What a Shock

This doesn’t surprise me at all. It proves nothing about the validity of the issue. Only that once more, the GW crowd are proved to be liars. You can’t trust what they say.

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 results should not have surprised Daily Tech. 

Oreskes’s paper was known to be a fraud to the editors of Science magazine at the time they published it, just in time to come out before a major environmental conference. They already had, and were sitting on, research by real social scientists who had interviewed numerous leading climatologists.

This became known because Dr Benny Peiser of John Moores University in Liverpool found Oreskes’s results in conflict with his own readings and re-did her research (which was not onerous only because it was based on the executive summaries of the papers, not the contents of the papers themselves. He found that Oreskes had conflacted something like eight categories.  The results resembled Schultes’s.  He contacted Science and they had him do a short letter, which they rejected for unbelievable reasons.  For all the details google [Oreskes Peiser]. If you email Peiser at he will put you on his mailing list for climate change data.

Another source of info is Lubos Motl, the string physicist, who has links that included Steve MacIntyre’s climate audit blog.

Posted by John Costello  on  08/30  at  06:29 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main