Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

@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

@barryclemson Said
Who is Schulte and what survey are you talking about. Where did the 528 papers come
from?

@stumblinthrulife Said
I don't really feel you can consider this study to be as valid as the original. I understand the dispute, some of the original data is indeed now nearly 15 years old, but heck, you might as well say that some of Schulte's data is nearly 10 years old, and hence also unsbubmittable.

@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

@raditz8526 Said
Al Gore said that they all agree so it must be true. Why do you insist on posting this misleading information?

@ugly_ducky Said

@ugly_ducky Said
How is some of Shulte's data nearly 10 years old when the papers he studied were published from 2004-2007?

@stumblinthrulife Said
The same way a study completed 5 years ago has 15 year old data - it's a ten year study.

@stumblinthrulife Said
Wait, I misread. So he only took a 3 year sample, instead of the original 10 year sample. I'm not sure if this makes it more or less reliable, statistically speaking. I mean one could argue that it's more accurate reflection of recent studies, but at the same time one could argue that it's a smaller sample, and not as representative. Swings and roundabouts.

@ugly_ducky Said
That is why I hate statistics.