As talked about here and here and here.

This may be hard for those at Wikipedia or RealClimate.org (often the same people who contribute to RealClimate.org also edit Global Warming related articles on Wikipedia, but that’s another topic) to choke down, but less than half of the published scientists endorse the dogma of humans causing Global Warming.

From the article at Dailytech.com

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.

Now Now, you have to give The Church some credit here, not all of their data is “dated” material… otherwise they would be referencing the coming of the new Ice Age as described in the 70s… so lets not give them too hard of a time here.   They are trying to use the most current information possible… or is that, the shortest time-span possible?  Moving on…

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.

A pre-publication copy?  You want us to listen to a pre-publication copy?   That will never fly, I mean, we must always wait for the actual item to come out before coming to any conclusion… I mean, they did that with the Iraq study report and the IPCC report right? I mean, or not I guess.

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.”

Well, “no consensus” only if you refer to “consensus” by the dictionary definition, but… he he… how often do you look at the dictionary anyway, I mean realy.  Do we need to bring ‘facts’ into this?

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.

Oh Snap.

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.

Wait wait wait!  you can’t be serious!  but.. MSNBC says otherwise!  And they’ve got a very impressive multimedia slideshow to boot!  They even have Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann in this article to tell us how wrong skeptics are (who by the way are both RealClimate.org members).

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Now, thats just dangerous talk!  With that kind of attitude, how are we to scare the public into giving up their SUVs and their money by way of Carbon Offsets?  This is kind of talk is just… irresponsible!  We must be warning the public of the upcoming catastrophically catastrophic catastrophe before they realize temperatures move around and the sun has more of an impact do with the earth’s climate then humans ever will its too late and we are unable to rally people to change governmental policy!

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.

Well, I can’t argue with that except to say… Schuite must be a shill for the oil companies to point out how IPCC manipulates the information provided to them.  He’s not anywhere on Exxonsecrets.org but what does that say?  Just that he has enough money to cover it up!!

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

I wonder if you will see this on CNN or MSNBC.  I rather doubt it.