Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Changing views question Global Warming Consensus
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 30, 2007

DailyTech has a story up today which argues that the scientific community has begun to back away from the "consensus" view that supports the theory that humanity is responsible for global warming:
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.
Interesting. And the "why" of the supposed change?
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 think that's a fair assessment and certainly one that reflects my thinking on the subject . But it goes directly against what has become both a political movement and a quasi-religion for some. And I assume they'll continue to work ceaselessly and tirelessly to effect expensive and economy killing changes in the name of their movement.

We all need to calm down, cool down (no pun intended) and quit playing politics with something as important as this issue. We certainly, given the apparent evolving opinion of the scientific community this study shows, don't need to rush into some expensive and economically debilitating "solution" which may not, in fact, even address the 'problem'. I don't buy into the "but if it is true, we need to act now" crowd's prescription. It seems to me that evidence is mounting, as science continues to look into the issue, that human activity probably isn't the primary cause of the phenomenon and that warming isn't necessarily a catastrophic event.

We should actually take heart with those preliminary findings. But we should also reject the "Chicken Littles" of the radical environmental movement out there who are perfectly prepared to commit us to a road to economic ruin based on their interpretation (and probable misperception) of the problem.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Global warming was just a stick to beat us with. When the AGM theory came out, I remembered that Global Cooling had been the previous hot buttom. And the proposal solution was *exactly* the same. And proposed by the same people.
WHatever the problem is the answer is always the same: more socialism and turning control over to the same people.
 
Written By: ray
URL: http://
WHatever the problem is the answer is always the same: more socialism and turning control over to the same people.
The bottom line, in every sense of the phrase.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

We all need to calm down, cool down (no pun intended) and quit playing politics with something as important as this issue.
Well now, here’s where we diverge a little bit in terms of opinion. You had me until here.

If the amount of warming involved is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet, and if man not responsible for it in the first place, could someone please explain to me why it’s supposedly so important?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
If the amount of warming involved is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet, and if man not responsible for it in the first place, could someone please explain to me why it’s supposedly so important?
Because any overall warming will cause changes in the environment, some good, some bad, and it would be nice if we could talk about them without getting all hyper, figure out what those changes might be, and, in the case of "bad" see if there’s anything (there may be nothing we can do) we can do to ameliorate the effect.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Because any overall warming will cause changes in the environment, some good, some bad, and it would be nice if we could talk about them without getting all hyper, figure out what those changes might be, and, in the case of "bad" see if there’s anything (there may be nothing we can do) we can do to ameliorate the effect.
Nicely put, McQ. After four years plus, you seem to be getting the hang of this.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Because any overall warming will cause changes in the environment, some good, some bad, and it would be nice if we could talk about them without getting all hyper, figure out what those changes might be, and, in the case of "bad" see if there’s anything (there may be nothing we can do) we can do to ameliorate the effect.
I take your point, but if past is prologue, the mere act of discussion gives way to "getting all hyper". I am weary in the extreme of giving theories like this any credibility whatsoever, because the outcome is always the same... that way lies Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, and so on. The proposals being brought forward to solve this "crisis" invariably have political power for leftists, and economic devastation listed amongst the outcomes of their implementation.

Where there is power to be had, political power, financial power, social power, there is more than enough reason for injecting panic on these issues. Put another way, it becomes nothing more than a tool by which to lord over the rest of us. If you want a calm discussion about the situation, it would appear to me that the only way to have such, is to completely remove politics from the discussion. Since we both know that’s not possible...

(sigh)


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Well, you can make the same point with regards to debate about the Iraq War. To many people (on all sides) arguing from an ideological/political/emotional viewpoint, rather then debating the merits of a particular argument.

But, that’s some consensus, 45% giving explicit or implicit endorsement...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Interesting, that you should choose that particular source, just now, Keith.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
It seems to me that evidence is mounting, as science continues to look into the issue, that human activity probably isn’t the primary cause of the phenomenon and that warming isn’t necessarily a catastrophic event

This is just a fascinating sentence in so many ways. What does McQ look at to conclude that evidence for a particular viewpoint is "mounting"? How does he control for his own biases? Has he read RealClimate and the other solid sources of mainstream viewpoints? Has he engaged in the comments there?

What is the "phenomenon" at issue? Global warming or anthropogenic global warming? (If the second, then by definition human activity is the primary cause.)

This post so neatly falls into the classic four phases of conservative enviromental analysis:

A. The phenomenon isn’t happening.
B. It is happening, but it’s natural.
C. It is happening, and it’s caused by people, but it’s not dangerous.
D. It is happening, and it’s human-caused, and it’s dangerous, but it’s now too late to do anything about it.

Based on what I read, I’d say that the evidence is mounting that the odds of catastrophic failure of either the Greenland or Antartica icecaps within 100 years are rising.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Based on what I read, I’d say that the evidence is mounting that the odds of catastrophic failure of either the Greenland or Antartica icecaps within 100 years are rising.
And given that is seems that has previously happened during human existence at least once without any ’catastrophic’ result, what’s your point?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is just a fascinating sentence in so many ways. What does McQ look at to conclude that evidence for a particular viewpoint is "mounting"?
Uh, what McQ quoted at top? The part about the change in scientific consensus, perhaps?
Has he read RealClimate and the other solid sources of mainstream viewpoints? Has he engaged in the comments there?
When is RealClimate a better authority than the actual scientific lititure? Well, obviously, when it better fits your political beliefs.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Barring actual evidence of it appearing, Global Warming* (TM) will close up shop inside of five years without showing a profit.

*For persons who are not frequent readers, Global Warming (TM) is shorthand for the sales pitch and the effort sell the concept that human generated global warming is obviously such a big problem that we need to take costly and dramatic steps NOW to enable government to prevent further damage.

No Sale.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Based on what I read, I’d say that the evidence is mounting that the odds of catastrophic failure of either the Greenland or Antartica icecaps within 100 years are rising.
By catastrophic failure, do you mean Greenland and Antartica will cease to exist? Sink underneath the rising waters of the world’s oceans? Melt away into oblivion? Be cut up and served for Sunday brunch at your local organic vegetarian restaurant? What exactly do you mean by "catastrophic failure"?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Thank you SShiell, that was my instant question.
Catastrophic failure?

It’s natural Francis, they can’t ’fail’ because they’re not intended to DO anything, it’s like sh!t, they just happened, and now they may un-happen.

Mother Nature may be moving your cheese Francis. That’s the way she works.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I wonder where our itinerant AGW proponents are?

Kav. Kav. /BenSteinVoice

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

PS. Fred Thompson and Ben Stein, that’s the ticket!!!
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
"without getting all hyper,.."

And that, sir, is the crux of it.

Algore first used the term "consensus" back in 1992 when there was virtually zero empirical research in existence.

The whole issue continues to exist because of HYPER! It’s like a strong dose of uppers, not to mention fodder for the statist elitists!
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider