@ugly_ducky Said 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.
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." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the
only portion usually 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, which is typically
published months before the actual report itself.
https://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
Who is Schulte and what survey are you talking about. Where did the 528 papers come