Johnnie wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 5:24pm:
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that “the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”[2]
yes petal. Now let's see we have discussed Cook and discovered it wasn't 97% of scientists but 97.1% of 33.3% of abstracts. That should be a blow to his credibility. Strangely to the alarmist it is not.
Doran in conjunction with Zimmerman had a previous paper. They sent out questionnaires. 10,257 Earth Scientists answered. From this they took 79 as their select group. Why so small? Probably it was party time somewhere so it needed to be done fast. What did they "discover"?
Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” - 76of 79 said risen.Pre-1800's? That was the LIA and 3 people didn't think temperatures had risen.
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” How do you quantify significant? Is that like "more than 50%"? And yet Cook could only get 64 papers out of 11944 to come to that conclusion. The other thing was if they answered the survey with "remained relatively constant" to the fist question they weren't asked the second.
From the full set of questions -
"Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant4. No opinion/Don't know"
Really strange way to do climate research.
Anderegg had his own prior survey too.
"Abstract: The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise."
"Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility (PDF)"
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188Oreskes as well.
That sure sounds like a circle jerk and confirmation bias to me.