2012-03-07 07:18:49Swedish version of TCP
John Cook


Not to the level that we're doing and not by scientists but by journalists. Nevertheless, interesting - someone forwarded me this correspondance with the journalist involved in this project:

Yes, we have done an Oreskes-like study. But off course, we are journalists and not scientists, so this is not peer-reviewed stuff. However, that said, please feel free to use the results. Actually we have done two recent studies: 

1. One questionary where we asked those scientists based in Sweden who actively publishes on climate change about their views on AGW, global warming, IPCC, AR4 and also about how they feel media has covered the field since last autumn. To be more exact, we searched the ISI database for scientists based in Sweden who have published on the subject "global climate change" since January 2009, found around 90 names and sent the questionary to them - around 70 percent answered. The results are very clear. Over 97 percent of the scientists concludes that anthropogenic global warming is proven. Andallmost 90 percent subscribes to the main conclusions of the IPCC AR4 and - perhaps more surpricing - also states that they have confidence in IPCC as an organization. And almost none have changed their views regarding these questions since last autumn - regardless of climategate and all the media debate around IPCC. Moreover, almost 70 percent of the scientists feel that media have blown up "Climategate" and the errors in the IPCC-report. You can find the results refered in English on the website of the Swedish version of RealClimate, called Uppsalainitiativet:http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/overwhelming-majority-of-swedish.html

2. One Oreskes-style investigation of how many peer reviewed-paper that have been published since January 2009 which explicitly contradicts the idea of anthropogenic global warming (again, the results are refered in English on the site of Uppsalainitiativet:http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/swedish-television-goes-oreskes-on.html ). In this investigation we again used the ISI-database and searched for articles published from January 2009 - Mars 2010 which explicitly contradicts the AGW-hypothesis. We used different search strings and also dubblechecked by using the lists of claimed "climate sceptic" scientists and peer-reviewed articles which can be found on various websites, such as wiki and sites run by "climate sceptics". In the end we found 4-5 articles which explicitly contradicts AGW (one of these articles is more of a review-article).  We also found 3 articles which either promoted other forcings than CO2, namely cosmic rays, or indicated an unusual low climate sensitivity, but where the authors in the end did not explicitly state that their paper contraticted AGW. During the same period, according to ISI, there were over 8.000 peer-review articles published on the subject "climate change". So even if we might have missed a few individual articles the total number of peer review litterature produced recently which really contradicts AGW is indeed very small. 

Will be interesting to see whether the papers listed at http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/swedish-television-goes-oreskes-on.html appear in our list of rejections.