thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 1:20pm:


OK Once again i went to AI.

For Cook et al (97%) -

AI: That’s broadly accurate, but it combines two different measures: surveys of actively publishing climate scientists have generally found about 97% agreement, while a 2021 analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers found agreement exceeded 99%—and another estimate was over 99.9%. So “97% to over 99.9%” is a reasonable summary of findings, but those percentages aren’t all estimates of the same group or based on the same method.

Me: The problem in your answer is that the metic used s not right. For Cook et al In the text of the paper "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." That's all papers.

AI: For the abstract ratings, Cook et al. classified all 11,944 papers: 66.4% expressed no position, 32.6% endorsed human-caused global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were uncertain. The 97.1% figure is not the share of all papers; it is the share endorsing AGW among abstracts that took a position. The authors’ self-ratings produced a separate 97.2% figure, also among papers expressing a position.

I should have kept those denominators explicit rather than presenting the percentages as a single range. The 97% figure from surveys of actively publishing climate scientists is a different measure again, not the Cook paper-abstract metric.

Me: The Lynas et al paper uses confusing standards.  They did 3,000 papers.  892 papers apparently endorsed AGW, but 460 of those were implicit, They didn't actually say so. 2104 held no position. When they did the calculation they actually used an inverse ratio where the no position papers actually became proxies fo AGW

AI: That’s a fair criticism of the headline calculation. In Lynas et al.’s sample of 3,000 abstracts, 892 were rated as endorsing AGW (19 explicit quantitative, 413 explicit non-quantitative, and 460 implicit), 2,104 were rated “no position,” and four were classified as rejecting it. The 460 implicit endorsements are interpretations of what abstracts imply, not explicit statements by those papers. ResearchGate

The 99.85% figure comes from subtracting the four rejecting papers from 2,718 papers after excluding 282 classified as non-climate-related. That calculation treats every remaining paper that did not reject AGW—including the no-position papers—as not disputing it. It therefore measures absence of an identified rejection, not the proportion of papers that explicitly endorse AGW. Calling it an endorsement rate would overstate what the abstract ratings show.

So much for your research.

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 1:20pm:


More people, more roads, more buildings more UHI.

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 1:20pm:



You mean they don't get taxes and royalties?

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 1:20pm:


Then why aren't government clearing away red and green trape to allow it to happen?

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 11:47am:


I'm revealing your pretentiousness about knowing about economic history and theory.