The percentage of Americans who think global warming is just another planetary trend has increased, though Democrats and more likely than Republicans to blame human activity for environmental change a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds.
Forty-four percent of voters polled said global warming is the result of long-term planetary trends, according to the survey. In 2006, 35 percent agreed.
On the other hand, a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman reveals that 97% of real dyed-in-the-wool climate scientists (as opposed to the broader catagory of Earth scientists) agree that human activity is causing global warming. In real numbers, that means that only two of the scientists surveyed do not agree. Tim Lambert suggests the two holdouts were Fred Singer and Lindzen.
A couple of interesting sub-results:
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement.
Finally, some unkind words on the Doran survey from Planet Gore. Unfortunately, the author steps on his own rebuttal by offering this quote from Chris Horner re an earlier survey by Klaus-Martin Schulte:
The alarmists even go so far as to insert themselves in the process when researchers seek to publish data that would reflect poorly on their own alarmism but otherwise has nothing to do with them. Their fight over the claim of consensus seems as if they are protecting their queen bee, fully aware that once it falls their entire colony goes with it. So when Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a surgeon and researcher at King’s College Hospital in London affirmed as absurd the notion of scientific agreement on global warming, its causes, and impacts, the alarmists had to make sure he couldn’t get published.
Schulte assessed what the current literature was saying on the matter by reviewing 528 papers addressing climate change—not just obscurely referencing the phrase, as did Oreskes—published from 2004 to February 2007. This covered the period since May 2005 when the IPCC closed the Fourth Assessment Report’s window for research eligible, for complete and open consideration by authors and reviewers alike.
Schulte found that “a mere 38, or 7%, explicitly support the consensus. Daily Tech, an online magazine, says the ratio goes to 45% ‘if one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement).’ While only 32, or 6%, of the papers reject the consensus outright, Daily Tech blogger Michael Asher reports that the ‘largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.’” Hardly consensus.
Well, no, "the alarmists" didn't suppress Schulte's paper. In fact, it was rejected by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of Energy and Environment. For those unaware of E&E's reputation, if you're a sceptic and E&E refuses your paper--that's like having a pig reject your garbage.
Update: John Mashey notes in the comments that E&E eventually did publish the Schulte paper.
