"A
new and dangerous principle has been introduced in science based policy making,
namely decisions based on scientific
consensus by majority vote, achieved by a group of scientists (...).
How do we know that what is proclaimed to be a 
'consensus'
really is a consensus view? And how do we know that this view comes anywhere the
truth?"
Vgl.:
Böttcher, C.J.F. (1999) 
The
use and misuse of science in policy making, pp 40-9.- In:
Climate policy after Kyoto (T.R. Gerholm, edit.). Multi-Science
Publishing Co Brentwood UK, 170 p., oder Richard S. Lindzen (2006)
Don't
Believe the Hype - Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global
warming, im Wall Street Journal vom 2. Juni 2006, oder Dennis Bray & Hans
von Storch (2007)"The
Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change"
132 S.
'Leider Gottes' ist Prof. Böttcher aber ein Freund Prof.
Fred Singers - eines Kritikers
des IPCC, publiziert zusammen mit Prof. Moberg und Prof. Lindzen, und steht
ganz sicher auch der Öl-, Kohle- oder Nuklear-Lobby nahe ? oder hat dort
Freunde? - Siehe dazu Anmerkung in den
ersten Absätzen: "Zum Niveau der Debatte" und ExxonSecrets.org,
einem GreenPeace-Project, dem der deutsche Verein LobbyControl ideologisch nahe
steht. LobbyControl wird teilweise finanziert von der Münchner Rück
(lt. Ulrich Müller), welche gleichzeitig Vereinsmitglied des PIK Potsdam
ist (!). Zur Verleumdungskampagne gegenüber Prof. Singer, u.a. auch von ExxonSecrets
und LobbyControl, hier Stellungnahmen des Journalisten Günther Ederer: Hier
1 S. und hier
3 S. (Originalbeitrag im Report-Forum).
Einer Untersuchung
(die heute immer wieder zitiert wird - auch von RealClimate.org
"Statistical
analysis of consensus" - und den Konsens beweisen soll) zum sogenannten
"Scientific
Consensus in
Climate Change"
2S. von
Naomi Oreskes (2004) in dem Peer
Reviewed Journal (!!):
Science Vol. 306 (3. December) wurde
dahingehend widersprochen, dass zwischen 1993-2003 nur 13 Abstracts (weniger als
2%) von 928 Publikationen zum Thema Global Climate Change (als Suchbegriff in
ISI
Web of Knowledge database) explicit dem sogenannten IPCC-Konsens
entsprechen, wonach: "[M]ost
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" Resultat
der Nachprüfung:
"In
fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change."
In
einer
Bestätigung
dieser
Auswertung
heisst es ausserdem: "A
recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers found that 'a quarter
of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most
recent climatic changes'. How decision-makers and the interested public deal with
these scientific
doubts and uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health
and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned
or curbed for political reasons."
(aus: The
letter Science Magazine refused to publish, by Benny Peiser, 2005)
Folgt
man Dennis
Bray und Hans von Storch (2007)
132 S.,
"The Perspectives
of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change".- wissen schafft
nutzen, GKSS 2007, 11, dann sind 55.8% der Klimawissenschaftler weltweit der
Auffassung, die globale Erwärmung habe anthropogene Ursachen, 30% finden
das nicht und 14.2% weder das eine noch das andere. Nur etwa 40% der befragten
Wissenschaftler antworteten. Die Auswertung sollte unbedingt gelesen werden, ebenso
die Hinweise
von Bray und Storch.
Zur Ergänzung hier eine
bemerkenswerte Meldung des
"U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" vom 24. July 2006 bzgl.
der oben erwähnten Angaben von Naomi Oreskes:
"Failed
Defense
Defense of Science Magazine Global Warming Study Fails to Address
Critiques
Naomi
Oreskes, History of Science professor at the University of California at San Diego,
in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, “Global Warming -- Signed, Sealed and Delivered,”
set out to defend the validity of her study titled “The Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change (Science Magazine, December 3, 2004). The study purportedly
shows a 100% consensus on human caused global warming. In today’s op-ed,
however, Oreskes failed to acknowledge several key criticisms to her analysis
of peer reviewed literature allegedly showing there is 100% scientific consensus
that human activity is primarily responsible for warming the planet in the last
50 years.
FACT:
Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in
today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded
about 11,000 papers - more than 90% of the papers - dealing with climate change.
Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study,
less than 2% of the abstracts
she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity
and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that
human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.
Oreskes
originally claimed she analyzed the peer-reviewed scientific journals between
1993 and 2003 under the keywords “climate change” and found just 928
articles. It turns out she was not accurate, according to British social scientist
Benny Peiser a professor at Liverpool John Moores University.
A
search using the terms “climate change” actually turned up almost 12,000
papers that were published during the time frame Oreskes claimed to have researched.
In other words, her supposedly comprehensive research excluded about 11,000 papers.
Only after Peiser’s analysis pointed out this error in her study did Oreskes
reportedly admit that her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,”
but on the far more restrictive phrase “global climate change.”
Peiser
noted:
“These
objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December
2004, she admitted that
there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According
to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,”
but on “global climate change.”
Oreskes’s
100% “consensus” would potentially be accurate only by excluding well
over 90% of the available papers in the time frame she was researching, according
to Peiser. Eliminating about 11,000 papers (even if a small portion would not
be considered ‘peer reviewed’) in favor of just 928, hardly proves a
“consensus.”
In
addition, Peiser found that less than 2% of the studies Oreskes examined supported
her “consensus view” and some of the studies actually disagreed with
that humans were the chief cause of the past 50 years of climate change."
Der
Klimawandel als solcher ist dagegen mittlerweile eine Binsenweissheit, und in
der Tat, darüber bedarf es keines wissenschaftlichen Konsenses.
Der Niederländer 
