Home
PkrBum wrote:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:
Yes: Mostly human Yes: Equally human and natural Yes: Mostly natural Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause] Yes: Don’t know cause Don’t know if global warming is happening Global warming is not happening
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers
Haven't we already been through this? Ah, yes. We have:
https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15267p15-is-that-claim-that-97-of-scientists-agree-on-global-warming-just-a-load-of-bs-and-the-truth-is-scientists-are-split-on-it-about-50-50
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.
Actually, the 97% does in fact come from a peer reviewed paper accepted for publication on 04/22/13 and published for peer review on 05/15/13. It has since stood up to critique. You would know this if you read the underlying paper that I posted for you the last time you posted your poll of meteorologists. Here it is.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/articlePkrBum wrote:That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.
From the abstract of the underlying peer reviewed article:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research
Here again, if you simply read the information that has already been provided to you before (hell, if you even did your own cursory research) we wouldn't have to waste time on the same debunked arguments again and again.
And to pre-emptively respond to your next post, which I'm sure will be "Oh yeah!? Well what were the results of the study when the original scientists/authors were asked to rate their own work?!?! Huh?!?!?!"
Sure, let's look at that.
Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.20,p = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.26,p = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.
Let me know if you need help interpreting any of that. Reading clearly isn't your strong suit.
And he made a little pocket change.