Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory?

Wow, more proof that "man made global warming" is a farce and nothing but insane scare tactics by lefties and commies.





Michael Asher


August 29, 2007 11:07 AM


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.

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory?
You have the words 'savage nation' in your title? Has it occured to you that the info you get has a bias? Lol Anyway, I see you have fallen victim to the lies of omission. I read Dana1981's answer/question and when more reading is done, suprise, the message changes.
Reply:This "question" has been asked about a half-dozen times already today. I discuss it in detail here:





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Reply:Look. Global Warming doesn't exist its the earth changing its axle because if no one has noticed magnetic north and compass North are different and magnetic north has changed like 30-40 degrees in the last 20 yrs .
Reply:Way to go...citing research using data from over a decade ago. I bet if you look hard enough you could find a study from 100 years ago in which no one endorses global warming....so lame.
Reply:I'm sorry but the figures are truly meaningless. I endorse the theory of manmade global warming and of the five most recent research papers I've written four of them were neutral becaue they weren't seeking to apportion 'blame'. This is the norm and as such I'm suprised just how few of the papers were neutral.





The consensus, the overwhelming consensus, is that climate scientists believe humans are having a detrimental impact on our climate. What they beleive is very different from what they write. Science has to be impartial and objective, a good scientific report is neutral, factual, impartial, unemotional.





There are several people on Answers that could be deemed as being qualified to speak with reasonable authority on the subject of global warming including climatologists, meteorologists, environmental scientists etc. As far as I'm aware every one of them concurs that anthropogenic global warming is happening and I would defy you to name more than a handful of suitably qualified scientists that disagree.
Reply:We're all gonna die!!!
Reply:More pap to feed the hungry mouths of the aggressively ignorant. Here's our most familiar paid lobbyist of the Oil and Gas industry putting lies on his blog for the benefit of the terminally stupid.





Below are the facts. (You'll want to make sure and avoid THEM!)
Reply:You really should learn something about how science works. NO reputable science today disputes global warming--or its human origins.





The fact that many did so 10-15 years or more ago is irrelevant--there is always disagreement until al the facts are in.





Really--I don't mean to be offensive--but this jsut shows how little you know.
Reply:The more scrutiny this gets, the more people start to question the data. I suspect with a better understanding of the climate, the less man will be held responsible.

wisdom teeth