I came across a couple of articles which explore the myth of scientific “consensus” when it comes to global warming being primarily caused by man.
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte did some research in surveying all scientific papers published from 2004 to Feb. 2007 (the results will be published in Energy and Environment). Michael Asher of Daily Tech obtained a pre-publication copy and comments on Dr. Schulte’s findings:
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.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. 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. (emphasis original)
Just prior to coming across that article, I read the latest edition of Imprimis. It was a speech by S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia entitled “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?” In his article, Singer quietly argues that man’s contribution to global warming is minimal and that such warming is part of a natural cycle and may have some positive benefits.
He also had this to say about “consensus”:
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
Personally, I believe there is much that mankind can do to destroy the environment. We are called to steward it and watch over it. Yet I can’t help but believe there is an ulterior agenda behind the global warming protests. Just look at factories today versus 60 or 70 years ago. We’ve come a long way and improved emissions immensely. No matter what concessions industry makes, there are loud demands for more. With other concerns facing our world, a maniacal devotion to one particular issue is unwise. It has the potential to negatively impact the fight against poverty and for good health in the undeveloped world.
You also read ‘Imprimis’?? We do think alike, don’t we?
….[dispensationalism, cessationism]….
[Ahem] Well, maybe not.
Dude, you’ve stirred up a horde of misshapen Eco-freaks with this one, if they ever read this. Hopefully they do, and begin to understand something about true conservationism, and read about the Gospel, too.
As a senior meteorology student who had the privilege to work at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC this summer, I thought I might be able to contribute to this discussion.
It is indeed true that there is not a consensus about global warming, though the number of people who adhere to the commonly expressed view is likely larger than the above quote claims. However, a large number of people, like myself, who hold to a non-fanatical view of global warming, do not often publicly make their opinions known. There is a large reason for this: most of the funding for climate science today comes from people who are operating under the assumption that man-made emissions are the primary cause of global warming. If one does not adhere to this viewpoint, one will have a difficulty receiving funding for his or her climatic research. Unfortunately, I have observed people who may actually not agree with anthropogenic climate change, but will “tow the line” and go along with the majority opinion in order to succeed as a scientist. Therefore, I would say a large number of scientists have been bullied into ignoring their better judgments for the sake of advancing their careers. A possible evidence for this is that I have observed (I may be mistaken) that a larger percentage of meteorology students are in disagreement with the majority opinion on global warming than are professional meteorologists and climatologists. Nonetheless, it does hold true that the majority of climate scientists DO believe in human-induced global warming. One difference I have perceived among these individuals is that they are far less prone to having an apocalyptic perspective on the results of warming, and a less extreme political stance on the issue. I myself can say with near certainty (after much research on each side of the issue) that there is no question that humans have contributed SOMEWHAT to global warming. The extent of this contribution is likely minimal, however, and is NOT the main cause of the recently-observed global warming in the last ~130 years. Basically, it is not something to be worried about, and is not something we could reverse. This was put another way by Patrick Michaels (an infamous global warming skeptic) in his book “Meltdown”:
“Global warming is real, and human beings have something to do with it. We don’t have everything to do with it; but we can’t stop it, and we couldn’t even slow it down enough to measure our efforts if we tried.”
I could say much more on this issue, so if you’d like more information on the topic, I’d be glad to explain further.
On an entirely different issue, I thought I’d take this opportunity to say how much I’ve appreciated your blog in the last year or so that I’ve been reading it. I actually attend Fairhaven Baptist Church, and have done so ever since I’ve started college here at Valparaiso University. My sister even attended the college for one year (last year). I have recently started attending a local Presbyterian church on Sunday mornings (I have considered myself reformed for around two years), but still attend Fairhaven in the evenings, as I can’t bring myself to sever all of the relationships I’ve established there. Anyway, I’ve finally introduced myself, and will thus be more likely to comment on you blog in the future. Keep up the great posting!
Larry,
Are you trying to get me in trouble! Calling them “misshapen Eco-freaks”!!!
Casey,
Thanks for your helpful comments. If you would like, I’d be glad to post some comments of yours as a guest post sometime. From time to time I actually do post on non-theological and non-Huckabee things!
Thanks to for your testimony, and I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the blog. I really do try to be fair to the folks at Fairhaven and other more strict fundamentalists. I hold to some opposing views but I try to understand and appreciate those who differ with me. There are many good people at Fairhaven. I was close friends with some of them, and its sad that those friendships have been hampered with my newfound stance.
I welcome further interactions, brother. And feel free to differ with me or disagree, too.
Thanks again for your excellent comments in relation to this issue. I hope as people read this they’ll see your comments on it too.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
I am not a believer in global warming, yet I too believe in being a good steward. I can see there are too many plastic bags in land fills and that our rivers are polluted, and I’d like for my family not to be wasteful. I also don’t believe that man can save the world. (((((HUGS))))) sandi
A reformed fundamentalist? That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Just when I was thinking that believers aren’t fundamentalist enough. After all is said, what can be added to the Gospel that was once delivered without perverting it? Does that leave us with a very few things to fuss about? Is anyone saved by his theology? Or by his understanding of theology? Maybe theology is the problem, at least where it dampens faith. eh?
..,
Amen, brother!
Looking forward to more headknowledge on global warming. I started reading Christopher Horner’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” and am finding it very helpful. You’re right, Bob, about the “ulterior agenda.” Horner writes that environmentalists groups are often called “Watermelons” because they may be “green” on the outside, but they’re “red” to the core! You know, red, as in communism? He explains that many international environmentalist groups were formed in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union when they discovered this could be a useful new vehicle for their cause. How’s that for ulterior motive?
Interesting, John. Thanks for sharing.
I asked NGS to publish the following (with refutations as necessary) as well as the errors (that the UK courts have demanded for their educational institutions) in “An Inconvenient Truth”. I just thought I’d post it here too. Food for conversation if nothing else.
——-
Is global warming a reality?
It appears that we are experiencing a period of very moderate temperature increase. So, the short answer is “Yesâ€. However, the earth has been experiencing cycles of warming and cooling for billions of years. We aren’t as warm now as we were during the 1400’s, a mere 600 years ago. Of course, back then there were no coal fired electricity plants or SUV’s to blame. Keeping the current global warming alarm in perspective, it was only 40 years ago that the “scientific consensus†was alarming us with the prospect of global cooling.
Is global warming caused by atmospheric CO2?
The sun causes virtually all warming on earth. This seems obvious and simplistic, but it’s a fact. There are numerous other factors that affect global temperatures periodically such as volcanic activity and variations in ocean salinity and currents, but these are typically short-lived or cyclic. Throughout history the sun has carried the full blame for warming the planet. The sun goes through cycles of activity and the earth has orbital aberrations both of which dramatically affect global temperatures.
If the sun were the culprit for the most recent warming trend on earth, wouldn’t other planets experience the same warming?
Yes they would and they are. Scientists have found precisely the same warming pattern on Mars, Jupiter and Neptune. It is noteworthy that there are no SUV’s or coal fired electricity plants on those planets.
Isn’t there more CO2 in the atmosphere now?
Compared to historical levels we aren’t anywhere near the peak. There are natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2. Scientists have also determined that atmospheric CO2 levels rise as temperatures increase, lagging behind the temperature changes. Consequently, CO2 increases aren’t the cause of warming, but are a byproduct of warming.
If we don’t do anything, what will happen to the CO2?
The natural CO2 scrubbing mechanisms will take over. The primary mechanisms are the oceans that have a huge absorption capacity and plant life which rely upon CO2 for growth. Before you ask, there are no “capacity†studies that accurately identify just how much CO2 is “too much†for the earth to handle. In addition, the capacity isn’t static. For example, as CO2 levels rise plants increase their size and number to take advantage of the situation. However, it’s should be noted that we are nowhere near the historical peak for atmospheric CO2. The natural mechanisms have been working for millennia.
Is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas?
No, not even close. Water vapor is by far the primary greenhouse gas, has the most affect on global temperatures (accounting for about 95% of the greenhouse effect), and is virtually unaffected by human activity.
As far as atmospheric CO2, about 180 gigatons come from natural sources and about 6 gigatons from human activity (about 3% of the total atmospheric CO2).
What does all this mean?
Very simply, the earth is in a mild warming period caused by solar activity. Rises in atmospheric CO2 isn’t the cause, but may be the effect. Even if the data about solar activity affecting planetary temperatures is disregarded, human activity’s potential impact on the greenhouse effect is a paltry 0.15%. This means that 99.85% of the greenhouse effect is natural.
Global warming shouldn’t be presented as some sort of alarm. Glaciers have been growing and receding for millennia and will continue to do so. Some animal species have flourished and extended their ranges during warming periods while others have retrenched. Where you live may influence your perception of the current warming cycle. Canadians, for example, may benefit economically by growing crops normally reserved for southern climates. However, some ski resorts may have to be turned into golf courses.
Polar bears will adjust. People will adjust. Economies will adjust. Earth will adjust. The global rhythms will continue as they always have, even if they wind up being inconvenient for some humans.
Jim,
Thanks for sharing that. It’s very well written and convincing.
Are you a professor somewhere? Is this article online somewhere? I couldn’t find it with Google.
I’d love to make this comment a post, even.
Thanks again,
Bob