The Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA) published a letter today stating in pertinent part:
“The opinion of climatologists is unanimous. Global climate change is a
fact. There are no articles in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that deny
the impact that man is having on his planet. If someone knows of one, please
bring it to my attention. …”
…before trailing off into mumbo-speak claiming the debate is all a matter of degree – so to speak – of how bad things will be, and about using electricity when the sun shines and wind blows.
That a letter-writer would posit such a claim is one thing; that a letters editor would print it is another altogether.
Regardless, methinks that the writer’s call for help is the epitome of a rhetorical question, but just in case he actually will listen to heretical realities, I refer him to Dr. Benny Peiser’s debunking of the claim. And here, here and here. Or simply, the UN IPCC (particularly when the actual science, that in classic IPCC style was purportedly summarized in February, is completed and for scheduled May publication).
That Peiser’s analysis is so damning is found in the sadly typical experience that it – and he – have been the subject of relentless and by now essentially irrelevant assaults; but this doesn’t change that the claim is utterly unsupportable and now thoroughly debunked.
Hard as it may be to discern without context (which I’ll provide in a moment), that this claim is nonsense is further found in the following, a correction in Science made necessary by but failing to do justice to Peiser’s analysis:
“Letters. CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS: Essays: ‘The scientific consensus on climate change’ by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686). The final sentence of the fifth paragraph should read ‘That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “global climate change” (9).’ The keywords used were ‘global climate change,’ not ‘climate change.’”
Science 21 January 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5708, p. 355, DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5708.355.
Our friend in Santa Cruz is parroting the line of one Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history at UC-San Diego who did however tout this line on the Santa Cruz Community Television
(beamed also to all DishTV subscribers). Oreskes, as I detail in my book
, “conducted a computer search for articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that contained the phrase ‘global climate change.’ She found 928 since 1993. In her article explaining her findings, however, she claimed to have searched for all articles using the phrase “climate change” a search that would have yielded about 10,000 more articles.
Oreskes claimed to have reviewed these articles and proven that ‘there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.’ She continued: ‘Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.’
Oreskes claimed that man-made (anthropogenic) global warming had not been questioned once in any of the relevant papers since 1993. Specifically, she claimed that “75% [of the studies]… either explicitly or implicitly accept  the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Particularly given her obvious intimation of having read the papers, her thesis is a dog’s breakfast of half- and non-truths.”
In reality most of the 928 papers turned up by Oreskes’ flawed search do not even mention anthropogenic global warming, let alone confirm alarmism in their conclusions. Further, some papers merely assumed for their purposes that rising CO2 levels from burning hydrocarbons will affect the climate, as opposed to having research findings establishing this. Most didn’t present any analysis or conclusions at all about it, as Peiser found.
He notes in an email that, “It turns out that her claim to have analyzed 928 abstracts is erroneous as this number of abstracts doesn’t exist…In any case, the vast majority of abstracts doesn’t even mention anthropogenic climate change, let alone support the consensus Oreskes claims that 75% either explicitly or implicitly endorse.”