The 1% wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#76b57a0126d6'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change†— which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
s.
The claim of “consensus†can be traced back to a single article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change†by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate changeâ€.
She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus†view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.â€
A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.
Brenchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change†in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change†not “climate changeâ€.
Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change†which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus†as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.†That’s only 1%!
Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.
Dr. Peiser has commented:
“The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days before an important UN conference on global warming, the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change), was apparently made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite clearly the opposite.
“It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly misled the public and the world's media.
“In my view, such unethical behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals regarding Oreskes' flawed study.â€
“The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science.â€
After examining the erroneous essay by Oreskes, the unsatisfactory circumstances in which it was published, and the failure of Science to correct more than one of its numerous deficiencies, we may conclude as follows:
• that Oreskes’ essay provides no sound basis for the assertion that a unanimous scientific “consensus†exists on climate change, for, though most climate scientists probably believe that humankind has caused 0.2C of the past half-century’s 0.4C warming, there is no unanimity;
• that even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes, there were more scientific papers explicitly doubting or even rejecting the “consensus†than explicitly supporting it;
• that less than half of the papers which Oreskes said had implicitly endorsed the “consensus†had in fact done so;
• that more than half of the papers which Oreskes considered had not mentioned anthropogenic climate change at all;
• that the definition of “consensus†in Oreskes’ essay is so limited, and her findings as published so greatly at variance with the content of the papers she reviewed, that the essay provides no justification for her frankly-political contention that – “our grandchildren will surely blame us they find that we
understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about itâ€; and
• that Science, having been given evidence of Oreskes’ errors before publication, in the form of a direct survey of more than 500 climate scientists, and after it, in the form of several letters pointing out the material errors some of which we have reported here, refused to allow the survey, the letters, or any other correction to appear in print, save only the correction of the database search term which Oreskes had used.