Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
LOL
Nice weaselling there pal  If you had even bothered to explore the links I provided you would notice the dozens of paper references that are linked to in each and every one of the pieces of science I wrote. I posted the science, I posted the links, through those links you will find references to the sources which support the science. If you do not have the balls to examine it yourself, then...well, you're already cowering away from the challenge so I don't think there's much else you can do at this point 
Also, you wana see where they got that number, they explained it right here in the article which I conveniently supplied before:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
"The Team
A team of Skeptical Science volunteers proceeded to categorize the 12,000 abstracts – the most comprehensive survey of its kind to date. Each paper was rated independently at least twice, with the identity of the other co-rater not known. A dozen team members completed most of the 24,000+ ratings. There was no funding provided for this project; all the work was performed on a purely voluntary basis.
Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.
The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.
The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.
The 97% Consensus Results
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?
This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists
"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.
We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.
Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:
"≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]"
In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change."
Are there climate scientists that reject climate change? Yes. Are they in the minority? Yes. Does this statistic represent the entirety of climate science publications? It certainly is a good sample statistic, but like they said, the majority of climate papers (and I have noticed this too as I have done research for school) that they don't express that climate change is true or not, they know it's true and continue their research with this fact in mind. They don't have to restate it is fact, it is fact, we don't reaffirm evolution is true every time we discuss biology. If you have an issue with the science, discuss the science I have posted, otherwise go back to your cave and let the rest of humanity progress without your drivel.
As I said the last time you posted this claptrap: its claptrap.
If you survey 14,000 documents and only find 4000 that support AGW then the answer is ~35% percent - not 98%.
To represent it as anything else is to *lie*
And the fact that it is quoting a BS site like skeptical science is mere proof of the pudding.
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 4/1/2014 7:21:31 PM >
|
RE: A few facts about global warming/climate change. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread