Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

LINK


Well isn't this interesting? Plus notice the site, the US Senate. I guess the consensus is NOT decided and just maybe the Global Warming bandwagon just got a flat...

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."

Nope, doesn't seem like one to me, but sure enough I bet BIG OIL is funding this somewhere........isn't it?

Let's see... it says:

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."

Okay... so how do 6% of the scientists writing papers rejecting global warming translate to "majority of scientists""? I can count on my fingers, ad 94% is lots bigger than 6%.

Furthermore, those numbers don't actually add up and that he changes the definition so he can tweak his title.

He is forced to cover his fanny when he admits that 45% of the scientists give an "implied endorsement", leaving 48% are "neutral" and 6% are against. That totals up to 99%, not 100%.

And I'd like to know a bit about those who accepted global warming and those who rejected it. WOS is here but it's expensive to access: scientific.thomson.com...

So what does he count as "neutral"? I can access many of these same papers on scholar.google.com and I'm curious about how he labels some of these:
scholar.google.com... &as_ylo=1999&as_yhi=2007&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=

How does he classify articles such as this one: wbro.oxfordjournals.org...

Is that "neutral" or is it "pro"?

Even when I google for "global warming" and "no evidence" the articles are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of global warming. Look for yourself;
scholar.google.com...

I can do the same search in other databases (but you couldn't get to them to check them). It's pretty clear the writer had an agenda. Six percent isn't even a significant minority, and I'd like to see some of those papers and check out the authors (are they working for oil companies, for instance.

And finally, without asking the scientists, the fact that they don't write about global warming being caused by humans directly in a paper is simply a bogus bit of research. I believe humans are exacerbating it and that it's real... but I write about anthropology and the Internet, so you don't find my opinions in my papers.

This looks like a desperate attempt of a global warming denier and not good research. Did he contact the scientists to confirm their opinion? No. Is he lumping the "didn't say anything" bunch in with the "denies it happens" group? Yes.

Bad stats, bad research.

He needs to go back to school and take some courses in research design... AFTER he takes a course in stats.

Oh... wait!

He did the research... on the ABSTRACTS!

Dear gods, what a moron he is. Read the abstract and conclude from that whether or not a person is for or against global warming. Of course he didn't read the papers themselves... he'd have gotten more data there.

What kind of moron researches ABSTRACTS ONLY???

You are right, Byrd. It's hard to understand exactly what a study has done from its abstract, researchers do tend to hype their findings a tad in the abstract.

But I think the guy who done the study has attempted to replicate Naomi Oreskes' original study, which did also work from the abstracts.

Problem is. He hasn't. He's used different categories. So, it's not a replication.

Plus, I'm sure we can really expect a high quality article, with it being published in Energy & Environment - the denialists favourite journal, heh.

It will likely be torn to shreds in a few days, a bit like Benny Peiser's attempt to replicate Oreskes' study.

Oh, it's worse than that, Melatonin. I had a look at part of the database tonight.

So...when he reviews the papers and counts a mention in the abstract of either "global warming is dangerous" or "no mention"... that counts as one point in his database.

And, as we both know, papers are usually written by more than one scientist. So a paper like this one (cited well over 50 times in recent papers) : www.springerlink.com... counts as one point in spite of the fact that there are actually 5 scientists listed.

And this is a telling point. In order for this Disinfo Dodo to get the numbers to where he can deny global warming, he has to pretend that only one scientist writes a paper and that scientists write one (and only one) paper. A look at who's writing the "global warming isn't real" papers is rather revealing. We see a lot of the Same Suspects showing up time and again.

Disinfo Dodos tend to assume that nobody out there is more educated or smarter than they are and that the rest of us don't know good science when we see it. Global warming deniers should be ashamed of themselves if they fall into the trap of believing this pompous popinjay's clackings to be real science.

He's a fraud, pure and simple, and has to resort to lying about the data.

When I interviewed Dr. Camille Parmesan, who has served as White House Scientific Advisor on Climate issues and served on the panel whose ultimate work drafted what became the Kyoto document, she stated that somewhere around 200 U.S. scientists signed a document to the Bush Administration stating the concerns about Global Warming impact to the environment and she outright stated that the Bush Administration issued a document that contradicted the statements provided to the White House. They rewrote what the scientific community told them. They published false statements as if they had been advised by the scientific community as such when in fact the statements the White House issued were fabricated and in opposition to what the scientific community had told them.

So I believe this is what is reverently referred to as "Lying With Statistics" - and I believe Byrd has shown how they did it.

In short, this is bullcrap.

[edit on 8-30-2007 by Valhall]

Plus, the group is limited to "published scientists." Not to be confused with All Scientists.
I haven't seen which published papers they are looking at, but I am wondering if it is from a limited group.

Originally posted by Byrd

Okay... so how do 6% of the scientists writing papers rejecting global warming translate to "majority of scientists""? I can count on my fingers, ad 94% is lots bigger than 6%.

I really think you need to read again what it says on that paper.

Even the title clearly says "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory"

And there is nothing on that article about 94% of the rest of the published papers agree that Anthropogenic Global warming is to be blamed on the current warming...

So who is trying to change some facts around to bolster their opinion now?

The one thing that should ahve been changed in that article is that it should have read "Less than half of all published peer reviewed papers endorse Anthropogenic Global Warming theory."

Originally posted by Valhall
When I interviewed Dr. Camille Parmesan, who has served as White House Scientific Advisor on Climate issues and served on the panel whose ultimate work drafted what became the Kyoto document, she stated that somewhere around 200 U.S. scientists signed a document to the Bush Administration stating the concerns about Global Warming impact to the environment and she outright stated that the Bush Administration issued a document that contradicted the statements provided to the White House. ............

Yes, that was her opinion. But how many other scientists have also said the oposite is also happening?

There is no question that mankind can affect the environment, and even to a scale affect the climate on certain regions, such as that produced by the "Urban heat island effect".

But there is no real proof that mankind can affect the global climate sorry to say.

Muaddib!

That was not her opinion. Where the heck did you pull "her opinion" from an account of events?

That's what HAPPENED...not what she thought.

Oh and btw, "if' it was true that there is a concensus of scientists claiming AGW is the cause of the current warming, or it will exarberate warming as much as the AGW crowd claims, since when is the "scientific concensus" itself proof that they are right?....

I can mention some of the recent "scientific concensus" which had been presented as "the truth" yet it is known they were not true...

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph for example... It was accepted without any investigations on the part of the AGW crowd and it is now known much of that data is/was flawed or down right rigged to try to push people into accepting that the current warming is worse than warmings in the last 2,000 years...

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Muaddib]

I agree with the flaws in the hockey stick. I don't agree that that Dr. Parmesan stated her opinion when she recalled the events that took place. I also don't agree that the hockey stick being flawed negates the findings of numerous climatologists, biologists and botanists who have shown proof (among them is Dr. Parmesan herself) that there is a northerly movement of warming that is affecting flora and fauna. I also do not agree that simply because the hockey stick is flawed we should not be looking to see how our industrial activities might be affecting the globe's environment. And I do not agree that simply because the hockey stick is flawed we have not already affected the globe's environment.

Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib!

That was not her opinion. Where the heck did you pull "her opinion" from an account of events?

That's what HAPPENED...not what she thought.

What about the other scientists who disagree with her Valhall?

The administration clearly sided with those scientists who don't believe the AGW theory is as sound as the AGW corwd claims it is. How exactly is that bad?

BTW, do you know the latest news on the Kyoto protocol? Or the failure that the programs which the EU has been puting forward to "combat Global Warming" have had?

Refresh my memory, wasn't Dr. Camille Parmesan a proponent to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol?

And since we're doing follow ups I'll state...

Simply put it's not black and white as you try to make it, Muaddib.

reply to post by Byrd



I did the same. I've replicated what Oreskes did, the exact search terms for articles between 2004-2007 (i.e. TS="global climate change"; DocType=Article; Language=All languages; Database(s)=SCI-EXPANDED; Timespan=2004-2007)

I have 576 abstracts. If I get the time, I'll work through them. But I'm really really busy on my own research at the moment. Plus, the new semester kicks off in a month, heh.

So, I wouldn't be surprised that someone else checks his findings first. The chances are, half the stuff he says is opposing AGW isn't. The neutral stuff is neither here nor there. It's as if some think every article on climate has to have 'this data supports the consensus'.

Likewise, I suppose all articles on evolution should also have 'this article supports the theory of evolution by natural selection' in the abstract, heh.


[edit on 30-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib!

That was not her opinion. Where the heck did you pull "her opinion" from an account of events?

That's what HAPPENED...not what she thought.

What about the other scientists who disagree with her Valhall?

The administration clearly sided with those scientists who don't believe the AGW theory is as sound as the AGW corwd claims it is. How exactly is that bad?

BTW, do you know the latest news on the Kyoto protocol? Or the failure that the programs which the EU has been puting forward to "combat Global Warming" have had?

Refresh my memory, wasn't Dr. Camille Parmesan a proponent to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol?

No they didn't. Don't rewrite history to back your personal theory, Muaddib. One man - under qualified compared to the climatologists who signed that document - rewrote that the statement at the urging of the administration.

P.S.
Why does failure of an attempt mean the intent was wrong? Please, spare me.

Your last comment shows you aren't even reading posts you're replying to. She was on the panel that wrote the Kyoto protocol. And she served as White House advisor to both Clinton and Bush administrations.

Originally posted by Valhall
No they didn't. Don't rewrite history to back your personal theory, Muaddib. One man - under qualified compared to the climatologists who signed that document - rewrote that the statement at the urging of the administration.

One man? I can point to several scientists who disagree with her Valhall.

Originally posted by Valhall
P.S.
Why does failure of an attempt mean the intent was wrong? Please, spare me.

It shows Kyoto protocol is not working at all, just like the "carbon credits" which Gore glorified so much.

The Kyoto protocol is being used as a scheme to "actually make more money while not doing much for the environment."

Originally posted by Valhall
Your last comment shows you aren't even reading posts you're replying to. She was on the panel that wrote the Kyoto protocol. And she served as White House advisor to both Clinton and Bush administrations.

Oh but i am. I just wanted to make a point.

We now know the Kyoto protocol is not working at all, it is just puting more money in some pockets, that's all.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Valhall
No they didn't. Don't rewrite history to back your personal theory, Muaddib. One man - under qualified compared to the climatologists who signed that document - rewrote that the statement at the urging of the administration.

One man? I can point to several scientists who disagree with her Valhall.

Muaddib,

I will not allow you to re-write history. You can attempt it over and over and try to pull statements together that are totally unconnected, but you won't stand unchallenged. Yes, ONE MAN - not a horde of scientists, not an opposing view - other than the administration's. That is what happened.

Now, if you want to discuss the opposing view, we can. But you won't tangle up events. The administration asked for a review of the environmental impact of global warming from this group of scientists. They received the document they asked for. ONE MAN - namely George Bush - rejected that document.

BTW, as i pointed out in another thread about two weeks ago or so it is predicted that the activity of Solar Cycle 25 will decrease more than it has for at least a couple centuries, which means by 2017-2029 add or take a year or two we will be going through a cold period, maybe even a new LIA which destroys the claims of the AGW crowd about Global Warming in the future.

Originally posted by Muaddib

It shows Kyoto protocol is not working at all, just like the "carbon credits" which Gore glorified so much.

What does the success of implementing measures to mitigate GHG emissions have to do with the topic in this thread? Answer me that. What does it matter how well they are getting people to abide by the measures relative to the topic of this thread?

You are obfuscating...with almost every statement you make you are attempting to obfuscate.

The Kyoto protocol is being used as a scheme to "actually make more money while not doing much for the environment."

Well, we finally found the "opinion". But it still doesn't have anything to do with this thread topic. More obfuscation.

We now know the Kyoto protocol is not working at all, it is just puting more money in some pockets, that's all.

Well, there you go - then the topic of this thread should be closed because you think the Kyoto Protocol measures are for nothing but lining pockets. Still can't find the connection to the thread topic.