97% and Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
I realized that I wasn't quite sure where exactly the 97% figure came from. I found this article that summarized it nicely.

The 97% and Climate Change

The statistic came from...
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

The article goes on to describe some possible causes and models for the future, but at least now we can agree where that statistic came from. Simply put, 97% of the abstracts agree that human are a cause of climate change.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
97% sounds like a really solid consensus of those experts who actually study the climate.

Really, can't see just move on and support some actual actions beyond acting like the proverbial ostrich?
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
gcthomas said:
97% sounds like a really solid consensus of those experts who actually study the climate.

Really, can't see just move on and support some actual actions beyond acting like the proverbial ostrich?
Click to expand...
Exactly. My point was a bit more specific regarding the statistic. Both sides of the aisle exaggerate the statistic without any genuine understanding of where it actually came from.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."



The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Click to expand...

Once again, doctored data.

The real number is 1-3%.

Here is the pdf if you are literate.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
You're starting to sound like a bot since you continuously ignore the evidence showing how wrong the 97% "consensus" stats are.
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
brewmama said:
You're starting to sound like a bot since you continuously ignore the evidence showing how wrong the 97% "consensus" stats are.
Click to expand...
The consensus is correct given the samples they took the data from and conclusion they came to. There is no debate here. The great news is the conclusion is what it is, whether you believe in it or not.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Quetzal said:
The consensus is correct given the samples they took the data from and conclusion they came to. There is no debate here. The great news is the conclusion is what it is, whether you believe in it or not.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. You used the John Cook study, which is probably the most dishonest of all of them. Once again I'll submit a rebuttal, not for you since you clearly just ignore facts, but for anyone foolish enough to think you know what you are talking about.

"This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers — a stunning and unprecedented method. I’m awaiting word on retraction from the journal, but I think we already know that this paper is vacated. It doesn’t represent knowledge of the consensus.
…
I want to note here that the authors are still misrepresenting their 97% figure as consisting of “climate papers”. For an upcoming event, Cook claims “They found that among relevant climate papers, 97% endorsed the consensus that humans were causing global warming.” Clearly, this is false. There is no way we’ll be able to call the above papers “relevant climate papers”."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...w-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

"To the credit of the researchers they made all their results available in a searchable database. Their rating system is online as well. There are 7 levels of endorsement, going from quantified endorsement of AGW all the way down to a quantified rejection of AGW. Seems fair enough. But here is the issue. Only the first category can be regarded as a real or strong endorsement of AGW. Here is the description of category 1:

1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification
1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
1.2 Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement – that would be implicit.

Now specifically look at 1.1. This comes close to the iconic statement from the IPCC AR4 report which said that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Now if 97% of the abstracts would repeat in slightly varying terms this major conclusion, than at least the conclusion of the survey would be more or less fair. However the survey doesn’t come even close.

Brandon Shollenberger, who is guest blogger at The Blackboard, was the first who reported that actually only 65 papers have been rated “category 1”. Yes that’s right, only 65 abstracts clearly “mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)”. 65 on a total of 12,000 is 0.5%. So a completely fair conclusion from their survey is that only 1 in 200 abstracts explicitly mentioned that humans are dominating climate. If you ignore the 8000 papers that were labelled category 4 (neutral, meaning having no position on AGW) the 65 would be 1.6%. The paper reported that only 78 papers (1.9% if you ignore the 8000 neutral abstracts) rejected AGW. (to be fair, as you can see in the table below only 10 papers fall in category 7 and therefore (7.1) “explicitly reject or minimise anthropogenic warming with a specific figure”.)"
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/

"UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)


links available here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
As impressive as your post might seem, it really isn't. Your sources are Breitbart, Fox News, Friends of Science... is this a joke?
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Quetzal said:
As impressive as your post might seem, it really isn't. Your sources are Breitbart, Fox News, Friends of Science... is this a joke?
Click to expand...

Can you please be specific in your rebuttal, as I was? Is this your way of ignoring any facts that point out your errors?
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
brewmama said:
Can you please be specific in your rebuttal, as I was? Is this your way of ignoring any facts that point out your errors?
Click to expand...
I am questioning the authenticity of your sources. I am challenging that the sources you provided are largely influenced by political bias in lieu of data.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Quetzal said:
I am questioning the authenticity of your sources. I am challenging that the sources you provided are largely influenced by political bias in lieu of data.
Click to expand...

And yet you haven't read any of them, and have no idea what they say. It's what I knew you would do, as I already said.
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

New member
brewmama said:
And yet you haven't read any of them, and have no idea what they say. It's what I knew you would do, as I already said.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're right. I have no reason to. The data I am familiar with is supported by federal agencies and independent research conducted all over the globe. Yours, on the other hand, is not. I know where I am placing my bets.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Quetzal said:
Nope, you're right. I have no reason to. The data I am familiar with is supported by federal agencies and independent research conducted all over the globe. Yours, on the other hand, is not. I know where I am placing my bets.
Click to expand...

You have no idea where my data comes from since you refuse to even look at it. This is how the climate alarmist game is played. You have no clue what the opposition has to say. And it includes plenty of scientists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top