Changing perspectives on global warming?

According to a new study, less than half of published scientists endorse current global warming theory:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...

"DAILYTECH

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

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
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.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself."

I've stated before that I'm certain the earth warms and cools (glacial grooves on Kelly's Island, anyone?), but that man's impact on this natural process was small - compared to some of the other influences.

I just wonder if this new report is going to get the same type of coverage and attention that the previous report did...

No votes yet

As a person who believes the two-party political system is becoming increasingly irrelevant: As a person who is not opposed, dare I say unafraid, to openly analyze the full spectrum of opinions: As a person who is quite familiar with the genesis process of peer reviewed articles (particularly in the health care industry) for the many official sounding journals: This posting simply adds another nail in the coffin that is burying what little trust more and more people have left in our cultural institutions.

I am not just criticizing the right on this issue; the left is just as responsible for making this a political issue. It is perfectly fine to have differing opinions among leading edge research. The problem is the hidden agendas that accompany the dollars funding the research. The average person reading any of these studies (on either side of the issue), as I have, can

Chico, you droned on about politics without giving your own opinion about global warming, isnt that a bit hypocritical?

Personally, I think it's all bunk. Are we going thru a warming trend? Sure. It's cause? Natural warming and cooling trends of the Sun.

MARS is also warming? Is this caused by martian SUV's? Martian Cattle farts?

We had this same trend in the 30's with the same panic.

Man once farmed Greenland. Now that farmland is covered with ice.

Who is to say that when they were farming on Greenland THAT was the proper temperature for the Earth to be?

Nice copy/paste, but you didnt really answer anything did you?

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.

Here are a few studies that reference "climate change leading to catastrophic results".
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandice...
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0906-gas_hydrates.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-04-05.asp

Funny... I'd like to see the underling data going into the final report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20513656/

WASHINGTON - As the world warms, the United States will face more severe thunderstorms with deadly lightning, damaging hail and the potential for tornadoes, a trailblazing study by NASA scientists suggests.

Didnt we read the same thing two years ago after all the hurricanes? Where're the ones they said would continue to come and get worse?

Thanks Maggie. I knew you wouldn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimate_0708221...

thankfully, this professor doesn't advocate killing the "entire" population of moose; common sense prevails.

does that mean he just wants half of 'em dead?

Are these man-made moose?

Who is to say that when they were farming on Greenland THAT was the proper temperature for the Earth to be?

Farming on Greenland would be great. Of course if you live on the coast your screwed.

Greenland Melt May Swamp LA, Other Cities, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandice...

I'll type slower for you Billy.

I'd say the optimal temperature of Earth is a temperature that doesn't involve the rapid melting of polar ice causing cities like Miami and LA to be put under water.

...where do I stand? I believe the earth warms and cools. I think that's a pretty solid fact considering that they used to farm corn in Greenland and we have glacial grooves on Kelly's Island.

I believe that we should be good stewards of our land and our environment - but that, according to my biblical upbringing, man was given dominion over such things. I believe that a good balance can be struck between providing for our needs and caring for our earth.

I don't believe that global warming can be stopped by anything that humans do. And I do not believe the doomsday scenarios produced to achieve a 'political' agenda.

Further, I reject the idea that government must act to regulate and tax individuals and job providers in order to 'stop' global warming. In order to try and achieve an 'ideal' temperature, we must have agreement on what the ideal temperature is. To say that the temp of the earth today is where we should try to keep it forever, fails to accommodate other factors which have a bigger influence on the earth and over which we have no control.

There's nothing political in this perspective...hopefully, it's just common sense.

Who is to say that when they were farming on Greenland THAT was the proper temperature for the Earth to be?

I agree. I mean who's to say Earth shouldn't be a desert planet?

It's all spin. Anyone could just as easily look at this and say only 6% of scientists reject the consensus. The science has been politicized by special interest groups and those paid off by the oil industry.

that question warrants another study. quick....give them a federal grant.

...bit my sister.

And those who sacked the moose have been sacked.

We're now turning to 51 dancing llamas.

...as you requested: We don't have control over the sun. As I understand it, the sun has cycles, just like the planets. The temp on Mars is increasing about the same as Earth's temp. Many scientists attribute this to sun cyles and sun spots.

If we eliminated all CO2 production, and other things that many say 'cause' global warming, the Earth was still warm and cool.

There may be other, valid, reasons for reducing emissions, but to stop global warming should not be one of them, because it won't stop the natural warming and cooling cycles of the Earth...

Oh - and we can't control the weather either...goodness - we can't even accurately predict it!

with all this global melting going on, please explain why the great lakes are at a 30 year low??

The bold print is making the earth warmer.

Nice...

The answer is so obvious, it's painful...
The Great Lakes are not sourced by melting glaciers. Ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica does not flow into the Great Lakes. Send me a PO Box and I'll send you a free atlas...

Here is some more info:
Given the heavy pressure from development on the hundreds of miles of delicate lakeshore and ecosystems, the Great Lakes region is particularly susceptible to the effects of rapid global warming. According to the scenarios used in the National Assessment, scientists expect average temperatures in the Upper Great Lakes region to warm by 2 to 4?C, while precipitation could increase by 25 % by the end of the 21st century. Despite this significant increase in precipitation, lake water levels are expected to fall by 1.5 to 8 feet by 2100 because of the higher temperatures, with serious implications for ecosystems and the economy. Although not necessarily due to global warming, the recent series of unusually warm years is already to blame for a drop of 3.5 feet in water levels for Lakes Huron, Michigan and Erie since 1997, and record low levels are expected later this summer. These lake-level declines from record high levels in the 1980s have caused concern among commercial shippers, hydroelectric companies, and recreational boaters.

...define "rapid" in the following statement?

the Great Lakes region is particularly susceptible to the effects of rapid global warming.

Thanks!

"Send me a PO Box and I'll send you a free atlas..."

before you mail it, look up the gulf of mexico and explain THAT being at a decades old low too.

I think I forgot to close my "strong" tag...

So I'm doing it now.

The water level of Lake Erie is at its historical mean right now. It's been rising for the past five years. And that 3.5' drop? That started when the lake was several feet above its average level.

---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

didn't work...hmm

Climate change over decades and not centuries or millenniums.

I can't find any info on the Gulf of Mexico being at a decade low. Any info you can send would be appreciated on the subject. I couldn't seem to find any.

My first thought however would be however (and I don't know the answer) does water flow into or out of the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic? It may not be an even exchange.

The real issue- are you saying Billy that the ice at the northern and southern polls isn't melting? And if it is melting are you saying it won't raise sea level or other issues that result from the influx of massive quantities of fresh water entering the salt water oceans?

...on the original post in which it occurred...

...is a potential problem - it's just your guess. If it's not defined, any number of people can have any number of guesses...

sorry - this is one of my pet peeves about such conversations. Unless we're all agreed that the terms we use mean the same things, we may actually be agreeing and not even know it. :)

...areas in the artic where the ice is expanding. The real question is this - between the expanding and melting, does it equal out to zero? or is one greater than the other?

but there I go again asking those silly questions...

I like Global Warming in the Winter and Global Cooling in the Summer.

I wonder if Green Peace and Friends of the Earth will ever unleash their hell on China, Russia, and India. The Double Standards are appalling.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.