Shall we examine the recent debate on a global warming consensus?

Question

2004 - Oreskes [geology background] examines 928 scientific journal articles and determines that 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

2005 - Peiser [anthropology background] surveys 1117 papers including Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities papers, and also including editorials (not reviewed by Oreskes). Peiser determined that 40% agreed explicitly or implicitly, 57% were neutral, and 3% rejcted the consensus. He later backtracked to say that only 1 paper (less than 0.1%) actually rejected the consensus, and it was an editorial, not a scientific paper.

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

2007: Klaus-Martin Schulte [medical researcher?!] examines 528 papers (unknown search criteria?) and finds 45% agree (implicit + explicit), 48% take no stand, and 6% reject the consensus.

So basically the only issue is whether papers are implicitly accepting the consensus or neutral.

How does one even determine if the consensus is implicitly accepted or addressed in a neutral manner? That's basically a judgement call. An important point is that virtually no scientific papers are rejecting the consensus.

Thoughts?

Marc G - the term was "global climate change"

Answer 1

Just to add, the scientific papers have been produced by a variety of indivuduals and organisations, sometimes with a specific remit including, in some cases, to set out to disprove global warming.

What we find is that the more expertice is involved in the production of a paper or report the more likely it is to agree that anthropogenic global warming is reality.

The very small number of reports that refute anthropogenic global warming are primarily coming from organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and individuals including geographers, economists, paleogeologists etc - hardly the best people to commission to conduct research into global warming. It's a bit like asking your dentist to perform open heart surgery. A dental surgeon and a cardiac surgeon are both surgeons but their areas of expertice are a world apart.

If you look at the papers produced specifically by climatologists there's an almost 100% agreement that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.

An analogy - take a school hall full of kids, ask them what's the capital of France, 999 say Paris and 1 says Rome. Would anyone beleive the kid who said Rome was correct?

Answer 2

Sorry Dana, A consensus isn't science. It's not a vote by proxy of papers. The reason I give is that consensus has been wrong more times then it is right. It has such a poor track record I can't imagine why anyone still uses it as a standard.

Eugenics, phrenology, repressed memory syndrome, nuclear winter, numerous medical cures, and many more were all agreed upon as valid by the consensus yet proved wrong years later. How do you know global warming isn't going to join this list?

You call me a denier. But I don't deny the Earth is warming. It's the reason that I question and the methods used.

There's no such thing as science by consensus. The claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science requires only one person who happens to be right, which means that there are results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant.

Science needs to be objective. Just the facts, just what's known. Speculation, no matter how many very smart people are saying it does not make facts true.

It is my belief that there is very little we know about the climate and rushing to get news out is doing a disservice to science and the public. This rush is nothing more that a way to capitalize, a way to profit, a way for researchers to get their face in the news, because of their work.

No one can predict how much co2 needs to be removed from the air to reduce the temp of the planet, nor can any one tell you that in 5 years the planet will be warmer than today. It's just a guess.

This doesn't mean that we should trash our planet. Pollution controls, resource management, energy management, are all multi billion dollar businesses. We have cleaner air and water now then we did in the 1960's and we should continue using technology to further reduce any and all ghg's.

Answer 3

Marc G - Sweeping statements like this are going to make me withdraw my belief that you are the smartest skeptic.

"If I am not missing any constraints, then I can conclude that ALL of their studies are questionable, at best."

So their constraints were different from yours, very likely because they focused in on a smaller set of papers that were more clearly relevant.

How on Earth does that invalidate their work? Especially when two people with very different agendas got closely comparable results, as Dana points out. In my eyes the Oreskes study has been replicated.

Mr Jello - It's not a guess, now that greenhouse gases are the main thing controlling the climate.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Here's the latest temperature data. It clearly shows that, in 10 years, the 5 year rolling average will be about .2-.3 degree warmer.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif

No scientist in their right mind would predict cooler, given the data. Only those that, like believers in a 6000 year old Earth, deny science and reject scientific data.

Trevor - You shouldn't slam the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. They're currently revising their position on global warming, and will likely join everyone else in stating that it's mostly man made.

Of course the reason is that members are resigning and recruitment of new Ph.D.s has become difficult, because no one wants to be part of "scientific" organization that denies science. But still...

Answer 4

What terms were used in the ISI search, exaclty? I have easy access to it and I would like to see if I can reproduce the numbers (ie 928, 1117, 528) of any of the three researchers.

I think all of their numbers are way off for the number of articles published concerning climate change.

EDIT:

for 1993 to 2003 using the term global climate change, and using ISI's sciences, social sciences, and humanities databases and limiting the search to articles and reviews, I get 5358 articles.

Using the same constraints, from 2004 to 2007, I get 3946 articles.

Clearly I am missing some constraints that Oreskes, Peiser, and Schulte used.

If I am not missing any constraints, then I can conclude that ALL of their studies are questionable, at best.


Bob:

If I can't match there numbers (at least ballpark) and I used the exact same methodology, then something is out of whack with their stuff.

You will note that in the wording of my statement that I explicitly said and I quote myself:

"Clearly I am missing some constraints that Oreskes, Peiser, and Schulte used."

This is a very important point that you seem to blow over in your determination that I am not worhty to hold the title "Smartest Skeptic."


A clear reading of my postshould allow you to recognize that I am acknowledging that it is far, far more likely that MY methdology that is missing constraints, not theirs.

As to the validity of the three studies compared to my results. If I had their exact methods and got ginormous numbers relative to the studies, then something is clearly amiss. It would indicate to me that there was some extra step that wasn't provided. And that would invalidate their work in that I could not reproduce their results using their methods.

I feel I must quote myself again:

"Clearly I am missing some constraints that Oreskes, Peiser, and Schulte used."

Answer 5

First of all, there is a world of difference between "implicit" and "explicit" agreement. "Implicit" agreement is the stuff of politics and legalese, entirely subjective with NO place in objective science.

And second, science generally avoids the business of "proving" wrong - it is almost always a byproduct of attempting to support an alternative hypothesis and not necessarily sound scientific methodology - that's why you seldom see objective analysis publishing a "rejection".

Peiser still stands by his findings that only 13 (<2%) of the abstracts Oreskes viewed EXPLICITLY agreed with the consensus view and that the vast majority did not even mention anthropogenic global warming. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

Finally, Oreskes with her mining B.S. and her cryptic PhD in "Geological Research and History of Science" may or may not be any more qualified than Peiser or Schulte. This was not analysis of the science - this was a review of abstracts. I would put my money on a medical researcher any day when it comes to pure, objective review of the language used in giving findings. Unlike climatologists, whose life work may never take him anywhere outside a computer model, medical researchers work and words WILL end, save, or permanently alter actual human lives. There is no room for ANY "implicit" findings to pollute the science.

Either way, objective analysis means critical review of the work, not the person (as you seem apt to do.) You can directly review Peiser's data - he listed sites in the link I provided. I wouldn't be surprised if you find Schulte's work available for review soon, also.

Answer 6

With my educational background, I would rely on the consesus of scientific studies. Not necessarily on a consensus of anthropologists or medical researchers.
Sometimes, skeptics do provide information I may not have heard of but deniers just seem to be angry and have the attitude of 'I'm just going to say the opposite just because!'

Answer 7

Dana, if you disagree with global warming in a paper what will that get you? Nothing. There is nothing to do. If you agree with global warming, you will be favored in the press because they are mostly socialists and they like scary stories. If you agree, then something else must be done, more investigation, etc. It is this phenomena that has pushed global warming to seem more like a concensus. There is also the scum that try to paint any skeptics as bought off, etc so who wants to deal with that. That is why consensus means nothing in science. Concensus leads to orthodoxy and is better kept in religion and politics.

Answer 8

trevor

An analogy - take a school hall full of kids, ask them what's the capital of France, 999 say Rome and 1 says Paris.

Does that mean the consensus is right?

of course not!

why?

1) they aren't scientists.
2) they don't agree with your postion.

Answer 9

What diff does it make what this number believe or that group believes. CO2 causes heat from the sun to be trapped in the atmosphere. Does it matter if it is man-made or natural or some of both?

Answer 10

The analysis that led to global warming concerns isn't holding up to scrutiny. Give it up, Dana. It's falling apart.