In 2004, UCSD history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer- reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she concluded a majority supported the "consensus view," that humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited by the IPCC, but as some of the data is 15 years old and the conclusion was in question as scientists are never unanimous.

      Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte updated the research personlly rather than turn the tabulation work to students as had likely been the Oreskes method. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he personally examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment. The figures are quite different.

       Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the anthropotenic consensus.  If "implicit" endorsements are used, those consensus without explicit objections, the figure rises to 45%, but this is a very low standard never accepted in such studies.  While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, neither accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.  This is not a "consensus" and  in work of this kind a polite way of not accepting the hypothesis.

     The figures are even more negative when we recall the diluted definition of consensus.  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.  Some authors are positive with respect to the phenomenon pointing to the Medieval Warming period when Europe thrived in a mild climate.

      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 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.

       Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures.  But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists?  Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." 

       The introductory "Summary for Policymakers," the only portion usually quoted in the media, is not written by scientists, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by a committee of political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters, the only text actually written by scientists, are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is published months before the actual report itself  This practice alone prevents the report from ever being called "science."