<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Atoms to Zebras&#187; Scientific consensus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.atomstozebras.com/category/scientific-consensus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.atomstozebras.com</link>
	<description>Science Thoughts from Researchers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:48:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Repositioning global warming as theory, rather than fact</title>
		<link>http://www.atomstozebras.com/2007/02/04/repositioning-global-warming-as-theory-rather-than-fact/</link>
		<comments>http://www.atomstozebras.com/2007/02/04/repositioning-global-warming-as-theory-rather-than-fact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim Roth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scientific consensus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.atomstozebras.com/2007/02/04/repositioning-global-warming-as-theory-rather-than-fact/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As mentioned in yesterday&#8217;s article, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn&#8217;t exactly breaking news. There have been an abundance of scientists and journal articles saying the same thing for a while now. The IPCC is simply a review body that has actually been criticized for being too conservative in its [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As mentioned in <a href="http://www.atomstozebras.com/2007/02/03/humans-are-very-likely-causing-global-warming/">yesterday&#8217;s article</a>, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn&#8217;t exactly breaking news. There have been an abundance of scientists and journal articles saying the same thing for a while now. The IPCC is simply a review body that has actually been criticized for being too conservative in its concerns over global warming.</p>
<p>As the scientific community comes to an even great consensus on the issue of global warming, a section of Al Gore&#8217;s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&#038;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FInconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming%2Fdp%2F1594865671%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1170631907%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&#038;tag=democracycpr-20&#038;linkCode=ur2&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=9325">book</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&#038;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FInconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore%2Fdp%2FB000ICL3KG%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1170632017%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Ddvd&#038;tag=democracycpr-20&#038;linkCode=ur2&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=9325">movie</a> An Inconvenient Truth comes to mind. </p>
<p>When discussing the scientific consenus, Gore quotes Jim Baker, the former head of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): &#8220;There is a better scientific consensus on this issue than any other&#8230;with the possible exception of Newton&#8217;s Law of Dynamics.&#8221;</p>
<p>Gore goes onto to discuss a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">peer-reviewed Science magazine study</a> published by Dr. Naomi Oreskes at the University of California at San Diego where all 928 of the peer-reviewed science journal articles on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 were analyzed. Dr. Oreskes and her team choose a large random sample and determined if these papers agreed on the scientific consensus on global warming. </p>
<p>Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 0%</p>
<p>Then it gets interesting:</p>
<p>Due to well-funded special interest groups, a very coordinated disinformation campaign is being conducted to raise doubt about global warming. (Big surprise: these groups happen to receive funding from the oil and coal industry). Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ross Gelbspan wrote a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&#038;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBoiling-Point-Politicians-Journalists-Crisis%2Fdp%2F046502761X%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1170631857%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&#038;tag=democracycpr-20&#038;linkCode=ur2&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=9325">Boiling Point</a> and discussed this information campaign. In this book, he describes an internal memo from one of these groups that stated their goal was to &#8220;reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.&#8221; </p>
<p>Al Gore then proceeded to draw a compelling comparison to the reaction of the tobacco industry in the 1960s when the Surgeon General released a landmark report linking cigarette smoke to lung cancer. </p>
<p>&#8220;Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the &#8216;body of fact&#8217; that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.&#8221; &#8211; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company memo from the 1960s. </p>
<p>Then it gets really interesting:</p>
<p>Similar to the study of the peer-reviewed journal articles, another study was done of the mainstream media coverage of the global warming issue. No formal citation was given for this story, but as avid news reader I have zero doubts about the study&#8217;s conclusion. </p>
<p>They studied articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal over 14 years (roughly 1990-2004). They took a 18% sample of the 636 articles and analyzed how they depicted the global warming issue. </p>
<p>Number of articles that gave equal weight to the &#8220;scientific articles&#8221; (translation: not peer-reviewed) that claim global warming isn&#8217;t due to human activity: 53%</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;<br />
Posted by Tim Roth, author of the political blog <a href="http://think-anew-and-act-anew.blogspot.com/">Think Anew and Act Anew</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.atomstozebras.com/2007/02/04/repositioning-global-warming-as-theory-rather-than-fact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

