What happened to the consensus?

Daily Tech:

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.

It appears that the globo warmers have been trying to mislead us about their "consensus." They are also trying to stampede the world into accepting their catastrophic vision and their control "solution." This is just more evidence of the watermelon base of the globo warming religion. It is using a green veneer to cover its communist inner core. While the communist system has been shown to be an abject failure many of its proponents want to recast the command economy model under an environmental umbrella.


  1. Hold on a minute. What does this study actually say?

    6% of recent papers include an explicit statement rejecting the consensus.

    48% make no statement whatsoever about the general consensus.

    38% imply an acceptance of the consensus.

    7% explicitly support the consensus.

    And what does that add up to?

    Scientific papers routinely report the results of a highly specific research question. One wouldn’t expect there to necessarily be any statement included that addresses high-level general issues. And, half of the papers include no such statement.

    How on earth can that be seen as a rejection, or even a questioning of the general consensus?

    The conclusion here is that 6% of the papers (not 6% of the scientists) are from a rejectionist perspective. Thats the only conclusion. I dont see any undermining of the notion that there is a broad consensus.

    And of course, there is the minor detail that the results of this study are ENTIRELY dependent on the subjective judgement of the researcher - as he categorizes whether a paper is “neutral” or “implicitly supportive”.

    I wonder what the results would have been if the researcher had called up the authors of all those “neutral” papers and asked them what their veiws were on the larger consensus.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Russia attacking Iranian forces in Syria

Shortly after Nancy Pelosi visited Laredo, Texas and shook hands with mayor of Nuevo Laredo this happened