Another Strike Against Bad Scientific Arguments

Yet another report has come out disputing the concept of a "consensus" of scientists who promote the "humans are responsible for cataclysmic global climate change" hysteria. This one's big.

In his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore cites a 2004 study by history professor Naomi Oreskes of 928 scientific articles written from 1993 to 2003. In this study, Oreskes claims that no articles disputed the alarmists' theory. She claimed (athough her research has been disputed) that a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans having at least some effect on global climate change. This is the origin of the argument of "consensus." (Sidebar: Look here to see what damage a consensus of scientists can do.)

Remember the watered-down definition of "consensus" here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the primary cause of warming, it also doesn't require any belief or support for catastrophic global warming.

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.

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. There is no "consensus."

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.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007.) Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the portion always quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary.