I read somewhere that while 99% of scientific literature accepted climate change as "truth", only 50% of mass media articles did. Anyone know where this statistic came from?
Wow but that's a convoluted article. You quote: Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors... from a 1997 survey. I'm pretty sure this is still true today, but that's rather different from saying it isn't happening period.
This is pretty interesting: In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts 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. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first
( ... )
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
While meanwhile http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 says 53% of mass market articles treated human and other causes as equally likely.
Reply
This is pretty interesting:
In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts 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. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment