this point of view. While I am sure there is credibility to this mans critique I do not see this critique as fair in generalized terms over all
researchers. I also have to say that the fact that the IPCC could very well be working to deceive this raises serious questions about the intentions
of the world's governments and their use of this issue to do something...
Exhibit C: Less Than Half
of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano 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.
OK, so we've now gone from being fed a so-called "concensus" of scientists to less than half which believe in Anthropogenic global climate
change... The peers don't seem to believe the supposedly peer-reviewed IPCC documents now, do they?
From the source your are reffering to:
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."
So 45% explicitly (7%) or implicitly(38%) endorse an anthropogenic link.
Only
6% reject an anthropogenic link.
Finally 48% are neutral.
To say that 'less than half believe' in climate change is a a logical fallacy in that you can not make an assumption of what any of the neutral
articles content was or what their authors views were. A neutral article could have been studying anything related to climate variation without doing
so in a manner related to proving or disproving the anthropogenic connection.
I am happy to see the 6% who refute the standard and are working to ensure the reality of the situation is uncovered.
In this article however I think Marc Morano is once again spinning the information in his favor, sound familiar (think IPCC).
Exhibit D: Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the
Past 1200 Years"
Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were
synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the
effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly
disappears.
Yet another dissenting peer review which furthers the colapse of the idea that climate change is anything other than a natural cycle.
Looks like sound research to me.
Exhibit E: Latest
Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic
conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific
findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have
been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
Hmmm... climate changes not linked to rise in CO2 gas? In a peer reviewed study, no less?
Ya in the words of Marc Morano representing Sen. Inhofe. His word is not exactly partial. If I have the time I would go through the several papers he
briefly cites, but I don't so I can not say for certain he is not backed up by legitimate work, however I am skeptical of anything that comes out of
this mans mouth.
Exhibit F: IPCC "peer-review" process questioned long before incriminating
emails were made public
In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds
of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing
story.”
So why do you cite peer reviewed work in this post then refute the notion of peer review?
While I agree it is not a perfect system but it is a very worthy system and its critique is in my opinion a straw man.
Please take the time to read this entire article as it may open your eyes to just how accurate the recent exposure of IPCC's suppression of devicive
opinions is. The scientific method has absolutely NO PLACE for ad-hominem dismissal of dissenting viewpoints and dissenting findings, but that's
exactly what the IPCC has done. They attack any scientist who dares disagree with their "findings" rather than providing data and assaulting the
dissenter's countering evidence. NOT SCIENTIFIC, purely a political and wealth driven machine.
I absolutely agree with the above sentiment. While I am still on the side of an anthropogenic link I think that the issue needs to be thoroughly
investigated and if there is amble evidence that the current views are fabricated the truth needs to be uncovered.
Exhibit G: A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Most scientists have viewed the sun's unvarying brightness as the one constant in the ever-changing climate system. Now, in a paper published
online this week by Science (www.sciencexpress.org), paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled
nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading
hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse
warming of the next few centuries.
Would you care to see more?
I would not be surprised in the least if the sun played a major roll in climate variation. However it in no way disproves a human connection either.
All in all, nice post mate.

Thanks for sharing.
[edit on 26-11-2009 by Animal]