"peer-reviewed" [more snickers and perhaps a snort of derision -- the peer review process has completely broken down] papers on the ISI Web of Science database and found that a "majority" supported the "consensus view" that human agency affected global climate change. Now that is a remarkably weak finding, but eco-nuts have been trumpeting her results ever since as proof that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
Now even that slender reed has collapsed. A medical researcher has duplicated the historian's work for papers presented since 2003 and finds that only 7% of them support the "consensus" position.
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.
Read about it here.
As I have pointed out several times, basing public policy on scientific consensus is building your house on shifting sands.
