Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Back to the papers - usually they come with a list of key words/ search terms. No one could possible read though all those papers, or even skim through them. Not only that, but services/ programs that do literature searches don't search the papers - they test key word lists, or at best, abstracts.

It would be interesting to see exactly how each was done, but I suspect it was through literature search programs of key words and/ or abstracts.

---

Quote:

---

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
“climate change” (My note: later errata indicates the keywords used were actually"global climate change")
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting 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.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts,
developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic
change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm assuming that there is a substantive paper somewhere that will be ferreted out in time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Back to the thread, I thought I would share a quote from my husband's boss (also a phd scientist) at the Dept of Energy on global warming:

"Anyone who says that the data conclusively shows that human activities cause global warming is not a scientist.
Anyone who says the data conclusively shows that human activities cannot be the cause of global warming is also not a scientist."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
In general I find MOST people "in the majority" are pretty reasonable people: HKCavalier {yes, HK) FredG, Soup, Fletch2, Mal4Prez, LeadB, SargeX, me

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
A lot depends on the specific definitions and methodology. It's still a case of wait and see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If the "neutral" papers are indeed "irrelevant" then the stats change from this...

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.

to this....
15% explicitly accept the consensus
79% implicitly endorse the consensus
13% reject the consensus explicitly

---

Quote:

---

Yet I note that this doesn't stop you from torturing logic and making unsupported assumptions in the posts above to try and advance your opinion.

---

Quote:

---

As a result of the supply squeeze, global inventories of wheat — which makes up one-fifth of the world's food intake — are expected to fall to their lowest level in 26 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.... And, if the world warms as expected over the coming decades, the terrible farming year of 2007 may be just the beginning. As temperatures rise, many studies predict that crop yields will decline, as the extreme droughts and floods that damaged this year's wheat crops become more common.... C02 is to plants what oxygen is to humans, and all things being equal, more CO2 should speed plant growth. Scientists believe a one-degree temperature increase might actually benefit agriculture. But if the planet warms by around three degrees — a distinct possibility before the end of the century, according to recent assessments by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
When the official paper comes out and when I have time, I'll look at it more closely.

---

Quote:

---

if you apply the same unbiased eye to Dr. Oreskes' paper. Or since it's already available, save some time and try that now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
BTW - the reason I don't let slagging go is b/c - as expressed on different topic elsewhere - silence is consent. As long as people feel free to throw hate around I'll feel obligated to throw it back.

---

Quote:

---

And this is why so many have a problem with some of your posts Rue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So... whaddaya think about the SOOT hypothesis, eh? It's my very own!

---

Quote:

---

It's a filthy, ugly... dirty! hypothesis.

---