New Study: Scientific Consensus on AGW Increasing

[Row6]

Peer reviewed research opposing AGW has shrunk to .7% of papers. From Science Daily:

"May 15, 2013 — A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming -- 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing human-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).

Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published 16 May, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

The findings are in stark contrast to the public's position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that Earth is warming because of human activity."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...t+Popular+News)

[Minister_of_Information]

Catastrophic
Anthropogenic
Remediable

Still quite a long 'Row' to hoe there buddy.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Catastrophic
Anthropogenic
Remediable

Still quite a long 'Row' to hoe there buddy.

I don't get your meaning.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Tautology, thy name is John Cook

Let's do some math, shall we?

First, you have to read the whole article. So, after doing so, I notice this from the bottom of the article;

In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: "global warming" and "global climate change."The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Now, what is 32.6% of 11,994? Hmmm...about 4,000. Why is that number important?. Well, let's go to the lead of the article;

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming -- 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing human-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Ergo, 97% of the papers selected to believe in AGW...gasp...believe in AGW. Hell, the only thing surprising is that the number was not 100%

Row, more than 66% of the people that wrote per review analysis on Global Wamring have.....wait for it.... no position on AGW

THEY ARE NOT CONVINCED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Damn, these Global Warming people and their sycophants really know how to make fools of themselves.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I don't get your meaning.

That is a very broad summary of the logical chain necessary to bridge the gap between the existence of global warming and the justification of massive government economic intervention in order to remediate it.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

That is a very broad summary of the logical chain necessary to bridge the gap between the existence of global warming and the justification of massive government economic intervention in order to remediate it.

OK, but the article and thread are limited to the science of global warming and the consensus among experts. What we do with that science is another issue.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Tautology, thy name is John Cook

Let's do some math, shall we?

First, you have to read the whole article. So, after doing so, I notice this from the bottom of the article;



Now, what is 32.6% of 11,994? Hmmm...about 4,000. Why is that number important?. Well, let's go to the lead of the article;



Ergo, 97% of the papers selected to believe in AGW...gasp...believe in AGW. Hell, the only thing surprising is that the number was not 100%

Row, more than 66% of the people that wrote per review analysis on Global Wamring have.....wait for it.... no position on AGW

THEY ARE NOT CONVINCED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Damn, these Global Warming people and their sycophants really know how to make fools of themselves.

Not only are you are liar, but you apparently can't read. The 4000 were not papers that endorsed AGW but those in which the authors expressed any opinion. Though that fact is clear from the article you quoted and the very passage you chose, from the abstract summary:

" 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."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

Not only are you are liar, but you apparently can't read.

Oh, just stop being such a whiny little child. This is the kind of misleading reporting that is done in the scientific community that is so infuriating.

What if the story led off as

"66% of climate scientist still have no opinion whether there man made causes of warming. But of the 34% that do have an opinion, most overwhelmingly believe that man is causing it."

If one did not have to read to the BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE to find that out, then they would have a good point. But they don't. They mislead. They make it sound like"the science is settled." When it is clear FROM THIS VERY ARTICLE that the science is anything BUT settled.

And you know what else? Using this methodology, most of the serious skeptics are included in the 97%

Judith Curry would be. So would Roy Spencer. As would Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld and Robert E. Davis.

What do these men and women have in common? Several things. One they are all well respected climate scientists or statisticians. Two, they all hold a scientific opinion that mankind can and probably has been impacting global variations of climate. Three, they have all written peer reviewed articles on the matter. And four and most important, none of them think that impact is nearly as serious as is reported by the IPCC and other AGW groups. It is from the opinions of these fine folks that I draw my own conclusions.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Oh, just stop being such a whiny little child. This is the kind of misleading reporting that is done in the scientific community that is so infuriating.

What if the story led off as

"66% of climate scientist still have no opinion whether there man made causes of warming. But of the 34% that do have an opinion, most overwhelmingly believe that man is causing it."

If one did not have to read to the BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE to find that out, then they would have a good point. But they don't. They mislead. They make it sound like"the science is settled." When it is clear FROM THIS VERY ARTICLE that the science is anything BUT settled.

And you know what else? Using this methodology, most of the serious skeptics are included in the 97%

Judith Curry would be. So would Roy Spencer. As would Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld and Robert E. Davis.

What do these men and women have in common? Several things. One they are all well respected climate scientists or statisticians. Two, they all hold a scientific opinion that mankind can and probably has been impacting global variations of climate. Three, they have all written peer reviewed articles on the matter. And four and most important, none of them think that impact is nearly as serious as is reported by the IPCC and other AGW groups. It is from the opinions of these fine folks that I draw my own conclusions.

Your misunderstanding of the study is evident from your comments. I suggest you carefully reread the actual passage you quoted with the clue I gave you - shouldn't be necessary really - and/or read the actual study which I have provided for you. You don't know what you are talking about.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

Your misunderstanding of the study is evident from your comments. I suggest you carefully reread the actual passage you quoted with the clue I gave you - shouldn't be necessary really - and/or read the actual study which I have provided for you. You don't know what you are talking about.

Willful ignorance, thy name is Row. At least, I hope that is what it is.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Willful ignorance, thy name is Row. At least, I hope that is what it is.

Dude, before your eyes I spelled out the fallacy of your own analysis of your own chosen quote. You want to counter that somehow?

I didn't think so.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Oh, just stop being such a whiny little child. This is the kind of misleading reporting that is done in the scientific community that is so infuriating.

What if the story led off as

"66% of climate scientist still have no opinion whether there man made causes of warming. But of the 34% that do have an opinion, most overwhelmingly believe that man is causing it."

If one did not have to read to the BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE to find that out, then they would have a good point. But they don't. They mislead. They make it sound like"the science is settled." When it is clear FROM THIS VERY ARTICLE that the science is anything BUT settled.

And you know what else? Using this methodology, most of the serious skeptics are included in the 97%

Judith Curry would be. So would Roy Spencer. As would Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld and Robert E. Davis.

What do these men and women have in common? Several things. One they are all well respected climate scientists or statisticians. Two, they all hold a scientific opinion that mankind can and probably has been impacting global variations of climate. Three, they have all written peer reviewed articles on the matter. And four and most important, none of them think that impact is nearly as serious as is reported by the IPCC and other AGW groups. It is from the opinions of these fine folks that I draw my own conclusions.

Row - what about the bolded quote do you disagree with?

[corpgator]

The article is poorly written and so is the abstract. Here is a better explanation of it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...al_and_is.html

First, there are 11k articles on global warming. That doesn't mean there are only 11k scientists. Of those 11k, 4k state the cause of the warming. The other 7k are about global warming in general but do not posit the cause. That does not mean those 7k articles are stating that there is some other cause. They do not state a cause at all. Of those 4k that do state the cause, 97% say it is a man made.

[Matthanuf06]

All of this is so intellectually dishonest. Of course humans impact the environment, and of course it will cause us to be hotter. Anyone with an ounce of logic would know that.

The question has always been is our impact significant? How much of the global climate can be impacted by humans versus other factors? What is the economic and societal impact? How much economic loss will we have to incur to change it?

There is no consensus on any of the important questions. Sure, a bunch of concrete, cars, and factories will heat us up.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Row - what about the bolded quote do you disagree with?

It's not what the study says. If you want to read the fairly short abstract I linked to it should become clear since they discuss this number in some detail. Basically, these are papers which are focused on smaller climate study issues and don't address the bigger AGW picture at all. It doesn't mean those authors don't agree with the consensus.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Row - what about the bolded quote do you disagree with?

MJW is misunderstanding the paper. The 4,000 is not the number of scientists; its the number of papers. So it is not that 66% of climate scientists have no opinion;, it is likely that 66% of climate papers are about non-anthropogenic aspects of climate and therefore have no reason to talk about it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

MJW is misunderstanding the paper. The 4,000 is not the number of scientists; its the number of papers. So it is not that 66% of climate scientists have no opinion;, it is likely that 66% of climate papers are about non-anthropogenic aspects of climate and therefore have no reason to talk about it.

Fair enough. But the conclusions remains. Over 66% of all peer reviewed abstracts offered no opinion on the subject of anthropological global climate change.

And here is the most important point; most people, both scientists and non-scientists, that are today considered to be skeptics, do in fact acknowledge that mankind might be having *some* impact on the climate.

We just don't think it is the crises the alarmist make it out to be.

[g8orbill]

key words in first sentence

peer reviewed

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Fair enough. But the conclusions remains. Over 66% of all peer reviewed abstracts offered no opinion on the subject of anthropological global climate change.

Indeed. But to be fair, this is not unlike what I would expect, even with a strong consensus. These papers are likely not mentioning humans as the cause of climate change, because they are about completely separate topics - like volcanoes, sea level, clouds, ecosystems. I don't think is good evidence that many papers are ambivalent.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

And here is the most important point; most people, both scientists and non-scientists, that are today considered to be skeptics, do in fact acknowledge that mankind might be having *some* impact on the climate.

We just don't think it is the crises the alarmist make it out to be.

Well, I think there are two issues here: 1) Is what you are saying true? I don't know how to find good evidence for that. 2) Even if it is true, do we know whether people are accurately identifying "alarmists"? And do we know if people are accurately identifying the impact that true climate scientists are actually predicting? My guess is that people would be very surprised to find out that a fairly significant prediction is only an increase of 3 degrees.

PS I do plan to read the article that you posted for me in the other thread. I'll respond to let you know when I do.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

key words in first sentence

peer reviewed

So if you don't want climate scientists to review climate science papers, who do you would you prefer to review them?