Climate change consensus study examined
I've had several people ask about the study Al Gore talked about in his movie, which found no scientific papers disputing the reality of human-caused climate change over the past ten years. Well, to be sure, there have been a few papers disputing the reality of human-caused climate change published in the past ten years, but they didn't happen to have the key words "global climate change" included in their citations. The study Gore cites was published in December 2004 in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a professor at UC San Diego. The article examined peer-reviewed studies in the world's major scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 containing the phrase "global climate change" as keywords. Oreskes found that 75% of the 928 articles with those key words in their citations agreed with the consensus position stated by the UN's panel on climate change, that the observed global warming over the past 50 years has been caused in part by human activity. The other 25% of the papers took no position, and none of the papers disagreed with the consensus view. While the study is not a perfect measure of the scientific uncertainty in the published literature, the study does show that an overwhelming majority of published scientific research supports the idea that human activity is significantly modifying Earth's climate.
As Gore noted in his movie, the situation is quite different in the media, where about half of the stories in the study he cited cast doubt on the reality of human-caused climate change. The media are fond of trying to report both sides of an issue, so in the name of journalistic fairness, the public is receiving a highly skewed view of the scientific debate on climate change. In many cases, the opposing views presented by the media are from fossil fuel industry-funded "think tanks" that routinely put out distorted and misleading science intended to confuse the public.
I've collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCC
American Meteorological Society
NOAA
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
NASA
EPA
American Geophysical Union
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I'd be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. "I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges," said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. The Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn't stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I'm not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and contrarians are encouraged to publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I would like to see the media sharply reduce their coverage of the contrary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of SEPP. Getting one's climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one's news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
SJ
as for greenhouse warming, and those who say .5-1C is 'insignificant'... i suggest you consider ENSO
This is a fluxuation of 1-2C over maybe 1% of the ocean that DRASTICALLY effects weather all over the world. This being the case, a warming of 1C over the ENTIRE globe could have much greater effects. It's not something you will notice when you step outside but it could definitely affect storm patterns.
I have your site bookmarked too :-)
Be glad you have not seen it snow. That post is the entire comercial. They do not even tell you what the crap is, but they want you to roll it on your forehead......LMAO.....Sorry
SJ
The warm ocean southeast of the United States is one of the prime locations for tropical storm development early in the season. The other two favored places are the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Currently we are focusing our attention on the region off the Southeast Coast where there is a very suspicious looking area of clouds. The disturbance has no well defined circulation yet, but that could come in time. The graphic below shows how the flow pattern will set up this weekend which is favorable for tropical development. This will never turn into a big storm, but it could have some impact on the weather along the Eastern Seaboard within the next several days.
If you have not seen then please stop by
StormJunkie.com
SJ
Think I'll take Rays advice and go lay down with my cats...probably check back late diurnal max-time...later!
In an earlier post, skeptik posted a list of "articles that dispute the end results of CO2 emissions", in an effort to help us "see both sides of the Global warming debate". I hoped this would finally be a collection of peer-reviewed work that could contribute to the scientific debate on the issue. Alas, no.
Global Warming:
The Origin and Nature of
the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen
Appeared in Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government. Not peer-reviewed. Regulation claims to be "objective", and I'm sure from Cato's perspective it is. (Motto: "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace".)
Settling Global Warming Science
Co-Authored by:S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass
Appeared in the Washington Times. You're welcome to your own opinion about the Times's bias or lack thereof, but it's emphatically NOT peer-reviewed.
When Is Global Warming Really a Cooling?
By Roy Spencer
Appeared on "Tech Central Station", a website/blog[?] whose editors "believe strongly in the power of free markets, open societies and individual human ingenuity". Again, emphatically NOT peer-reviewed. Spencer claims Science and Nature are freezing him out, suppressing his findings. Maybe so, but given the choice between trusting one disgruntled scientist or the editorial and review boards of those journals, I'm not inclined in favor of Spencer.
Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Link?
By George Taylor
Also appeared on Tech Central Station. Not peer-reviewed.
Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection
By Patrick Michaels
Appeared in Capitalism Magazine. Do you suppose this publication has any particular agenda? Again, no peer review.
Interview with Dr. William Gray
By James K. Glassman
Interview with Dr. James O'Brien
By James K. Glassman
Interview with Dr. Roy Spencer
By James K. Glassman
Another Tech Central Station report. Obviously not peer reviewed; interviews aren't appropriate material for peer review.
Look, you know as well as I do that I could find fifty "pro-greenhouse" "articles" for every one on this list. In fact, that's part of the problem, as you see it. But for this to be a debate about science, we need science on both sides. These articles are nothing but editorials. Your editorials are no more convincing to "the other side" than their editorials are to you.
If these folks think the science of anthropogenic global climate change is wrong, they need to produce their own science that's right, and put it up for peer review, and have it stand up in the face of further research. And whining about being "suppressed" is NOT science.
Lots of doubt being cast by the anti side on length of records, veracity of data, measurement locales, even objectiveness of researchers and scientists but NOTHING in terms of an actual challenge to the scientific priniciple of a greenhouse effect being in place on this planet and being enhanced through CO2 emissions.
You know why there's never been any peer-reviewed challenge - because the existence of a greenhouse effect (caused by water vapour, methane and CO2) is so patently obvious and true. And given that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases, inceases in CO2 levels such as we're seeing are obviously going to increase the effect..
ABNT20 KNHC 220213
TWOAT
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1030 PM EDT WED JUN 21 2006
FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...
DISORGANIZED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS REMAIN BETWEEN THE BAHAMAS
AND BERMUDA WITH MOST OF THE ACTIVITY CONCENTRATED ABOUT 250 MILES
EAST OF THE NORTHERN BAHAMAS. THIS WEATHER SYSTEM WILL LIKELY DRIFT
TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO WITH NO
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT.
TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH FRIDAY.
$$
FORECASTER AVILA/MAINELLI
- and yes MichaelSTL I scroll down (only way to do it!).
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm
- and heads up Canucks, tornado watch for Windsor, Essex, Chatham, Kent Co..
- our Bahamas Blob will really be cooking if it can pull in some of that energy from the south and east..
Thanks for the sluething, jeffB! And I agree, the anti-warming side has yet to produce any science that seriously challenges the theory of greenhouse gas induced global warming..
Lots of doubt being cast by the anti side on length of records, veracity of data, measurement locales, even objectiveness of researchers and scientists but NOTHING in terms of an actual challenge to the scientific priniciple of a greenhouse effect being in place on this planet and being enhanced through CO2 emissions.
You know why there's never been any peer-reviewed challenge - because the existence of a greenhouse effect (caused by water vapour, methane and CO2) is so patently obvious and true. And given that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases, inceases in CO2 levels such as we're seeing are obviously going to increase the effect..
Well, the thing is, people are trying to mount scientific challenges. They're even getting the occasional result published. It's just that their claims don't seem to be holding up as well as the opposing claims.
But sometimes I think that if I hear "but the models aren't perfect" one more time I'll scream. A lot of medical research is based on similarly imperfect animal models. I wonder how many of the climate-model skeptics are also opposed to animal testing? :-)
For what it's worth, someone asked who is Campeche a couple of blogs ago. So I looked it up and campeche is Spanish for logwood, the name of a tree in English. Logwood was a big deal at one time, used to make a red dye. Belize was founded by logwood entrepreneurs. To think I've gone my whole life without knowing this.
Oh, wow -- I've known about logwood ever since I got some as part of my Gilbert chemistry set back in fifth grade! Now, that's sad.
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index