to push the other side. I would not be surprised to see that they have published a lot of papers. Of course, all papers are not equal, and one would need to spend some time looking at which ones were "quality" journals, which ones were from think tanks, and so on. The devil is usually in the details.

One final thing. Many scientists are taught to present "just the facts", not to evangelize on policy issues. It may be that many papers not taking a position are from scientists with this particular philosophy.

[Shipwack]

2. One factor not considered...

Maybe fifteen years ago, there wasn't an effort by the petroleum industry to debunk global warming. Who sponsored the dissenting or neutral papers, or gives funding to the scientists that wrote them?

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. A link to an article on the original study by Naomi Oreskes.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

[fasttense]

4. Smaller sample more skewed results?

Seems Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte used half the number of papers that Naomi Oreskes used. While Naomi Oreskes reviewed a 10 year period, Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte only reviewed a 3 year period.

[Imperialism Inc.]

5. Not sure. I do know from the discussion at the blog that Schulte

is publishing this study in some bogus anti-Global warming journal.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers <1><2>. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton<3>.

[HereSince1628]

6. Science proceeds on the assumption that our understanding is incomplete and possibly flawed

I'm not really surprised by a result like this.

In the study by Schulte there is an inherent assumption about what it means to "endorse" a theory, and how that is done is of obvious importance to the result. Nothing is presented here except the sizzle: Scientists are skeptical. Big news, not!

My experience is that most scientists are very skeptical in one way or another about most theories. Indeed, it's that consideration that keeps them in the game. If everything were worked out perfectly no one would be much interested nor would there be any need to be doing research.

Consider also that most published work in any scientific field is narrow in focus and avoids making sweeping statements about the relationship of the study to it's theoretical context. I'm not sure a medical researcher would have dependable expertise to interpret anything "implicit" in published climate research.

[Viking12]

8. This piece of lying crap is being dismantled over at Deltoid...

The highly highly deceptive headline should've raise your alarms. The second clue should've been that one of the articles claimed to be rejecting the consenus is a public opinion article, not a scientific one. The third clue is that the asshat that wrote the linked article has a brief, but sordid history of climate asshatery.


http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php

[ewoden]

9. Klaus-Martin Schulte in an endocrinologist

Gues that qyalifies him as quite an authority on climate change.

[Radical Activist]

10. The article doesn't say the new study is of "peer-reviewed" papers.

just "published" papers. That's an important detail that needs to be clarified.

[JohnWxy]

11. NOT ALL scientific studies that pertain to climate change or "global warming" arrive at a conclusion

of whether over-all global warming is due to human activity. Most papers that pertain to "global warming" look at small 'slices' of the warming phenomena and only make conclusions about that particular 'slice'. I'm not surprised that a large percentage of these papers didn't come down with a global conclusion about the impact of human activity on over-all temperature of the planet. Most of the studies look at the phenomenon on a much smaller scale and only draw conclusion about that specific narrowly defined phenomenon or set of phenomena that were examined.

For example a study of the level of CO2 concentration and the effects on coral reefs will likely not end with a global conclusion regarding man's impact on the temperature over the whole planet. the study was just looking at CO2 concentrations and its affects on coral reefs. A conclusion on human activities impact on the over-all temperature world-wide would not be necessary or even appropriate for such a study.

NOw those studies which DO examine whether there is a link between human activity and the global temperature rise could be expected to arrive at such a conclusion. And those studies are concluding there is a demonstrable link between human activity and the rise in global temperatures observed since the industrial age.