3 ms·

I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using

I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.

nkurz 11y ago
Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting
- midwest1 11y ago
  It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;) I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have to catch up on his blog.
- jolux 11y ago
  And here's an entry point as to why he's wrong: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony...
jolux 11y ago
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust....
- midwest1 11y ago
  Rather than take someone's word for it, its quite easy for anyone to verify for themselves that the Cook study is flawed. Read the abstract, and understand the premise... As was explained in the above postlink. Then visit web of science and verify that claims are true, which you can do yourself. If you do this, you'll note that the skepticalscience website is misrepresenting the Cook study, whether on purpose or by accident. Just because someone says that a thing is solid does not make it so. I am always willing to change my mind, but not on anyone's say-so. Particularly given giant red flags such as the Cook study.
  - jolux 11y ago
    "Phronesis seems to have a problem with things not mentioned, but is carefull not to mention a few things himself. I'll come to that, but first lets look at Doran and Zimmerman (2009). Phronesis dismisses that as a survey of just 75 people, but that is false. It was a survey of 3,146 scientists. Among those scientists, overall 82% answered yes to question 2: "Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" That question is closest to the proposition tested by Cook et al (2013). That low figure is because most scientists asked were not specialists in the relevant field, and consequently had little more knowledge on the topic than any non-scientist. Of the small portion of the those surveyed who were specialists in climate science, and actively publishing in the field so that they had up to date information, 97.4% agreed with question 2. There were only 77 of those, but they were part of a much larger sample. Turning now to Farnsworth and Lichter (2012), we find that it is a survey of scientists, 50% of whom were members of the AMS, and 50% of whom were members of the AGU, and all of whom were listed in the American Men and Women of Science. Their 489 respondents are therefore comparable to Doran and Zimmerman's 3,146 respondents, not to the 77 publishing specialists in climatology. Further (the relevant fact Phronesis did not reveal), only 41% of those 489 actively research in any aspect of global climate science. It is not clear how those 200 scientists compare to Doran and Zimmerman's classification. For Doran and Zimmerman, and active publisher must have published at least 50% "... of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change". That is, by a reasonable measure, at least 50% of their research must be on the topic. In contrast, the 200 scientists from Farnsworth and Lichter need only have actively researched on any aspect of climate science, ie, greater than 0% and need not have brought the research to publication. Nor need they be specialists in climatology. They are probably best equated with Doran and Zimmerman's active publishers. For the other 289, however, the closest category would be Doran and Zimmerman's non-publishers/non-climatologists. From all of Farnsworth and Lichter's respondents, 84% responded yes to the question: "In your opinion, is humanly induced global warming now occuring?" Assuming Farnsworth and Lichter's non-researchers resonded at the same rate as Doran and Zimmerman's non-publishers/non-climatologists (ie,76.6% affirmative), that represents 221 affirmative responses. That leaves only 190 affirmative responses to come from Farnsworth and Lichter's researchers, meaning that 95% of them responded affirmatively. Given the low bar on expertise set by Farnsworth and Lichter, and the strong correlation between expertise and current topic knowledge and acceptance of AGW found by Doran and Zimmerman, that 95% is surprisingly high. It shows, however, that the results of Farnsworth and Lichter is entirely consistent with those of Doran and Zimmerman, and also of Cook et al, (2013). Phronesis may rightly reject the assumption that Farnsworth and Lichter's non-researchers affirmed AGW at the same rate as Doran and Zimmerman's as speculative. The implication of that, however, is that no comparison can reasonably be made between their results and those of Doran and Zimmerman because they do not survey groups with the same demographics. Farnsworth and Lichter would then provide information about general scientific acceptance, but not specifically about acceptance by those with specialist knowledge in the field. Finally, Phronesis misrepresents the results of Farnworth and Lichter on expected outcomes. The question put, and results were: "Overall, if present climate trends continue, do you regard the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years as: Trivial to Catastrophic 1–3 (NET) 13 4–7 (NET) 44 8–10 (NET) 41 Don’t Know 2 Mean 6.6 " Thus, less than half (but only just less than half) think the results of current climate trends will be catastrophic, or near catastrophic. Slightly more, but still less than half think the results will be moderate, while only 13% think the results will be trivial or near trivial." -- From a comment. I'm done arguing over this, whether or not the specific number is 97% is not the issue here. The issue is falsely equating two sides of a debate as only existing to preserve their own existence when only one of the sides is actually supported by science.

nkurz 11y ago

Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting

midwest1 11y ago
It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;) I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have to catch up on his blog.
jolux 11y ago
And here's an entry point as to why he's wrong: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony...

jolux 11y ago

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust....

midwest1 11y ago
Rather than take someone's word for it, its quite easy for anyone to verify for themselves that the Cook study is flawed. Read the abstract, and understand the premise... As was explained in the above postlink. Then visit web of science and verify that claims are true, which you can do yourself. If you do this, you'll note that the skepticalscience website is misrepresenting the Cook study, whether on purpose or by accident. Just because someone says that a thing is solid does not make it so. I am always willing to change my mind, but not on anyone's say-so. Particularly given giant red flags such as the Cook study.
- jolux 11y ago
  "Phronesis seems to have a problem with things not mentioned, but is carefull not to mention a few things himself. I'll come to that, but first lets look at Doran and Zimmerman (2009). Phronesis dismisses that as a survey of just 75 people, but that is false. It was a survey of 3,146 scientists. Among those scientists, overall 82% answered yes to question 2: "Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" That question is closest to the proposition tested by Cook et al (2013). That low figure is because most scientists asked were not specialists in the relevant field, and consequently had little more knowledge on the topic than any non-scientist. Of the small portion of the those surveyed who were specialists in climate science, and actively publishing in the field so that they had up to date information, 97.4% agreed with question 2. There were only 77 of those, but they were part of a much larger sample. Turning now to Farnsworth and Lichter (2012), we find that it is a survey of scientists, 50% of whom were members of the AMS, and 50% of whom were members of the AGU, and all of whom were listed in the American Men and Women of Science. Their 489 respondents are therefore comparable to Doran and Zimmerman's 3,146 respondents, not to the 77 publishing specialists in climatology. Further (the relevant fact Phronesis did not reveal), only 41% of those 489 actively research in any aspect of global climate science. It is not clear how those 200 scientists compare to Doran and Zimmerman's classification. For Doran and Zimmerman, and active publisher must have published at least 50% "... of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change". That is, by a reasonable measure, at least 50% of their research must be on the topic. In contrast, the 200 scientists from Farnsworth and Lichter need only have actively researched on any aspect of climate science, ie, greater than 0% and need not have brought the research to publication. Nor need they be specialists in climatology. They are probably best equated with Doran and Zimmerman's active publishers. For the other 289, however, the closest category would be Doran and Zimmerman's non-publishers/non-climatologists. From all of Farnsworth and Lichter's respondents, 84% responded yes to the question: "In your opinion, is humanly induced global warming now occuring?" Assuming Farnsworth and Lichter's non-researchers resonded at the same rate as Doran and Zimmerman's non-publishers/non-climatologists (ie,76.6% affirmative), that represents 221 affirmative responses. That leaves only 190 affirmative responses to come from Farnsworth and Lichter's researchers, meaning that 95% of them responded affirmatively. Given the low bar on expertise set by Farnsworth and Lichter, and the strong correlation between expertise and current topic knowledge and acceptance of AGW found by Doran and Zimmerman, that 95% is surprisingly high. It shows, however, that the results of Farnsworth and Lichter is entirely consistent with those of Doran and Zimmerman, and also of Cook et al, (2013). Phronesis may rightly reject the assumption that Farnsworth and Lichter's non-researchers affirmed AGW at the same rate as Doran and Zimmerman's as speculative. The implication of that, however, is that no comparison can reasonably be made between their results and those of Doran and Zimmerman because they do not survey groups with the same demographics. Farnsworth and Lichter would then provide information about general scientific acceptance, but not specifically about acceptance by those with specialist knowledge in the field. Finally, Phronesis misrepresents the results of Farnworth and Lichter on expected outcomes. The question put, and results were: "Overall, if present climate trends continue, do you regard the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years as: Trivial to Catastrophic 1–3 (NET) 13 4–7 (NET) 44 8–10 (NET) 41 Don’t Know 2 Mean 6.6 " Thus, less than half (but only just less than half) think the results of current climate trends will be catastrophic, or near catastrophic. Slightly more, but still less than half think the results will be moderate, while only 13% think the results will be trivial or near trivial." -- From a comment. I'm done arguing over this, whether or not the specific number is 97% is not the issue here. The issue is falsely equating two sides of a debate as only existing to preserve their own existence when only one of the sides is actually supported by science.