August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers in 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
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
The truth is that scientists are unsure about the existence of or the cause of global warming. Gore and his bunch have done a great job of advertising but the facts to back it up just are not there.