Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change Debate

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #195 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:34pm

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook.

I merely gave you another example. Grin

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased.

So I'm guessing you haven't read that paper either.

"The results suggest a broad consensus that climate change is occurring: when asked 'When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?', 93.6% of respondents across all disciplines indicated that they thought temperatures have risen, 2.1% thought temperatures had remained relatively constant, 0.6% thought temperatures had fallen, and 3.7% indicated they had no opinion or did not know. "

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

Just have temperatures risen. Wink

And I see they still quote Cook et al. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60422
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #196 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 5:47pm

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

Why is this happening?

It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.

But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #197 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:34pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook.

I merely gave you another example. Grin

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased.

So I'm guessing you haven't read that paper either.

"The results suggest a broad consensus that climate change is occurring: when asked 'When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?', 93.6% of respondents across all disciplines indicated that they thought temperatures have risen, 2.1% thought temperatures had remained relatively constant, 0.6% thought temperatures had fallen, and 3.7% indicated they had no opinion or did not know. "

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

Just have temperatures risen. Wink

And I see they still quote Cook et al. Grin

Supports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you. Sorry, no cigar. And it seems that Cook doubled down on the climate scientists' consensus:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016): This follow-up study by Cook et al. reaffirmed the consensus finding and addressed criticisms of their 2013 paper. It concluded that the consensus remains robust.

Keep flailing about, Lee. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #198 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:33pm

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 5:47pm:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

Why is this happening?

It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.

But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes:

"So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real."
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative:

"And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers:

• suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement;

• blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing;

• suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters.

That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative.

All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it."

Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-...

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #199 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:37pm

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

upports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you.

Wow. You really have it bad. From the title of your reference -

"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists"

So after being told, erroneously, for over 10 years, that there is 97% of climate scientists, now the uneducated public accepts the meme. Grin

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016):

Oh dear. They cite themselves. Talk about circular reasoning. Grin

But tell me how 32.6% of papers, according to Cook et al, can be magically transformed to 97%. You really are no good at maths. Wink

They even cite Oreskes 928 papers where she didn't look for sceptical papers. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21502 Gender:	Re: Climate Change Debate Reply #200 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:42pm Oh dear. Linus quotes the Washpo. Next he'll be citing the LAtrineTimes. And attributing extreme weather events?
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60422
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #201 - Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:52pm

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:33pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 5:47pm:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

Why is this happening?

It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.

But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes:

"So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real."
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative:

"And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers:

• suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement;

• blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing;

• suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters.

That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative.

All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it."

Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-...

You are but one example of TOTALLY unscientific, totally non-dispassionate, totally not objective "climate crisis" fever. You are dripping with agitation and seething partisanship. If you really had science on your side you wouldn't need to be so Gretaesque.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21502 Gender:	Re: Climate Change Debate Reply #202 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 2:37pm He just doesn't want to read/comprehend papers.
Back to top	IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #203 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:37pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

upports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you.

Wow. You really have it bad. From the title of your reference -

"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists"

So after being told, erroneously, for over 10 years, that there is 97% of climate scientists, now the uneducated public accepts the meme. Grin

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016):

Oh dear. They cite themselves. Talk about circular reasoning. Grin

But tell me how 32.6% of papers, according to Cook et al, can be magically transformed to 97%. You really are no good at maths. Wink

They even cite Oreskes 928 papers where she didn't look for sceptical papers. Roll Eyes

He noted the criticisms and responded to them. You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus.

You are only nitpicking Lee, failing to see the forest for the trees- typical of an AGW denier. And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing. Selective filtering, huh? Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #204 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:32pm

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:52pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:33pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 5:47pm:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

Why is this happening?

It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.

But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes:

"So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real."
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative:

"And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers:

• suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement;

• blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing;

• suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters.

That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative.

All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it."

Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-...

You are but one example of TOTALLY unscientific, totally non-dispassionate, totally not objective "climate crisis" fever. You are dripping with agitation and seething partisanship. If you really had science on your side you wouldn't need to be so Gretaesque.

And you're hoisted on your own petard.

You have AGW denialism is "dripping with agitation and seetihing partisnaship".

You found an article of one climate scientist, who doesn't even reject AGW, but made an unfair claim that Nature only publishes what it wants to hear. And that was shown to be false. Deal with it.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #205 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 5:33pm

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

He noted the criticisms and responded to them.

And stuck to his methodology and outcomes. That is 32.6% of papers endorsed AGW at some level. Not +50% that level. You are such a denier.

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus.

So, so far I have cherry-picked two studies. Wink

Do you want me to try a third?

Here goes -

"Table 2. Rating of climate papers, as per C13.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming 'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. e.g. research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming —
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that humans' role in recent global warming is uncertain/undefined 'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'
(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly. e.g. proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission' '

"Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts.
Rating/categorization # of abstracts
1—Explicit endorsement with quantification 19
Impacts 7
Methods 9
Mitigation 3
2—Explicit endorsement without quantification 413
Impacts 204
Methods 78
Mitigation 124
Not climate-related 4
Opinion 1
Paleoclimate 2
3—Implicit endorsement 460
Impacts 95
Methods 119
Mitigation 199
Not climate-related 43
Paleoclimate 4
4a—No position 2104
Impacts 915
Methods 790
Mitigation 60
Not climate-related 235
Opinion 3
Paleoclimate 101
5—Implicit rejection 2
Methods 2
6—Explicit rejection without quantification 1
Paleoclimate 1
7—Explicit rejection with quantification 1
Methods 1
Grand Total 3000 "

From this it is clear - 19 + 413 + 460 = 892 papers out of 3000.

Now a normal person would have said 892/3000 or 29.7%. But NO, according to their methodology - "

"Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%"

So they exclude the actual papers and then calculate the effective scepticism using the bulk of papers. Grin

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Lynas et al 2021.

You will probably disagree with this as well.Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing

Wow. Fancy having 97% pushed down your throat and the numbers go up. Who woudda thunk? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60422
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #206 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 6:27pm

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 5:33pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

He noted the criticisms and responded to them.

And stuck to his methodology and outcomes. That is 32.6% of papers endorsed AGW at some level. Not +50% that level. You are such a denier.

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus.

So, so far I have cherry-picked two studies. Wink

Do you want me to try a third?

Here goes -

"Table 2. Rating of climate papers, as per C13.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming 'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. e.g. research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming —
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that humans' role in recent global warming is uncertain/undefined 'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'
(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly. e.g. proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission' '

"Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts.
Rating/categorization # of abstracts
1—Explicit endorsement with quantification 19
Impacts 7
Methods 9
Mitigation 3
2—Explicit endorsement without quantification 413
Impacts 204
Methods 78
Mitigation 124
Not climate-related 4
Opinion 1
Paleoclimate 2
3—Implicit endorsement 460
Impacts 95
Methods 119
Mitigation 199
Not climate-related 43
Paleoclimate 4
4a—No position 2104
Impacts 915
Methods 790
Mitigation 60
Not climate-related 235
Opinion 3
Paleoclimate 101
5—Implicit rejection 2
Methods 2
6—Explicit rejection without quantification 1
Paleoclimate 1
7—Explicit rejection with quantification 1
Methods 1
Grand Total 3000 "

From this it is clear - 19 + 413 + 460 = 892 papers out of 3000.

Now a normal person would have said 892/3000 or 29.7%. But NO, according to their methodology - "

"Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%"

So they exclude the actual papers and then calculate the effective scepticism using the bulk of papers. Grin

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Lynas et al 2021.

You will probably disagree with this as well.Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing

Wow. Fancy having 97% pushed down your throat and the numbers go up. Who woudda thunk? Grin

Methodology. Always check the methodology.
A statistical analysis of key words.

"We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."
That sounds eerily like a Chinese or North Korean or Soviet press release on their election results.
And who is the author of this 99% consensus article??
Step forward, Mark Lynas, a British author and journalist whose work is focused on environmentalism and climate change. He has written for the New Statesman, The Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK, as well as the New York Times and Washington Post in the United States; he also worked on and appeared in the film The Age of Stupid. He was born in Fiji, grew up in Peru, Spain and the United Kingdom and holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh.[1] He has published several books including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (2007) and The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans (2011). Lynas is research and climate lead for the Alliance for Science and is co-founder of the pro-science environmental network RePlanet. Since 2009 he has been climate advisor to former president of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed.
Ah...

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #207 - Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science.
But anyway, this paper states the overwhelming consensus:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60422
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #208 - Sep 12^th, 2023 at 11:16am

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science.
But anyway, this paper states the overwhelming consensus:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cook, John (Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia ; School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia ; Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Debate
Reply #209 - Sep 12^th, 2023 at 6:51pm

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science.

So then you can tell us exactly what climate scientists agree on. Please tell us.

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming.

Poor Linus. Doesn't understand the papers or can't be bothered reading them. Relies on others to do it for him; but only if it agrees with his preconceptions. Grin

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.

There's that link again the Linus doesn't want to read or comprehend. He doesn't want to deep dive into what the papers actually say. What a tosser. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged