Scientific consensus on climate change???

[Garth Zietsman]

I was reading the Freakonomics blog and was led to this report on a review of 4000 abstracts on climate change research where on opinion on it's cause was expressed.  It seems that 97% of these papers say climate change is real and man made.  I say "seems" because I read the report and noticed some other figures.  Firstly 11994 papers published in peer reviewed journals between 1991 and 2011 were found and looked at.  Of these 32.6% endorsed AGW, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% said the cause was uncertain.  The 97% comes from the 4000 papers that expressed an opinion - the other 8000 were ignored.  

But hang on a second - you can't assume that the opinions of those who didn't expressed one follow the same distribution as those that did or that their silence can be viewed as "not relevant".  I think it far more reasonable to assume that those who didn't express an opinion didn't do so because they couldn't reach a conclusion justifying a confident opinion from their research.  These should (in my view) be counted as uncertain.  The 'consensus' therefore should read 32.6% "Yes", 66.7% "Uncertain", and 0.7% "No".  While this implies that very few scientists are convinced that AGW is definitely false only 1/3 of the rest are convinced it is true.  

One way of looking at is to score "Yes" 2, "Uncertain or no opinion" 1, and "No" 1.  Then the mean score comes out as 1.316 which is 65.8% of the way between a complete "No" and "Yes".  That could suggest a moderate leaning toward a "Yes" but hardly monolithic certainty among publishing climate scientists.

The scientific consensus is better described as "AGW is uncertain" rather than "AGW is true".

That's my view anyway.  Besides my take gives a result quite close to large scale random annonamous direct surveys of American Meteriologist opinion.  89% say there is some warming -  52.5% say warming which is human caused and 36.5% say warming mostly not human caused  - and 11% say no warming.  Also 70% are not worried about climate change i.e. 11% no warming, 59% warming but no big deal and 30% warming and it's a big deal.

The majority scientist views coincide with my own i.e. AGW is uncertain, but if pressed I would say there probably is some warming (cause uncertain but probably some human involvement) but it's no big deal and possibly even good news.  There probably will be more extreme weather events but humans will deal with it easily enough. 

Garth

[MGR Oriani-Ambrosini]

Dear All

My press statement below refers.  I am going to fight this battle and I intend winning it.  If I do, it will become inevitable for me to carry the fight forwards to stop chemotherapy in most cases.  It would appear that a science-based cure for cancer exists and has existed for twenty years, even though it has been outlawed, ridiculed and demonized.  I am in Europe undertaking it.  If I succeed, I will need to take head on on the dogmas and authority of the pharmaceutical-medical establishment.  I will report as events unfold.

Ambrosini:  My bid to cure my cancer

            Following my recent hospitalization and my temporary absence from Parliament, I have received many inquires from the media, colleagues, friends and opponents about my state of health.  My immediate reaction was that the matter was of no concern of theirs. However, upon reflection, I realize that if I am to be a true servant of the people, my state of health is no longer a private matter and the people, as my masters, are entitled to know.

            My condition is serious, but I am committed to cure it and be fit and well to return to the duties of my office by no later than September 1.

            Suddenly and without significant prior symptoms, two days before the Secrecy Bill debate, on April 23 I received a diagnosis of stage four lung cancer, which has extensively metastasized throughout my pleura.  The condition is terminal and not operable, and, if left untreated, will cause me to be removed from all lists for Christmas functions or gifts.   Chemotherapy, the only available conventional treatment, can only buy me a few more months of life with severe side effects.  This diagnosis has been confirmed by university medical centers in the United States and Italy, which re-run the pathology tests. The medical-pharmaceutical establishment cannotidentify the cause of my cancer nor propose an effective cure. None of this is acceptable to me.

            I believe that the present scientific paradigm on cancer is fundamentally wrong.  After 120 years of worldwide scientific research conducted under immense social pressure with unlimited funding andpatients, there is still no real understanding of the root cause of cancer, nor is there a cure for it.  More often than not, when this has happened in the history of science, it has been because science has been looking in the wrong direction, building Ptolemaic complexities on top of Ptolemaic complexities which, no matter how advanced, sophisticated or refined, await a simplifying Copernican paradigm shift.

            I have chosen to pursue a course of treatment based on different science, not on an alternative to science.  I have now been receiving this treatment for a while. At this point, I shall not speak or vouch for such a treatment, nor discredit it.  My death or survival will do so.

            I count on achieving a cure in three months and will then return to my parliamentary work.  If my gamble is successful, I plan to dedicate a great portion of my future political and professional life on the fight to eradicate cancer as a cause of death.  If I fail, I hope that what I tried to do for democracy in South Africa and elsewhere will be appreciated.

            Having fulfilled my duty to disclose the facts of the matter to the public, I shall not comment further on any of this until I am in the position of reporting progress or failure and would appreciate if people will respect my family’s privacy at this time.  At this point my strength is limited and I am not in the position to entertain correspondence, even wellwishing messages.