A Consensus on Global Warming?
This is very, very interesting;
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.”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.
I have to say that I would like to read more researches like this (it is a bit premature to draw conclusions on just one research), but if this confirmed by other scientists / researchers, we should stop talking about the global warming consensus immediately, or we should at least nuance that statement a bit. It seems to me that certain factions have hijacked the global warming debate, and have run away with it and have used it for their own political benefit. The result is that the entire debate has become increasingly polarized and that those who advocate change are considered some kinds of prophets or even Messiahs, and that those who say that perhaps it is not all so clear are treated as and considered to be devils, outcasts and greedy businessmen (which is sometimes most certainly true, but often than not, regular people have read a lot on this subject and doubt Gore’s conclusions with a sincere heart).
Personally, I do believe that human activity increases global warming (quite significantly), and I also believe that we can do something about it. But lets not pretend that the world is about to come to an end because some people prefer to drive SUVs. Lets keep it in perspective.
35 Responses to “A Consensus on Global Warming?”
Nuance is always better than dogmatism (how’s that for a nuanced statement…), but nuance is often used as an excuse for an equally dogmatic reaction in the other direction. Like evolution deniers who find minor inconsistencies and mysteries at the margins of evolutionary theory, they use the complexity of the issue to reject it outright. The purpose, of course, is to advance a completely dogmatic position in the other direction. Same with global warming: the debate is over the extent to which human activity affects global warming. But that debate over the details doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore global warming altogether as some sort of “great hoax.” Yes, let’s knock down the Messianic complex of some environmentalists. But let’s not use their egotistical self-righteousness as an excuse to ignore the problem altogether.
Not bad, could have been better: Nuance is more often than not better than dogmatism.
I’ll wait and see what the actual paper says. Just from reading their hatch job on “German Scientists Declare Speed of Light Broken” I don’t think we can rely on them to accurately portray scientific research without some tabloid like sensationalism. That says nothing for the fact that every single article in Michael’s blog is about some supposedly new found theory that either: (a) says that carbon isn’t the cause of climate change, (b) climate change is just natural changes and has no anthropogenic component, or (c) climate change isn’t happening at all. I’ll refer you to his article on “Mars Global Warming” as proof that he is throwing darts at a board rather than pursuing actual science.
Michael,
You have a double-quote in your post.
Mr. Moderate,
Have you actually read Michael’s blog at all? Michael has repeatedly stated that his position is that GW is real and that he believes it is anthropogenic, and that we have to act on it sooner rather than later. Some of the new co-bloggers and columnists at his blog have views that vary from that (but they’ve only been posting there a very short time), and the way you characterize MvdG’s views are almost 180 degrees from everything he’s written.
My blog? LMAO! I believe the theory to basically be correct!
Thanks Christine but I don’t think it’s useful to argue with someone like that.
Enthropy: oops, will correct it.
Michael: You’re probably correct, but rather than arguing with Mr. Moderate I was mainly correcting his inaccurate portrayal of your position so that the reasonable people who read this post won’t be misled.
However, if Mr. Moderate is honest enough to admit his error then that will be a plus.
In the polarized political climate that we live in, is it surprising that this issue has been politicized? Isn’t the polarization itself keeping us from taking any serious action on this and many other issues that America is facing?
I also agree with Elrod- that conflict over the details of a theory often act as an excuse for inaction.
As an owner of an SUV, however, I think we need to find a solution that unlike the Iraq War, everyone can participate in, instead of singling out smaller groups of offenders. We all shared in creating the problem-lets all share in participating in the solution.
Among climoatologists (not medical researchers) the debate does seem to be over. The diffferences among them concerm a matter of degree, not if.
This is a seriously different perspective, so there would need to be a new scientific consensus that Schulte’s findings are correct before changing course.
I;ll wait to see what the reaction is in the scientific communiry before passing judgment on a subject I’m not scientifically trained to assess.
BTW, i think it’s inacurate to say that some factions have ‘hijacked’ the topic of global warmint. I see it as some factions actively rejecting it and fighting it tooth and nail on ideological grounds.
Interesting, with a thought:
Why choose papers only between 2004 and 2007?
That’s like defining a curve by it’s derivative without looking at the curve itself.
If you’re going to go through the trouble to do a study like this, it would seem reasonable to present the data for each year for the last twenty years, in numbers of papers and percentages. Perhaps that’s what they did, but it’s not the point of view taken by the leading article.
(And types of papers too…like Doma basically said, a paper by a psychiatrist is not as relevant as a paper by a climatologist.)
egrubs- the previous study had looked at papers prior to 2004; this researcher used the same methodology to examine the papers that have been published since then.
you also have to consider that fact that, generally, papers appear in peer reviewed journals when there’s something new to say.
these days, the loudest new things being said are, of course, against the consensus.
i think it completely logically follows that the data would be skewed this way. and yet says nothing about the actual reality of the science.
Fair enough, dan, but it does say something about how “settled” the issue is. This casts doubt on the politically driven assertion that the question has already been answered (though I will concede that it depends on whether the majority of the papers which question AGW are questioning the whole premise or just details of it).
C Stanley,
We aren’t talking about the same blog. I should have been more explicit. The block of text quoted by Michael van der Galien is from Michael Asher’s blog on DailyTech. It is Asher’s blog that I was referring to as being totally skewed and showing a lack of ability to process scientific papers in a serious and non-tabloid manner. Because MvdG’s conclusions above are based on quite probably misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the orginal data by Asher, I stand by my statement that I’m not going to comment on this new paper until it is in the public.
Sorry for the confusion on that. I hope MvdG wasn’t too offended. It is Asher that has a spotty record on this, not MvdG
No consensus on Global Warming…
Only the people wanting to use it as an excuse to make us do or not do something pretend there is a consensus…
So far, there is one paper which has not been publiched yet. Nor has the scientific community of climatologists had a chance to react
We need also to remember that this is how science is supposed to work. No theory is ever finished, It is re-examined every time new information appears.
The mere fact that a new study is about to join the examination process is as normal as can be. It, too, has to be examined before any conclusions can be drawn.
The opinion that one side of the debate rests on poltically motivated assertions is a politically motivated assertion, IMO.
Let’s just cool off until more experts have joined the discussion.
.
OK, correction noted, Mr. M.
I don’t necessarily agree with your criticism of Asher, but I do see now that you were directing your comment there and that makes a bit more sense.
I find this interesting as well, but also have to question why only studies from 2004 – 2007 were analyzed. Frankly, it seems to me that this is a date range in which those with a vested interest in the status quo (as it regards to climate change) have been most active in their efforts to discredit climate change, and human involvement in it, at any cost.
That said, I haven’t had time to read through anything related to this post other than what is here on TMV. I’ll definitely try to dig a little deeper when time permits.
Ah, good to read that. Sorry for the confusion.
The conflict over the causes of global warming is directly related to the conflict over what to do about it. A big reason, imo, there is such a reaction against any so-called consensus is that many of the most vociferous proponents of GW advocate some pretty radical solutions. If we are going to embark on a course of action that will cost many tens-of-trillions of dollars in an effort to combat global warming through carbon output reduction, we need more than “consensus” that it man-made GW exists. We need real, verifiable data that demonstrates the scope of the problem and evidence that the proposed “consensus” solution of carbon output reduction will actually solve the problem. Advocates also need to show that adjusting to environmental changes from global warming will not be cheaper and easier in the long run than attempting to turn the tide.
In short, there is a lot we don’t know and the die-hard advocates of GW – those who are lashed to the solution that makes them appear as Luddites – are what is driving a lot of counter-GW movement.
I knew something was bugging me on this. After reading the comments, I think I know what it is. The Oreskes study established consensus. Anyone doing a paper post 2004 would read likely that paper and could choose to agree or disagree with the existing consensus. A change in consensus would then have to be driven by someone stating “as opposed to the consensus view, I have found….”.
As an analogy, what would happen if we were to look at evolutionary biology papers over the last 10 years? We would likely find very little in the way of someone saying “biology is driven by evolution”. Does this then mean that the scientists have decided that biology is not driven by evolution? I think not. It is a consensus view that will be held until a better theory/model comes along.
Jeff that is possible sure but hardly definitive. It may be just that there is more money and attention so more studies and ideas. This is not a theory that has been kicking around for 100 years. It is recent, very recent, and it only makes sense that there will be some back and forth. I just wish people would treat it like what it is. A theory not a religious movement.
Entropy-
You want more than consensus? I’m not sure what that is.
If you mean 100 % agreemnt,then we might as well drop the subject, because that will never happen on any subject.
The economic impact is, of course, of vital importance. I’m not sure how to assess that, because you have to weigh the potential costs of countering global warming trends against the potential costs of not doing anything and living to regret it.
There is plenty of data. It’s just the extrapolations from it, in terms of a time frame, that causes the political heat.
Nothing attempted now is going to show immediate resutts, so there is the added concern of waiting too long, or until its too late
Since global warming and environmental issues often overlap, I support action on that front regardless of how the GW arguemtn progesses.
Pictues of Beijing’s smog should be enougjh to convince anyone that something has to be done.
.
I want more than consensus that GW exists. Look, most people agree that there is some GW and most people agree that at least part of it is manmade. What is not “concensus” is exactly how much is man-made, to say nothing of determining how much we have to reduce output to reverse the effects. The “concensus” among many GW advocates is that we have to drastically reduce carbon output but it seems obvious to me that there are other ways to mitigate GW depending on how severe the problem actually is – which is in dispute.
An none of this considers unintended consequences, which always crop up.
Mr. Moderator is correct on Asher’s position. All you have to do is look at the other posts he’s made on the subject. He brings up the argument about warming in the rest of the solar system as some kind of proof against AGW in one of his posts. For more on that issue here’s an article from the Bad Astronomy Blog.
Bones is wrong about how long the idea has been kicking around. In fact it has been known for a hundred years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it could conceivably cause warming. Here is an article on the AIP web site.
Asher also makes a fundamental flaw when saying that somehow an article being “neutral” proves anything. Dr. Oreskes’ own study found 25% of articles could be considered neutral. What constitutes neutrality? All it takes is simply to not be studying causative factors of climate change but its effects. Therefore a study on the negative effects of warming that does not address cause would be counted as neutral.
Michael refers to Al Gore’s conclusions but in fact it should be remembered that while Al Gore may be presenting conclusions they are not really his but the conclusions of the climatologists that have studied the issue, he’s just the person who is using his celebrity to put forth the issue for public consumption.
And yes, domajot is correct about the fact that this is one paper that has not even been published yet. In fact a careful parsing of Asher’s blog entry shows that he states that the article has been submitted to Energy and Environment, not that it has been accepted. Whether that choice of words means anything isn’t clear. We don’t even really know what methodology was used. Soon after Oreskes’ original results were published a critic popped up saying that she was all wrong that in fact a search using her criteria should have very different results. His results were different. It turned out that the criteria he used in his search were in fact very different from Dr. Oreskes and included such things as editorials from the WSJ and American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
And then there is the question of consensus. Scientific consensus is considered to have been reached when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field agree that the science supports a given conclusion. In other words they have not simply said that it seems like a good idea, but that they agree that studies (Note the plural.) and research support the conclusion. Here is an entry from Wikipedia complete with the links to check out for yourself on scientific opinion on climate change.
JS Asher’s conclusions are based on minor flaws in studies specific to the US. NASA and others corrected the mistakes and the long term global trend is unchanged. I found a post from CBS news to the actual graphs and corrected data.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/politics/animal/main3178815.shtml
A look at the graphs still shows an upward trend to global temperature. If the data was truly flawed and long term avergages didn’t show a linear upward trend then Asher would have a point. But minor errors in US data doesn’t warrant his conclusions. It’s like the WSJ Laffer curve, removing a significant outlier changed the curve to a significant degree. The results switch from exponential to linear(thats a HUGE difference). The US corrections only had minor changes to US data and vitualy nothing to global averages.
Geeky enough?
Jim,
The “consensus” largely boils down to agreement that human activity is a factor in GW. That’s about it.
Sorry, but that is not enough to form, much less inform, policy – particularly one with a price tag in the tens of trillions.
Entropy,
You are right that there is a question on degree not whether we are to blame for the climate change. However the range isn’t from insignificant to a lot, but more a question of is it bad or worse. You are also are right that it will cost trillions of dollars. However we will be spending trillions of dollars on infrastructure overhaul over that time already. Likewise the methods of reducing carbon emissions also coincident with methods we’d need to replace our dependence on oil as peak oil occurs. With those three facts together, you’d conclude that it would make sense to invest that money we were already going to be spending (and then a little bit more) to take care of both problems at the same time. If we use renewable energy we will have fixed the problem forever. No more worrying about catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident or that material getting into the hands of terrorists. No more worrying about the long term effects of carbon as we mine shale or tar sands, to say nothing for the ecological catastrophe of those processes.
While I can’t stand the shrill rhetoric of many on the left on this issue, I find the lack of willingness to do *anything* about it on the right even more unbearable.
First it must be acknowledged that if the models can be wrong they can be wrong in the other direction from that presumed by most critics of the science. While it might be not as bad it could also be worse. What about the release of methane from thawing bogs in Siberia? It could have an even greater effect than some think. Theories exist as to the possibility of warming ocean waters allowing methane hydrates to melt and release even more methane into the air.
Then we must look at the nature of some of the problems that might arise. I admit that I have no idea what kind of costs will be incurred but I think we’re talking a lot of money. First, one of the greatest worries is the rise in sea levels. Here is a series of reports from the EPA taking a look at possible consequences just for the U.S. Given our huge population along the coasts adapting to the problem will be very costly no matter what approach is taken to that adaptation whether it is attempts to hold the sea back, relocate or the most likely course which is of course a combination of the two approaches. Glaciers and snow packs are melting and snow packs aren’t rebuilding. Don’t underestimate how much of the freshwater supplies in the U.S. depend on those sources. Also if precipitation levels drop in the central U.S. how will that affect our food supply? In parts of U.S. water is already being drawn from the Ogallala aquifer at such a rate that some of the wells that draw from this huge subterranean water source will be dry in a decade or two. Others will follow in due course. Livescience has an article about how these changes can affect people here.
There are of course other changes that far too many people haven’t even thought about such as possible effects in northern areas where permafrost and year round ice have ruled for all of human history and we have adapted to it.
What of the expansion of areas where the tropical or sub-tropical climate supports diseases and disease vectors that aren’t that well know and don’t have viable treatments?
While the actual long term effects aren’t certain yet what if the linkage between more and stronger storms is proven and hurricanes become an even worse problem? El Ninos help break up hurricane formation some years. Will that continue as ocean waters warm? What would that cost us?
The truth is that we are going to have to spend some money to adapt to warming because we have already started processes that cannot be reversed in the short run. But that doesn’t mean that inaction couldn’t make it worse in the long run.
The world didn’t collapse after WWII when the aftermath of the war damage had to be rebuilt. Did the Marshall Plan bankrupt the US and the European economies, or did this time amount to the greatest US growth and the rise of the US middle class? Why does the cost of changing the tide of GW have to bankrupt economies or will it just destroy the monopolies enjoyed by those with ties to Fossil fuels?
Did the world economies tank when IBM, Unysis and other main frame computer manufacturers face a challenge from Atari, Commodore64 and Apple?
Rudi,
I don’t think you understand the scope of the problem. This is more than rebuilding after a war, more than mere competition between computer companies. The entire world economy runs on fossil fuel – the kind of change we’re talking about is unprecedented in history. Rebuilding is easy – changing the entire global economy from one energy source to some other is not.
Jim,
You lay out a good case for the possible effects of GW as well as some of the unknowns, but what about solutions?
And it doesn’t mean that action couldn’t make it worse either or do nothing at all. If the problem is as near-term an desperate as some claim, then perhaps it’s time to consider shorter-term solutions like creating a mild nuclear-winter type effect.
Mr. Moderate,
I’m all for replacing oil with other sources of energy. I would like to see a Manhattan-project-like investment in this area, but for the first time in history we are looking at moving to an inferior source of energy.
What inferior source of energy do you speak of Entropy? If your answer is corn-based ethanol or gasified coal then I totally agree with you. We can take this debate into e-mails if you’d like. It has been enjoyable.
This study is a logical fallacy called “Com Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc”, or in English “after this, therefore because of this”. To be specific the argument is that if global warming is accepted by all scientists and scientists publish papers therefor all papers should be about or supporting global warming.
To make it into an example: since 1960 the number of climatologists have gone up and the global temperature has gone up therefor the number of climatologist determines the temperature of the earth.