Big Govt

Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election

0
Politico

McCain slams ‘horrendous’ climate bill

0
Ras. Reports

Election 2010: Arizona Senate GOP Primary

0
Patterico

L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video

0
ABC News

Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife

0
All Headlines »

  • Audacity of Truth

    Sister Toldjah's Obama Files

    46 Handshakes, 1 Bow:

    - via UConn Republicans, 11/15/09

  • Obama Links

  • Twitter

  • Day by Day

  • Categories

  • Archives

 

Consensus? What consensus?

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on August 30, 2007 at 8:59 am

A recent survey suggests that another yet nail has been put in the “there’s a consensus on global warming” coffin (emphasis theirs):

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 figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. 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.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.”

Will we see non-stop, wall to wall, 24-7 reporting on this survey like we did on the IPCC’s “consensus” on man-made global warming? Nope. Noel Sheppard agrees:

If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today’s reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy.

What a disgrace.

Yep. Doesn’t fit in with the media’s “progressive” (cough) agenda? Instead, it’ll get shoved away in file 13.

In: Global Warming, Media Watch | Email This Post | Print This

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Global Warming math lesson: Less then half = consensus; and Eco-Confessions!

    • 5 Responses to “Consensus? What consensus?”

    Comments

    1. Severian says:
      August 30, 2007 at 11:46 am

      More people, more concrete, and lots more heat in Phoenix

      This article doesn’t get into the shrieking about we’re all doomed and that everything is due to global warming. It’s a remarkably intelligent description of the urban heat island effect and includes intelligent approaches to address this issue. This makes a lot more sense than global income redistribution/ponzi schemes and anti-capitalistic policies that accomplish nothing with respect to warming. Microclimate effects are where we should be concentrating our efforts. As the article states, there’s now a 14 deg F temp difference between Phoenix and a rural site 50 miles away, up from 6 deg F difference in the 50’s. Reducing the global temp by 1 deg will be undetectable even if you could do it, dropping a city’s temp 10 deg is a major improvement, if it’s possible. It may be, with the approaches mentioned, and this is where we need to be concentrating our efforts:

      More People, More Concrete, and Lots More Heat in Phoenix

      This “one” directly corresponds with another No. 1 – its status as the fastest-growing state in the nation. While news of global warming becomes as common as the wheeze of air conditioners here, Phoenix is fighting a different, if related, problem. In part because of heavy growth – particularly in the Phoenix metro area – heat is being reflected, trapped, and absorbed in concrete, rooftops, and a maze of buildings that blocks wind. At the same time, there’s little vegetation to absorb the heat, and high energy usage generates more.

      It’s called the “urban heat-island effect,” and whatever the impact of global warming here, this phenomenon is sending the mercury rising. On Tuesday, Phoenix tied the all-time record of 28 days at 110 degrees or greater in one summer, reached in 1979 and again in 2002. If the temperature rises to 110 degrees one more day this year, Phoenix will set a record.

      …..

      Dr. Golden points to differing temperatures between downtown Phoenix and a rural weather station at the Casa Grande National Monument, about 50 miles southeast. In 1950, he says, it was only six degrees warmer in Phoenix than at the Casa Grande Monument. By 2000, the temperature in Phoenix was 12 degrees higher. Now, it is almost 14 degrees warmer in the city than in the adjacent rural areas.

      ……

      Looking toward solutions

      Here in the Phoenix area, for example, 40 percent of the heat-island effect is due to paved surfaces, according to Golden. “We’re trying to transition to pervious pavement, which would allow for water penetration,” he says.

      That, he adds, would support the growth of urban vegetation, which is typically removed for new building projects. And urban vegetation planted at intervals, as well as the water pervious pavement retains, would lead to cooler temperatures at night.

      “If we were to take all the surfaced parking lots in this city and cover them with 50 percent tree cover,” that would significantly decrease the surface temperatures, he says. His department is also studying the survival methods of this area’s early inhabitants, such as the Hohokam with their earthen structures.

      Today, two-story houses are popular, he says. But what if policymakers were to ban future building of two-story houses – or at least upper floors – in order to make buildings shorter, and less prone to trapping heat. Instead, housing plans could include basements, he says, which would naturally remain cooler – though the prospect of lower levels has long been considered too expensive or difficult, despite the plethora of inground pools.

      The good news about these rises in temperatures, if there is any, Golden says, is that local governments are beginning to pay attention to how they design cities, how closely they space houses, and how much forestry and agriculture they plan.

      Phoenix, for example, is pushing for more open-space parks with trees downtown. And the city of Mesa is offering $500 rebates to residents who convert their yards from lawns to xeriscape, including desert trees that provide canopy shade.

    2. camojack says:
      August 31, 2007 at 3:55 am

      “Consensus? What consensus?”

      Yeah, really… :-\

    3. Drewsmom says:
      August 31, 2007 at 5:52 am

      algore, paging algore, what ya think about them apples?

    4. sunsettommy says:
      September 2, 2007 at 6:23 pm

      Consensus mantra is a bogus argument anyway.

      Since science research depends on being able to VALIDATE the research sometime down the road after that paper is published.

      If these AGW’s believers really had their case down to pat.They would have taken in all comers in debates and show the science in them.

      Meanwhile good scientists would have stayed out of the political arena and also the environmental one too.

      The consensus and scaremongering are classic hallmarks of political environmentalism we have been subjected to for decades from DDT to famine claims.

      From Rachel Carson to Lester Brown to Al Gore to James Hansen.They all share the irrational fearmongering of an impending catastophe.

      I for one wish the people stop being so easily manipulated and lied to.

      Rational Skepticism can literally save your life.