Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 include abstracts. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus two categories (#7, 8) which I added: 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position; 2. evaluation of impacts; 3. mitigation proposals; 4. methods; 5. paleoclimate analysis; 6. rejection of the consensus position; 7. natural factors of global climate change; 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change. While 29% of the documents implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’, these papers mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged 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.
5.
AmmannC. M., For instance, claim to have detected evidence for “close ties between solar variations and surface climate”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191–201. While G.C. Reid stresses: “The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies.” Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37(2): 391–405.
6.
Russian scientists KondratyevK.VarotsosC. criticise “the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”; K. Kondratyev and C. Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31–67. FernauM.E. stress: “More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult”, FernauM.E.MakofskeW.J.SouthD.W. (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures25(8): 850–863.
7.
“Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs.” Linden, H.R.(1996). The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21: 31–67.
