Global Warming Consensus Alert - There is Broad, Strong Agreement Based on Solid, Incontrovertible Science
Here’s your broad, strong agreement among scientists: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.”
And here’s your incontrovertible scientific evidence:
For a weatherman who has spent most of his career in front of a TV camera or radio microphone, Anthony Watts was a little concerned about speaking in front of dozens of scientists.
“Although I’m great at giving a weather forecast, I’m a little rusty giving a scientific presentation,” Watts said Friday.
During a scientific workshop this week in Boulder, Colo., Watts presented his research on hundreds of weather stations used to help monitor the nation’s climate.
The preliminary results show Watts and his volunteers have surveyed about a quarter of the 1,221 stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Of those, more than half appear to fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement.
Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners — all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records...
...The research received new prominence, being cited in articles and commentary on global warming after a recent recalculation of global and U.S. temperatures at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. After adjusting for a discrepancy between two weather data sets, the recalculated data showed that 1934 was the “hottest year” on record for the United States, rather than 1998.
Although the change was a slim fraction of degree, Watts expressed concern that the numbers being talked about by the media and the public may not be fully accurate. He said his goal is to ensure the science is correct.
It’s upon this type of evidence and strong consensus that climate change alarmists want to reshape society and create massive economic disruption. Are we really sure that’s a good idea?
Comments
#1 2007-08-31 04:31 (Reply)
The truth will be told. I only hope it happens before every government ion the world commits to global warming prevention stupidity.
#2 2007-09-01 21:15 (Reply)
Faulty assumptions make faulty studies. Only uneducated and or ill-informed people buy the results of any study without first asking what the researchers assumptions were. Peer review does not ensure that the assumptions are dependable, only that gross errors of methodology were not made.
#2.1 2007-09-03 14:03 (Reply)
Are there “correct” assumptions on which true or pure science is based? If so, what are they? If not, then what stock may we put into any scientific claim?
#3 2007-10-14 00:41 (Reply)
Global Warming (Tires)
Could you look at my Journal @
http://journals.aol.com/rjsind@telus.net/out-of-the-box/
Thanks, Rolly