GW skeptics - how can you claim there's no consensus considering this study?

Question

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Only 1 of those papers actually rejected the consensus, and it was an editorial, not a research paper.

Another guy did a similar small study of 25 papers to verify the claims, and found 20% explicitly endorsed, 84% explicitly or implicitly endorsed, 16% were neutral, and none rejected the consensus position.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Since no research papers rejected the 'consensus', how is that not a consensus?

Thanks for the incorrect English lesson, Fred.

Consensus:

1) majority of opinion.
2) general agreement or concord; harmony.

Care to try again?

Answer 1

Linda: Isn't cutting back on CO2 emissions just that? A way to deal with GW? I see what you are saying, and I believe you are right. However, if every other country in the world were to drastically cut their CO2 emissions I think China would follow. The problem is that every country refuse to do so saying that the rest of the countries keep polluting and that it would cause economical harm to a single country that would try it.
Fortunately things are happening. It's slow but reductions are being made. I see that this opens up an area, even of economical opportunities. There will be money made on technology that reduces CO2 effectively. Strangely, the people who wants to keep polluting as usual, with the excuse that it would be to costly to act, are often opposed this new opening, which I see as ordinary capitalism. Just my view.

Answer 2

The consensus view being...?

More junk science? First, establish the consensus hypothesis. Let's hear it from your "learned" view. What is the specific hypothesis by which Oreskes compared these journal articles?
What % was explicit and what was implicit? What was the rubric by which she determined agreement or lack thereof? Without having these specifics established, this research is highly subjective - ie, NOT scientific.

The nature of science is that one accepts "possibility" unless "impossibility" is known. This is in NO WAY the same as accepting the "probability" in any percentage up to, but not including 100%.

Any research that agrees that man contributes GHGs was probably put in the "agree" column. Any research that supported evidence of warming trends somewhere on the globe = "agree". Greenhouse forcing affects global temps = "agree". Etc, etc...

I'm sure that others could use Oreskes' methodology and, through use of the null hypothesis, come up with "consensus" on any number of crackpot views.

Answer 3

"Consensus" by definition is a general agreement of most or all members OF A GROUP. Remember right off, not everybody has been given full information, been polled, and so we do not know this is a world-wide consensus, do we?

Pick your group on "Global Warming" carefully, and you can easily get a "Consensus". It helps if you avoid folks who write negatively about the errors in data, the selective use of the data, the questions of the statistical smoothing to get the desired results, the glossing over of past history as not having happened or not being relevant, and the list goes on.

What is the group whose consensus you believe in? Well, it has scientists who have a new toy, computer modeling, and are having great fun with it. It has many politicians whose goals are money and power, and who can see both in the efforts to "undo Global Warming". It has many who feel the US should be brought down to size, and the under-developed countries rise to power. If yu do not believe this, then why are thsoe countries, some already pretty large and powerful, exempt from doing anything?

Why can China say, "Nope, ain't gonna do any of that nonsense,." and nobody raises a peep of protest, not even the UN political guy who are supposed to be keeping the world in line?

An awful lot of science is being buried under politics, as I see it.

And even when Al Gore uses a lake being drained by irrigation as being an example of a lake drying up already from Global Warming...nobody hardy dares call him for it.

Another point is that much of today's science, there is a "publish or perish" mentality; you get status and prestige and bigger grants (more moolah to spend) if you go with the crowd and do not make waves.

And yes, scientists are not detached from knowing on which side their bread is buttered and who does the buttering.

There was a paperback humor book out a while back, Titled "The Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown"; it is a collection of science humor and observations, and excellent reading unless you are a terrible grump and cannot stand sacred cows being gored.

One point was made that if a scientist comes up with a proof against some popular fad, he is not going to set off a flurry of checks and maybe changed theories, but more likely will recline in the same jar as a preserved ancient fossil. More truth than poetry.

Observe the diatribes against those who DO buck the political-economical-science "Consensus", the same one that made the mistakes 50 years ago on which way the Global was going and almost put us into an ice age.

And publishers are under pressures too; you do not make money publishing articles that call the current popular fad-theory into question.

Funny, tho, I saw several papers by scientists when I went dipping into references in replies by various people speaking against "Global Warming" when it is politically interpreted as "Dangerously Excessive Climate change on the warm side requiring draconian changes in certain powerful nations".

And many references to specific errors in the omission of Inconvenient Data, leaving out natural factors, slanting data by measurements kept and those discarded..the whole statistical battery. It is said, "Figured don't lie, but Liars figure." I saw one graph of the computerized projected curve statistically smoothed and omitting the inconvenient 1950-1970 data, and the unprocessed sunspot curve superimpose, to "prove" sunspots have nothing at all to do with "Global Warming". Is that proper?

Do YOU agree with comparing computerized smooth curves with raw data and saying they do not follow each other exactly so there is no relationship?? Is that "Science"?

Anyhow, I agree that the climate is warming, and I say that is expected from the past history of 500,000 years. I am not convinced by the juggled data to say it is all or even mostly man-made, and too much, and the developed countries must hang themselves to prevent it. I rather look forward to moving to northern Canada and growing great vegetables in the newly, uncovered soils!

Before the ice age returns and freezes us all for 90,000 years.

Answer 4

#1) Science deals with facts. They don't vote.
#2) The Vikings ate veggies grown in Greenland for many years. These plants didn't grow through the ice, and this was before the industrial revolution.
#3) One burp from a volcano, releases more green house gasses than all gasses released by mankind.

So now let's vote. Is that how it works?

We need to stop Algore et al. It's costing a bundle, and distracting from real issues.

One last thing. Are we that arrogant to believe we can affect our atmosphere; for good or bad?

Answer 5

How do you explain all of these studies that do not agree?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Answer 6

I think you will find that the reason for 25% that took no stand at all is that the data so far is not conclusive.

Answer 7

I think GW is a problem. But when u have Gore, Stone, and Hollywood & Dems. Telling u to change while they just throw money at it. It looks unreal. Do as u preach or don’t preach!

Answer 8

There's no consensus because people disagree! There are hundred's of scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory! You just don't hear about them very often, because the media isn't interested in hearing what they have to say.

Answer 9

You're retarded.

That 'study' is so full of **** it's funny.

I can't believe you cited it.

Even the author is embarrassed about it and won't appear to defend it.

Answer 10

If there was consensus there would be no one dissenting.

Therefore there is no consensus.

What part of the definition of consensus are you ignoring?