Michael Asher, of the Daily Tech blog, reported a survey today which revealed that less than one half of all scientists who have written peer reviewed scientific articles about Global Warming between 2004 and February,2007 believe that global warming is caused by humans.
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 article is Linked Here, and is entitled, ” Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints“. It’s an interesting read.
Tom: Here are some qusetions to ask about the article Ascher cites:
1. Why was there such consensus on Global Warming between 1993 and 2004, at least among those listed by the ISI Web of Science database, which seems to have changed since then?
2. Why has this consensus changed so dramatically in those articles listed by ISI Web of Science database between 2004 and 2007?
3. Has the research funded by Exxon or other coal, oil, and gas interests led to an increase in the publishing of more papers that are neutral or skeptical of the old consensus, and therefore, at least possibly, given a corrupted view of a “changing consensus” that might not reflect a real consensus?
4. Has the research funded by so-called research institutes, which in turn are funded by Exxon or other coal, oil, and gas interests, led to an increase in papers that are neutral or skeptical, and again, resulted on a corrupted view of a “changing consensus” that doesn’t reflect the reality?
5. Has the number and type of publications represented by the ISI Web of Science database changed in any way from the first period mentioned to the second?
6. Is the ISI Web of Science database comprehensive and reflective of a broad international scientific community, or is it selective along some boundaries related to certain nations or languages?
7. If it’s selective along national- or language-boundaries, then is it even more possible that the funding of certain interests (and conflicts of interest) may have corrupted what the writer and you both assume to be a change, and a current lack of consensus?
8. Of the articles published in the database sample during the second, later period, how many of these represent scientists who were part of the earlier consensus but had changed their minds (indicating a real move away from consensus), and how many are simply minority voices of those who disagree with the consensus, while those who agree still agree for the most part? In other words, is the consensus on global warming a bit like the consensus on the laws of gravity, and are the only ones bothering to speak up at this point a neutral or skeptical minority that does not accept the consensus (achieved over the longer, earlier period)?
It’s a fact acknowledged by many scientists and the IPCC that global warming is not caused *exclusively* by humans, and that it’s not exclusively related to C02. Methane, water vapor, and other “naturally” occurring gasses come into play, but even some of these are also part of a feedback loop related to human causes.
And what is the scientific consensus on the passage that opened up this summer north of Canada, south of the pole?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/05/climatechange.sciencenews
By older predictions, that ice was not at such risk for about 50 years, and now some are giving it only 20.
How many scientists agree that the ice has been melting, and how many see this as a trend that, for now, does not seem to be heading toward a new ice age? (Another of the skeptical positions, among many contraditory skeptical positions you’ve passed along).
At some point, it’s hard to explain away all the C02 and other human-caused gasses added to the atmosphere, and the feedback-loop or snowball effect this creates in stimulating other effects.
Dear Sen. Neuville,
I just learned today that Carleton College is hosting a year-long series on climate change and the first lecture is tonight. As one of your constituents, I ask that you take advantage of this lecture series to learn more about this issue. (Info on tonight’s lecture below.)
Also, I ask that you honor the institutions of higher learning in your district by sitting down and speaking with the scientists that they have hired to educate their students on these topics. I have been told that one of those experts at St. Olaf College is Prof. Bob Jacobel of the Physics Dept., who does research on Antarctica. I ask that you make inquiries about other experts at Carleton.
I am also posting this as a comment on your blog.
ENTS Climate Change Lecture Series
In the first of a series of public lectures over the coming academic year, Dr. Wallace Broecker of Columbia will deliver a talk entitled “How to Terminate a Glacial Period.”
Time: 7:30 pm
Duration: 2 hours
Location: Boliou 104
Sponsored by: Environment&Technology Studies
Contact: Adam N. Smith, ENTS, x7018
As more attention is being paid to the effects of global climate change, the Environmental and Technology Studies program at Carleton College is pleased to announce a yearlong public lecture series on the topic. On September 19, Wallace Broecker will deliver the first lecture of the series entitled “How to Terminate a Glacial Period.” Dr. Broecker, the Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, is perhaps best known for his groundbreaking research regarding the links between climate change and the circulation of the global ocean. Specifically, Broecker has played a major role in uncovering the trends of ocean thermohaline circulation, also referred to as the ‘ocean conveyer belt.’ The ENTS program will host a number of notable scholars and leaders from different fields throughout the upcoming academic year.
http://apps.carleton.edu/calendar/
Bruce Morlan just posted a clear, simple statement on the science and politics of global warming.