A study of scientific research papers concludes that scientist are
slowly begining to agree with each other regarding climate change.
Here's the important part of the article:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position."

Time for the neo-cons to start stomping their feet furiously, and claim
that the whole scientific establishment is run by liberals... LOL!

============
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States,
frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change,
then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went
through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions
on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be
adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also
alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest
that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community
about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as
a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of
peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most
recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of
scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human
activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of
atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ...
[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in
(4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)].
The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That
hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI
database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

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.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

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.

References and Notes


1.. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2.. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy
2 (1), 3 (2003).
3.. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
7.. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8.. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.. The first year for which the database consistently published
abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
10.. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial
Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618