AGW "Consensus" Appears to be Making U-turn.

DAILY TECH has an intelligent analysis on how the so-called "consensus" on AGW has slowly eroded to the point that more than half the technical papers since 2004 appear skeptical concerning a major role for human activity in the recent warming trend.

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.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

No good deed goes unpunished. and you should click on the link above and read some of the comments, including non-skeptics who round on Michael Asher for even REPORTING THAT THERE IS SKEPTICISM about AGW!!! Plus the photo of the IRCC UN Commission Directors includes one with the Sierra Leone, a genocidal powerhouse, Director making a point---perhaps on how whether affects the post-trauma wounds from machetes after they remove limbs and inflict gashes. [And we all must remember that the famous self-proclaimed inventor of the "Information Superhighway" exhaled in 1992 while running for prez---he ended up as VP---that "the science is settled." So I can understand, given that genius's credibility, how the commenters are startled that there are still scientists who experiment and come up with conclusions contrary to the one-man-UNIVAC also known as the Gore-bot', who has proclaimed AGW as canonical writ, engraved in granite since 1992.].

Richard Feynman's famous warning about "Cargo Cult Science" is continuing to be the most prescient article by a Nobel Laureate on science and the search for the truth in the twentieth century---at least in the literature I have perused and heard about.

The world is getting slightly warmer, but I look at photos of melting icecaps on Mars and evidence that the moons of Jupiter are warming and remain open-minded about whether humans are to blame. Silly me.