3 ms·

> curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate

> curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.

claytongulick 7y ago
> 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
- Jackim 7y ago
  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024...
- aplummer 7y ago
  Hi conspiracy theorist! Full of references including that number: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
- NJRBailey 7y ago
  This paper seems to conclude that 97% of climate science research is in consensus with the idea that human activities are warming the Earth: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...
  - tito 7y ago
    Yes that’s the one cited by NASA as well. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > 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. This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of all publishing climate scientists. > 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. Here the story changes in two ways: - the number is related to research papers, not individual scientists, as is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below. The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far less warm in my experience. - the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of 11,944 total abstracts), not 97% > 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. Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, and the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques. > 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. Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph, that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') DO represent endorsement. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. > 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. Indeed.
- panny 7y ago
  You can find a good explanation of it here including the original study, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 The 97% part starts around 2:55 thru 7:40.

claytongulick 7y ago

> 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)

Jackim 7y ago
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024...
aplummer 7y ago
Hi conspiracy theorist! Full of references including that number: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
NJRBailey 7y ago
This paper seems to conclude that 97% of climate science research is in consensus with the idea that human activities are warming the Earth: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...
- tito 7y ago
  Yes that’s the one cited by NASA as well. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
- mistermann 7y ago
  > 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. This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of all publishing climate scientists. > 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. Here the story changes in two ways: - the number is related to research papers, not individual scientists, as is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below. The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far less warm in my experience. - the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of 11,944 total abstracts), not 97% > 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. Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, and the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques. > 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. Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph, that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') DO represent endorsement. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. > 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. Indeed.
panny 7y ago
You can find a good explanation of it here including the original study, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4 The 97% part starts around 2:55 thru 7:40.