Yes.
Naomi Oreskes, at Science magazine, undertook a study of the 928 peer-reviewed papers and reports published between 1993 and 2003 which included the keywords "climate change" when indexed. Not one of them argued that observed climate change was natural in origin. As Oreskes puts it:
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
[...]
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
(Thanks, John Maas)
Comments (1)
This article deserves widespread attention, especially with the UN conference in Buenos Aires beginning on Monday. However, according to Google News not a single outlet has picked up the story.
Today's Washington Post described the mindset of the U.S. administration's policy makers. The White House science adviser says that to do anything meaningful is "simply not practical at the present time."
But this quote is suggestive:
"Christine Todd Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency administrator in Bush's first term, said mandatory carbon dioxide reductions are 'going to happen at some point,' in part because multinational corporations will demand that U.S. policy mirror European standards."
Posted by Laurence Aurbach | December 5, 2004 9:37 AM
Posted on December 5, 2004 09:37