Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global
Warming is Ridiculed

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 07, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming
there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused
"global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British
scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the
near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.

On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social
anthropologist, called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific
Consensus on Climate Change," a "disturbing" study.

"A one-hundred-percent record of 'scientific consensus'
on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational
finding indeed. In fact, such a total result would be even
more remarkable than any 'consensus' ever achieved in
Soviet-style elections," Peiser noted sarcastically.

The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts
containing the keyword "climate change," all published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and
2003. The essay found that not a single one of the
studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.

The essay was written by University of California professor
Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University's Department
of History and Science Studies Program.

According to Oreskes, "None of these (928) papers
argued that [current climate change is natural]."

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the
peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations]
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies," Oreskes
wrote.

"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may
have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or
discord among climate scientists, but that impression
is incorrect," she added.

"The question of what to do about climate change is
also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on
the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate
change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to
make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen,"
concluded Oreskes.

But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology &
Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University
and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference
Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a "disturbing
article.

"Whatever happened to the countless research
papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed
journals that show that temperatures were generally
higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today,
that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver
of any significant climate change and that the methods
used in climate modeling are highly questionable?"
Peiser asked.

"Given the countless papers published in the
peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that
implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of
anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude
that all of these were simply excluded from the
[Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a
100 percent consensus!" he added.

According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is
a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not
backed by science.

"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself
did not take consensus politics to such extremes,"
Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official
'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.

"So how did the results published in Science achieve
a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the
article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?]
study itself, let alone the methodology on which the
research was based. This makes it difficult to check how
Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.

'Easily debunked falsehood'

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market
environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute,
also criticized the idea that there is a "scientific
consensus" on "global warming."

"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in
an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication
(Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low
in desperation or a new generation believing there
are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told
CNSNews.com.

After all, past nonsense brought increasing taxpayer
funding for decades. What would make them think
they can't just make things up?" Horner added.

Iain Murray, a senior fellow in International Policy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a letter to
the editor of Science Magazine questioning why the
study was even published.

"I was surprised to see Science publish an article
crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus
on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur
that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a
point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific
journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated
Dec. 6.

"...the message of the article -- that politicians must
act on the basis of the science -- is clearly a political
point rather than a scientific one," Murray continued.

"...the argument advanced by the author that 'our
grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that
we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it' is barely
economically literate and has no place in a scientific
journal," he added.

See Related Articles:
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to
'Religious Belief' - (Dec. 2, 2004)

John McCain's 'Global Warming' Hearings Blasted by
Climatologist (Nov. 19, 2004)