There is NO consensus on global warming...
And, even if there was...that is not the way science is done...
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."
posted by GayandRight @ 5:40 PM
2 Comments:
"not the way science is done. . . "
And how about accepting as fact a pre-publication copy of a paper which, self-evidently, has not yet been published - and therefore not yet examined, criticized or discussed? Is that the way science is done?
The same thing happened with the Stephen Schwartz study on heat capacity - a pre-print embraced by the skeptical blogging community before it had a chance to be analyzed and commented on by other scientists.
Mistakes are often not immediately apparent; how long did it take McIntyre and McKitrick to do their analysis of the "hockey stick" graph?
Jumping all over the latest bit of news may make blogs topical, but it isn't "the way science is done."
(I do appreciate your coverage of Middle Eastern events, Islamism in Europe, etc, however).
I like seeing any data on AGW. I usually don't like to simply rely on the "expert" opinion anymore. There is too much politics and self interest. I like being given the chance to "peer" review the papers myself. To suggest that only a scientist can do so is ridiculous. Really, what level of expertise would a geneticist have when to comes to evaluating the complex subject of science that I lack?
You are correct r_a, that we should not take a pre-publication as fact. But it is also true that many papers still cannot be taken as fact even after they have been vetted by "peers". The subject is too complex. They must all be taken at arms length.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home