Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-19-2013, 09:55 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,902,063 times
Reputation: 1119

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
No, I am not confused. I stated the conclusions correctly.

To quote: "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."


Not all scientific papers on global warming are about the causes of global warming; thus 66 % of abstracts did not address the issue of whether or not the causes are man-made. Of those that did, the majority endorsed man-made causes; only a small percentage rejected that theory.

Of 20 years of research on global warming, only 0.7 % of the research papers rejected man-made causes.
Actually it isn't 20yrs of research. If you read the study you would see it is far more watered down than that. Even so I am not sure how you are claiming an "endorsement" of AGW among climate scientist from this?

 
Old 05-19-2013, 10:02 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,902,063 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
Scientists make up the most controlled profession on the planet.
Apparently, these people equate "peer review" with consensus.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

quote:
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists.

NM there is really nothing about this study that is scientific.

This is the supplemental data.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91suppdata.pdf

Last edited by CDusr; 05-19-2013 at 10:41 PM..
 
Old 05-19-2013, 11:23 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Actually it isn't 20yrs of research. If you read the study you would see it is far more watered down than that. Even so I am not sure how you are claiming an "endorsement" of AGW among climate scientist from this?
Yes it is 20 years of peer-reviewed research, actually. It was based on a sample of ~12,000 research articles, but most research is based on samples. I have read the study, have you?

To quote they"examined 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

It's not me claiming an endorsement of AGW, it's the study authors: "The number of papers rejecting AGW 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."

Sixty-six percent of the publications made no endorsement of man-made climate change one way or the other.

Thirty-seven percent of the publications expressed an opinion on whether climate change has man-made causes. Of those, 97 % endorsed the fact that climate change is due to man-made causes, and only 0.7 % did not endorse that view.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
 
Old 05-19-2013, 11:25 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Apparently, these people equate "peer review" with consensus.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

quote:
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists.

NM there is really nothing about this study that is scientific.

This is the supplemental data.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91suppdata.pdf
They are not equating peer-review with consensus. They only considered research articles that appeared in peer-reviewed publications since that is a standard for ensuring that a study has some validity and credibility.
 
Old 05-19-2013, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,379,976 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Yes it is 20 years of peer-reviewed research, actually. It was based on a sample of ~12,000 research articles, but most research is based on samples. I have read the study, have you?

To quote they"examined 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

It's not me claiming an endorsement of AGW, it's the study authors: "The number of papers rejecting AGW 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."

Sixty-six percent of the publications made no endorsement of man-made climate change one way or the other.

Thirty-seven percent of the publications expressed an opinion on whether climate change has man-made causes. Of those, 97 % endorsed the fact that climate change is due to man-made causes, and only 0.7 % did not endorse that view.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
So 2/3 of the papers on global warming didn't endorse AGW translates into 97% of the scientists support AGW?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:51 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,190,626 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
So 2/3 of the papers on global warming didn't endorse AGW translates into 97% of the scientists support AGW?
And approximately 0% opposed the theory. Why doesn't trend correlate in the layman community ???
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,379,976 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
And approximately 0% opposed the theory. Why doesn't trend correlate in the layman community ???
That's irrelevant.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 01:00 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,190,626 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
That's irrelevant.
That's the entire premise of the thread, if you think the thread is irrelevant, why are you posting on it?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 01:55 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
The vast majority of climatologists agree that the evidence is over-whelming that global warming is the result of man-made releases of carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere.
There is nothing to support your assertion, I've bolded the statement often used in the media and elsewhere. This is based on a single study often referred to the Doran study which I know thoroughly, is this the source you are using as reference to make this claim?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:10 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
That's the entire premise of the thread, if you think the thread is irrelevant, why are you posting on it?
You're missing the point Don, just becsue a paper endorses AGW doesn't necessarily mean it endorses AGW as the driver of Climate change. Within those papers you're going to find vastly differing views on how much man is effecting climate ranging from negligible to major.

Climate has been changing forever, we don't even have to go that far back in recorded history to see some fairly major events such Medieval Warming period followed by the Little Ice age. These are both fairly large changes in climate that could not have been driven by man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top