• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

That 97% number[W:171]

tuhaybey said:
Expert credibility in climate change
Click to expand...

"We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n=903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n=472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups. . . .


"To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (N[CE] = 817; N[UE] = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers."​

817 out of 908 'expert' researchers is 89.98%, not 97%.


A more accurate way of looking at the results would be that of the 903 pro-AGW scientists considered, 90.5% passed the 20-paper expertise threshold, while only 19.7% of the 472 anti-AGW scientists considered did.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
"We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n=903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n=472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups. . . .


"To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (N[CE] = 817; N[UE] = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers."​

817 out of 908 'expert' researchers is 89.98%, not 97%.


A more accurate way of looking at the results would be that of the 903 pro-AGW scientists considered, 90.5% passed the 20-paper expertise threshold, while only 19.7% of the 472 anti-AGW scientists considered did.
Click to expand...


This is NOT how Scientific Peer review works! See my post #86 above.

Peer review is cross disciplinary, and deliberately seeks out people with scientific training, but widely varied backgrounds and detail knowledge.

Your Opinion Poll of "Climate Scientists" might be very Entertaining and Political, but it has Zero Credibility when reviewing the validity of a scientific theory.

Political Popularity contests among Elite, Exclusive, Employment Social Clubs is not a basis for the Scientific Method.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
This is NOT how Scientific Peer review works! See my post #86 above.

Peer review is cross disciplinary, and deliberately seeks out people with scientific training, but widely varied backgrounds and detail knowledge.

Your Opinion Poll of "Climate Scientists" might be very Entertaining and Political, but it has Zero Credibility when reviewing the validity of a scientific theory.

Political Popularity contests among Elite, Exclusive, Employment Social Clubs is not a basis for the Scientific Method.

-
Click to expand...

The post, of course, had nothing to do with how peer review works.

And it's pretty clear in science that opinion is driven by published papers. And virtually none of them dispute AGW theory.
 
Threegoofs said:
The post, of course, had nothing to do with how peer review works.

And it's pretty clear in science that opinion is driven by published papers. And virtually none of them dispute AGW theory.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't work in the field of science.

By design, as long as you meet the requirements for decorum, language and documentation, anyone can get a paper on a theory published.

It is not the fact a paper is published which matters. Just about anyone can get a paper published. Then the Community of Scientists publishes reviews of the theory, criticisms of its methods and data, alternate theories, and better explanations.

It is the response to the publication which matters.

AGW may be very popular among "Climate Scientists", it is laughed at and ignored by the rest of the scientific community.

Your AGW "Climate Scientists" have about the same level of respect and acceptance as their theory.


The OP shows how the 97% number ( which is actually off ) is thrown around as if it is "Proof" of the AGW theory, and it is often attempted to be used as a means of stating that the "The Debate is Over, AGW is proven"...

Well, the 97% is not a number which has anything to do with development of a body of scientific evidence and peer review for a theory.

The people being polled are too narrow a group and have too much to gain fiscally, for their opinion to be valid as part of the Scientific Method.

-
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
And it's pretty clear in science that opinion is driven by published papers. And virtually none of them dispute AGW theory.
Click to expand...

From the study above it seems that scientists who are critical enough of the IPCC/AGW to have actively signed their names to statements against it have contributed to thousands of climate publications. (From the graphs, over 20 UE scientists published 50-250 papers, the rest out of 93 published 20-50 papers = >2500 and a further 379 have published up to 19 papers; a total well over 3000 seems probable, though many of those would be overlaps.)

Even if only a third or a quarter or a fifth of those papers by anti-IPCC scientists raised criticisms of AGW, the earlier claim that only 24 climate papers in 1991-2012 "reject global warming" looks very much like yet another bit of propaganda which is disingenuous at best.
 
Kurmugeon said:
Clearly you don't work in the field of science.

By design, as long as you meet the requirements for decorum, language and documentation, anyone can get a paper on a theory published.

It is not the fact a paper is published which matters. Just about anyone can get a paper published. Then the Community of Scientists publishes reviews of the theory, criticisms of its methods and data, alternate theories, and better explanations.

It is the response to the publication which matters.

AGW may be very popular among "Climate Scientists", it is laughed at and ignored by the rest of the scientific community.

Your AGW "Climate Scientists" have about the same level of respect and acceptance as their theory.


The OP shows how the 97% number ( which is actually off ) is thrown around as if it is "Proof" of the AGW theory, and it is often attempted to be used as a means of stating that the "The Debate is Over, AGW is proven"...

Well, the 97% is not a number which has anything to do with development of a body of scientific evidence and peer review for a theory.

The people being polled are too narrow a group and have too much to gain fiscally, for their opinion to be valid as part of the Scientific Method.

-
Click to expand...

LOL.

Actually, I have several scientific papers published.

I really think you should visit the CT section of the forum. You'll love it there.
 
Mithrae said:
From the study above it seems that scientists who are critical enough of the IPCC/AGW to have actively signed their names to statements against it have contributed to thousands of climate publications. (From the graphs, over 20 UE scientists published 50-250 papers, the rest out of 93 published 20-50 papers = >2500 and a further 379 have published up to 19 papers; a total well over 3000 seems probable, though many of those would be overlaps.)

Even if only a third or a quarter or a fifth of those papers by anti-IPCC scientists raised criticisms of AGW, the earlier claim that only 24 climate papers in 1991-2012 "reject global warming" looks very much like yet another bit of propaganda which is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

I think you confuse not being a supporter with an actively opposing paper.

If there was a significant minority of people who actively fought the AGW theory, you should see many more papers published that actively try to overthrow the theory.

But it ain't happening.

That's clear. Not disingenuous.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think you confuse not being a supporter with an actively opposing paper.

If there was a significant minority of people who actively fought the AGW theory, you should see many more papers published that actively try to overthrow the theory.

But it ain't happening.

That's clear. Not disingenuous.
Click to expand...

There are many more than 24 papers which seriously criticised AGW in the period 1991-2012. Even Cook et al found 78 for the period 1991 to May 2012. Either some small bias on their part, or gross bias in PopTech's list of 1350+ papers, would suggest a number in the low hundreds. (Consistent also with an estimated thousand-odd papers published by anti-IPCC folk in that other study.)

Therefore, the pie chart you posted earlier suggesting only 24 papers which "reject global warming" is disingenuous at best.


#############
#############


tuhaybey said:
97%-98% is of the active publishers. First paragraph.
Click to expand...

No, the 10+% of unconvinced scientists were all above the 20-paper publication threshold.

The 97% figure was attained from a futher, arbitrarily higher threshold: The "most actively publishing" as they call it in the abstract.



No blame to you for being misled. It just irks me that some folk, even some researchers, feel the need to resort to these kinds of tricks to make the 'consensus' seem even more impressive than it already is.
 
Last edited:
Rainman05 said:
You came with an article from the daily caller that:
a) falsely says that meteorologists are climate scientists.
b) has done a "survey", lol.

Here's the riposte.

Climate Change: Consensus

Here's NASA. The one above is the scientific consensus. The one below is to see where we are at.

Climate Change and Global Warming: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

I had nearly the same post prepared but luckily I scrolled down and found yours first. I was going to include this...

Climate Change: Key Indicators

I realize NASA doesn't have nearly the gravitas of Wikipedia, the Daily Caller, or some blog found on a dumpster-diving expedition, but I'll take it. If I need another opinion, I might go look at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

Global Climate Change Indicators | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
 
More interesting facts about the oft repeated 97% mantra.


"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

And here an alarmist himself comes close to admitting the 97% number is BS.

"UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I’ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was manmade or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).)

Original post, with clarification: A new study confirms there is strong scientific consensus that human activities are causing the planet to warm. 97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds.


97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?
 
lifeisshort said:
More interesting facts about the oft repeated 97% mantra.


"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

And here an alarmist himself comes close to admitting the 97% number is BS.

"UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I’ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was manmade or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).)

Original post, with clarification: A new study confirms there is strong scientific consensus that human activities are causing the planet to warm. 97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds.


97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?
Click to expand...

Just open a scientific journal on climate one day. Seriously. The evidence of a consensus is overwhelming if you read scientific literature as opposed to Forbes.
 
Threegoofs said:
Just open a scientific journal on climate one day. Seriously. The evidence of a consensus is overwhelming if you read scientific literature as opposed to Forbes.
Click to expand...

Oh really?


"In 2013, a paper by Cook et al. published in Environmental Research Letters claimed their review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggesting that human activity is responsible for some warming. This exercise in abstract counting doesn’t support the alarmist claim that climate change is both man-made and dangerous, and doesn’t even support the IPCC’s claim that a majority of global warming in the 20th century was man-made.

This study was quickly debunked by a paper by Legates et al. published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Scientists whose work questions the consensus, including Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, protested that Cook misrepresented their work. Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”

Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus | Heartland Institute
 
Mithrae said:
There are many more than 24 papers which seriously criticised AGW in the period 1991-2012. Even Cook et al found 78 for the period 1991 to May 2012. Either some small bias on their part, or gross bias in PopTech's list of 1350+ papers, would suggest a number in the low hundreds. (Consistent also with an estimated thousand-odd papers published by anti-IPCC folk in that other study.)

Therefore, the pie chart you posted earlier suggesting only 24 papers which "reject global warming" is disingenuous at best.


No blame to you for being misled. It just irks me that some folk, even some researchers, feel the need to resort to these kinds of tricks to make the 'consensus' seem even more impressive than it already is.
Click to expand...

You might want to take it up with James Lawrence Powell, who has done the analysis. The reason the numbers differ is probbly based upon search criteria.

I agree, its probably a bit more overdramatic than it needs to be, but I think gives the general gist that this scientific theory of carbon causing greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not seriously challenged by any scientific papers. When a theory is even somewhat questioned a preface of a paper will usually state it fairly conservatively: "it is believed.... evidence suggests" etc. You'll note that this is rarely done with a paper on AGW. Its stated as fact, much like plate tectonics, evolution or the mechanism of fusion for the suns energy.

Either way, you can email your critique to Dr. Powell. jpowell@usc.edu

He's actually looking for papers that he missed, so if you have some, he's more than happy to look at them. He even has a page where he responds to those people who emailed him about this: Responses to Emails
 
lifeisshort said:
Oh really?


"In 2013, a paper by Cook et al. published in Environmental Research Letters claimed their review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggesting that human activity is responsible for some warming. This exercise in abstract counting doesn’t support the alarmist claim that climate change is both man-made and dangerous, and doesn’t even support the IPCC’s claim that a majority of global warming in the 20th century was man-made.

This study was quickly debunked by a paper by Legates et al. published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Scientists whose work questions the consensus, including Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, protested that Cook misrepresented their work. Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”

Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus | Heartland Institute
Click to expand...

That paper is a joke. I mean, look at the author... Christopher Monckton, who even deniers here admit is a serial liar.

The paper is not even a stand alone paper, its a critique of a different paper that talks about agnotology, the study of ignorance.

Tiny, tiny journal, dicey authors, dicey arguments, apparently, and three cheers from Heartland. Sounds iffy to me.

Id give you the paper that is rebutting it, but you seem allergic to scientific stuff, so I'll give you a blog.

HotWhopper: Anthony Watts thinks it's April the first at WUWT!
 
Threegoofs said:
That paper is a joke. I mean, look at the author... Christopher Monckton, who even deniers here admit is a serial liar.

The paper is not even a stand alone paper, its a critique of a different paper that talks about agnotology, the study of ignorance.

Tiny, tiny journal, dicey authors, dicey arguments, apparently, and three cheers from Heartland. Sounds iffy to me.

Id give you the paper that is rebutting it, but you seem allergic to scientific stuff, so I'll give you a blog.

HotWhopper: Anthony Watts thinks it's April the first at WUWT!
Click to expand...

That's all you guys have is to attack the source. Anyone and everyone that disagrees with the AGW hypotheses is a liar. The PROVEN liars are the AGW itself with climategate.
The link I gave you in post 113 from an alarmist himself admits to exactly what the so called deniers are accusing the alarmist of. I noticed you ignored that. Then there is the fact that none of you in here can give me a list of the 97% of scientist and that says it all. You have painted yourselves into a corner here with lies and there is no escape. You are like Saddam saying he got 90% of the vote. Yes he got 90% of the vote of the ballots he allowed to be counted and that is exactly what the AGW zealots have done.
 
lifeisshort said:
That's all you guys have is to attack the source. Anyone and everyone that disagrees with the AGW hypotheses is a liar. The PROVEN liars are the AGW itself with climategate.
The link I gave you in post 113 from an alarmist himself admits to exactly what the so called deniers are accusing the alarmist of. I noticed you ignored that. Then there is the fact that none of you in here can give me a list of the 97% of scientist and that says it all. You have painted yourselves into a corner here with lies and there is no escape. You are like Saddam saying he got 90% of the vote. Yes he got 90% of the vote of the ballots he allowed to be counted and that is exactly what the AGW zealots have done.
Click to expand...

Look. You've seen multiple studies supporting the consensus and you present incredibly weak evidence against it.

When someone shows something in the scientific literature, and your response is a Heritage Foundation link, it's not 'attacking the source' as much as pointing out the astonishing weakness of said source.

Again, the list is published monthly in multiple climatology journals.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look. You've seen multiple studies supporting the consensus and you present incredibly weak evidence against it.

When someone shows something in the scientific literature, and your response is a Heritage Foundation link, it's not 'attacking the source' as much as pointing out the astonishing weakness of said source.

Again, the list is published monthly in multiple climatology journals.
Click to expand...

If the list of the 97% is so easy to find then post it. I'll be waiting.
 
lifeisshort said:
If the list of the 97% is so easy to find then post it. I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath. We've done a lot of homework for you already, and you seem to be resistant to factual information.

Besides, I haven't seen you post your list of the 3%, either.
 
Threegoofs said:
Don't hold your breath. We've done a lot of homework for you already, and you seem to be resistant to factual information.

Besides, I haven't seen you post your list of the 3%, either.
Click to expand...

As I thought. You still can't find a list of the 97%. I would assume you would now stop quoting a number that is quite obviously a complete fabrication but :lol:
 
lifeisshort said:
As I thought. You still can't find a list of the 97%. I would assume you would now stop quoting a number that is quite obviously a complete fabrication but :lol:
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that you actually think you have a valid argument here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom