As for ExxonMobil, I find it highly amusing that $8 million spread out between 40 organizations (to a tune of $200K each) can somehow set the media agenda, but the 2007 annual budget for Environmental Defence at $73 million and WWF at over $160 million have no impact at all? That’s not even factoring Greenpeace or the countless other groups who are also a lot more well-funded.

you’re funny when you get all steamed up. take a breath before you pop a vein.

a low number that state the obvious? you should change your name to “court jester”.

a low number who make a ludicrous and unsupportable claim is more like it.

and i see you have nothing to refute that the data that it oreske’s work showed little explicit support from her claims and contained mostly irrelevant pieces.

that mashey dog’s breakfast never really does get at the facts, does it? it’s just a long, rambling rant about “denialists” and nothing like a serious discourse about survey design and results.

nice work.

you should read that stuff before you post it

and if oreske’s methods are solid, then why did they yield such perverse results when applied to 2004-7?

schulte is an idiot for using the methods you back? you are one mixed up guy “scientist”.

what kind of scientist do you claim to be anyhow? people ask you all the time and you never answer.

i’m starting to suspect you are a psychology researcher studying the effects of nonsensical arguments and illogic used on unsuspecting internet users…

You were first to use profanities. YOU LOSE!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don’t y’all go and do your own review of the papers rather than trying to support known FLAWED papers just because they say what you WANT them to say?

Moronic 12 year olds may very well worship the ground Schulte walks on. Oreskes’ work has not been refuted, her methodology was sound, and only denialist fuckwits of the very worst sort bother to try to suggest that Peiser or Schulte have anything valuable or accurate to say on this topic.

most of her survey was irrelevant and her data were cherry picked and her categorization scheme was biased. and asking a question referst ot how she determined if a paper made explicit or implicit claims etc. scoring for such things is inherently somewhat arbitrary. all she did was scan abstracts. but the way in which she did it was biased.

but this is somewhat irrelevant.

schulte used HER system to do his work you dolt.

so you are trapped:

either you must say that her results are valid and therefore so are schulte’s (as he used the same system) and accept both the low number of explicit backers for AGW in her and his studies

or

you must say that the study is invalid.

you don’t get to use the study that suits you and not the one that doesn’t.

an overall breakdown of the oreskes study:

* Of all 1117 abstracts that ought have been included using her 3 search terms, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’ but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
* Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on “mitigation”.
* 67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
* 87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
* 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the “the observed warming over the last 50 years”.
* UPDATE: among the 34 abstracts, a few of them were found that shouldn’t have been included in the group. For one example, see Prometheus (search for Oreskes); the reader is recommended to look at the 34 abstracts whether this error of Peiser’s analysis changes the qualitative conclusions
* 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
* 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

so as can be readily seen, her results do not support the conclusions about consensus that you keep claiming they do. it really doesn’t support much of anything. science should be hideously embarrassed to have published it.