Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in Peer-reviewed literature

[blankslate]

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-p...t-al-2013.html


This confirms the consensus among scientists on human induced climate change. Sadly, skeptics are irrational and this will probably do little to convince them.

Sorry Al Gore and George Soros has paid off every scientist that Fox News and the Koch Bros. haven't paid off. True Story Bro.

 

[BlueWolf47]

It's worth pointing out that this is a new phenomenon. You can go back just 15-20 years and find ads warning about climate change featuring Newt freaking Gingrich. Cap-and-trade used to be the Republican position of using free market forces to tackle a serious problem; then they switched to full denial mode in the past decade or so, and suddenly it's a horrible socialist communist anti-business plan (just like Obamacare, incidentally). Anti-global warming opinion was constructed wholecloth to defend short-term interests of businesses and politicians in search of a wedge issue.

I completely agree. Climate change has been mentioned in every presedential debate since 1988. The 2012 presedential was the first time it was never mentioned. I think that many GOP congressman believe in climate change but they are scared of being targeted by their own party.

 

[Jaskalas]

I completely agree. Climate change has been mentioned in every presedential debate since 1988. The 2012 presedential was the first time it was never mentioned. I think that many GOP congressman believe in climate change but they are scared of being targeted by their own party.

What are these scientists scared of?

Out of 12,000+ papers, only 65 support the UN IPCC AR4 conclusion.

Do some basic math, that IS NOT 97%. Any such claim is a bald face lie.

 

[Darwin333]

People demand we have cleaner factories, safer work conditions, and higher wages through regulations but they have no problem buying all thier goods from countries that have no regulations.

Do you have a separate place in your own house to get store or get rid of waste or do you shit where you sleep?

 

[lilrayray69]

Well it still does show a general consensus that higher CO2 levels increases global temperature and that humans contribute to that CO2...just not that humans contribute >50% to the global warming trend.

 

[BlueWolf47]

What are these scientists scared of?

Out of 12,000+ papers, only 65 support the UN IPCC AR4 conclusion.

Do some basic math, that IS NOT 97%. Any such claim is a bald face lie.

Obviously you didn't read the article or you failed to use your cognative abilities to produce a rational coherent response.

 

[xgsound]

Slashdot had an article on this too and agreed with the 97%. I'll be going there much less now. I thought this was a superb comment:

Quote:
97% of the neo-nazi's believe they are superior to black people
97% of the Black Panthers agree to the fact that they are superior to white people
97% of the children believe in Santa
97% of paranoid believe they are being followed
97% of the homoeopaths believe in homoeopathy
97% of the astrologists believe in astrology
97% of the KKK think lynchmobs are a good thing
97% of the intelligent design gang are absolutely convinced that God made it all
97% of all the interviewed Zen budists were convinced it is possible to clap with one hand
97% of the paganist movement think sandals are fashionable
97% of the physicians didnt believe in washing their hands before doing surgery
97% of the politicians think they are doing some great things

In case you are wondering... Yes, I am a 3 percenter!
end quote


Jim

 

[BlueWolf47]

Obviously consensus doesn't prove a theory to be true. But at some point you have to agree with the evidence if you want to make any further progress. Unless you want to sit around and argue if the earth is round.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


This confirms the consensus among scientists on human induced climate change. Sadly, skeptics are irrational and this will probably do little to convince them.

Consensus means nothing! Consensus was the sun, the Heavens all revolved around the center of the universe, the Earth. Consensus was a one ounce lead ball falls slower then a one pound lead ball. They don't!

What is important is that the evidence is factual, the theory explains them reliably and predicts outcomes accurately.

The Earth IS warming, icecaps are melting and the oceans are rising following the increase in atmospheric CO2. Predicting storms, droughts and floods is too chaotic as shown by the change in a seven day weather forecast with every update by the computer.

 

[nextJin]

Global Warming, so bad ass it's happened every other Ice Age for 4.5 billion years.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Global Warming, so bad ass it's happened every other Ice Age for 4.5 billion years.

Only about three or four recorded CO2 induced greenhouse warmings, usually bringing about massive extinction events.

 

[monovillage]

It's always better to see what a climate scientist says about consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/

Climate change: no consensus on consensus

 

[nehalem256]

Only about three or four recorded CO2 induced greenhouse warmings, usually bringing about massive extinction events.

Wait a minute are you claiming that most of the time in the past climate change wasn't caused by CO2?

 

[IGBT]

yet another rigged study by the eco-KOOKS to keep the hoax going.

 

[BlueWolf47]

yet another rigged study by the eco-KOOKS to keep the hoax going.

I quit.

 

[BrayD]

Am I the only one who actually read the article? The article clearly says 97.1% of abstracts EXPRESSING A POSITION formed a consensus for MMGW. Of the abstracts, 66.4% DID NOT express a position, while 33.6% did express a position (either negative, positive, or uncertain). So some quick napkin math shows that only 32.6% of the abstracts endorsed MMGW. It clearly states that in the article as well. So of those 11,944 abstracts studied, only 3,894 formed a consensus for MMGW. I don't know where you learned math, but 3,894 of 11,944 is not a 97% consensus for MMGW.

The second part of the study also says 97.2% of those with a position formed a consensus on MMGW. It also says 35.5% did not have a position. So math again shows that in this case, a 62.6% consensus was formed for MMGW. That is no where near 97% as the thread title claims. And this second part was based off of how authors rated their own papers! Clearly, there is no bias there and I highly doubt that they were able to get all 11,944 authors in for the second part of the study.

32.6% and 62.6% are not 97%, not even close. The thread title is extremely misleading and I hope a mod changes it soon.

Edit: Just to clarify, MMGW= man made global warming

 

[BlueWolf47]

The math is correct. Articles expressing no opinon do not fall into either catagory which obviously omits them from calculations.

 

[brycejones]

The math is correct. Articles expressing no opinon do not fall into either catagory which obviously omits them from calculations.

How dare you attempt to bring logic to this debate.

 

[Oric]

May require access :

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

 

[BrayD]

The math is correct. Articles expressing no opinon do not fall into either catagory which obviously omits them from calculations.

"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."

Direct quote from the article. Notice how it says 32.6% of abstracts endorsed AGW. Thread title says 97% does.

Now see the second bolded part that says "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW". So they didn't like the low number of 32.6% and eliminated 66.4% of the abstracts so they could make it seem like its much higher at 97.1%. I do not deny that, of those with a position, 97.1% agree, because thats what the math shows. However, of all the abstracts reviewed, only 32.6% agreed on AGW.

Just because a definitive position isn't reached, doesn't mean that it isn't valid; that is a position in itself. To claim 97% of peer-reviewed literature agrees on AGW after you take out 66.4% of that literature, is extremely misleading. I do not agree or disagree with the findings of the study. I do, however, take issue with how misleading the thread title, op, and linked article are. That's like saying 100% of people agree that cats are awesome when only one person thinks that and three others don't care. That's not 100%, that's only 25% that love cats and 75% who don't care.

"We find that 75% of people don't care about cats and 25% of people love cats. Among those people who care about cats, 100% endorsed the consensus position that cats are awesome." -Cat scenario using same rational as article

Edit: Great point in the comments section from the link in the above post: "For thousands of years, the consensus was that the world was flat. And of course, it was back in those days… just ask anyone. But in time, the “deniers” continued to question the “consensus” and today we have an oblate spheroid instead of a flat planet." Just goes to show that a consensus is not always reality, but our current understanding of that reality and is subject to change at anytime.

 

[BlueWolf47]

If you would read the article, the study searched for all articles containing the key terms climate change in their abstract. Since they were analyzing scientific positions on the causes for climate change, articles that did not discuss the causes of climate change had no relevence to this study. Im not sure why you can't comprehend this.

 

[monovillage]

Did you even wonder why Cook and his cronies came up with that false 97% number? Why? His methodology is so ridiculous as has been pointed out in this thread I really have to wonder if you're this gullible, this stupid or just this big of a liar.

Skeptical Science ads for their T-shirts and coffee mugs from 2011 with.... surprise! the exact same made up 97% number on them. Gosh, what a coincidence that this brand new "study" , lol, would come up with the exact same number.

http://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Consensus-on-a-T-shirt.html

 

[BrayD]

If you would read the article, the study searched for all articles containing the key terms climate change in their abstract. Since they were analyzing scientific positions on the causes for climate change, articles that did not discuss the causes of climate change had no relevence to this study. Im not sure why you can't comprehend this.

I do understand that. I understand that their conclusion was 97.1% of articles that were looking at AGW agreed that it was real. I never challenged that. But do you understand that only 33.6% of articles had a position on AGW? AGW, not global warming as a whole. That is where my 'no position' argument comes in. They were not analyzing different causes for global warming, just focusing on AGW. I will explain myself, but it will be long.

What I am trying to say is that the entire article itself is very misleading. They looked at 11,944 articles. They excluded books, papers, and any other types of documents relating to global warming, just focusing on articles. How can you have a consensus when you exclude most forms of literature on the subject?

So of those 11,944 articles they examined, they divided them up among 24 different people to determine what position on AGW each article took. How are they supposed to be consistent when they have 24 different individuals each looking at separate articles? They even said that as they reviewed these articles, their criteria changed as it became more refined. How are you expected to have consistent results when you don't have consistent processes? The first time around they came up with one set of results, and allowed open talk amongst the individuals before they went back and re-examined the articles. When they returned, they had an entirely different set of results. So they allowed each other to influence others results when it was supposed to be anonymous.

May I add they they only looked at the abstract of the articles and not the body or conclusion. And if it didn't have an abstract at all, they cast it aside. How can you effectively say what is an in article when you don't even read it all the way?

They also seem unsure about what 'no position' means exactly. In a table in the article, it says 'no position' means it did not mention a cause for global warming. However, in their methods section, they explain 'no position' as making no mention of AGW. Every other category mentions it is specifically in relation to AGW, so I'm going to assume that's what 'no position' means. So essentially, they are looking specifically at AGW and not other forms of global warming. If the article takes no position on AGW, but gives another reason for global warming, they lump it in with 'no position'.

Now, to my point. They looked at 11,944 articles specifically for references to AGW, and not global warming as a whole. They concluded, that of those articles that mention AGW, 97.1% agree to it. This is just in reference to articles talking about whether man is responsible for global warming and does not take into account other types of global warming.

So the 66.4% of articles they lumped in 'no position', could talk about other forms of global warming, but have no position on AGW. That is what's misleading about this article. That is what I have an issue with. That is what I was not so clearly trying to get at in my first two posts. That 33.6% of the articles reviewed have position on AGW, but the 66.4% of articles were cast aside because they did not specifically talk about AGW.

This is misleading because it is solely about AGW and not global warming as a whole. It doesn't even look at other reasons for global warming, just AGW. They cherry pick their results, use inconsistent processes, and colluded at least on one occasion dramatically altering their results.

And as for the second part of their study with the authors, there were 29,083 authors for those 11,944 articles. It says they only collected email addresses for 8,547 of them. I couldn't find if it mentioned how many of those authors actually responded.


​

 

[BlueWolf47]

Once again if you would read the actual article and view the qualifications for each catagory they placed them in. No position means the article made no reference to the causes of global warming. Alternate hypotheses and rejection of AGW were included in the survey.

 

[fskimospy]

Why on earth is BrayD attempting to include papers that don't speak to the causes of global warming in the denominator of a number about what people think the causes of global warming are?

Maybe we should include cupcake recipes in it too. I looked through the whole Betty Crocker cookbook and NO CUPCAKE RECIPE ENDORSED MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. CHECKMATE, LIBERALS.