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 05-20-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,380,733 times
Reputation: 4190

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
"[one study] surveyed about 1,000 active climate scientists, finding that 97 percent of them accepted the evidence for the consensus position that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last century."

The survey of 12,000 "papers" (all of them, read source for details on survey. .but it was all peer reviewed):

"So of those that expressed a position, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus and 2.8 percent rejected it according to the authors of those papers."'


So It seems 97% is pretty much on target, of those who expressed an opinion. Not all papers expressed any opinion (hence your confusion).



Survey of 12,000 studies finds strong agreement on climate change | Ars Technica
100 guys write a technical paper on a given subject. 34 take a positive position. 65 conclude there isn't enough info to take a position. 1 takes a negative position.

Later, somebody comes along and tracks their work and concludes that 98% of the 34 people who took a positive position still take a positive position, ergo, 97% of the 100 papers support the position.

That's your idea of science?

 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:29 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,191,011 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
100 guys write a technical paper on a given subject. 34 take a positive position. 65 conclude there isn't enough info to take a position. 1 takes a negative position.

Later, somebody comes along and tracks their work and concludes that 98% of the 34 people who took a positive position still take a positive position, ergo, 97% of the 100 papers support the position.

That's your idea of science?
Actually it was less than 1.

So approximately 0% of studies oppose the theory of AGW. Pretty sure if you were to ask the layman you'd get a lot more than that, why????
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,805 posts, read 14,869,714 times
Reputation: 16461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Illuminati, Obama, Communist conspiracy, paid off?

Why isn't there as much consensus in the non scientific community, what is with the discrepancy?

Is it that non scientists are smarter than scientists?

97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?
BBC News - Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

Quote:
Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.
So warming produces lower warming in the short term? Ok, got it!
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:37 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,902,573 times
Reputation: 1119
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
You seemed to think the "rejection" was significant and implied from your other comment on climate scientist they endorsed AGW. So I was asking why you think that number is significant. Yes I did indeed read the study.

This is the study in a nutshell. The supplemental data pdf I attached offers detail info on this "process".


They search only articles of 2 particular search phrases using this particular site.
quote:
In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for 'global warming' or 'global climate change'. Article type was restricted to 'article', excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types.

then they do this.(Who are these anonymous people? How were they chosen? 3rd party? Maybe in the supp data?)
updated: Actually the supp data says 2 anonymous people did the rating. Is that a typo? Maybe they made sure each abstract had 2 raters? Very vague.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91suppdata.pdf
quote:
Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. Initially, 27% of category ratings
and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed.

A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.

then they do this. (They imply further filtering which the study also seemed to imply was already done in the results so not sure what that is about)

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.

So this is ultimately the group that is used for the self-rating "results". That is what I meant by watering down. This whole study is filled with subjectivity.

It is also interesting that of there was more inconsistency with the actual perceived conclusions of the papers vs the random samples. So is seems possible either others interpret their work differently or the paper's authors base their personal opinions on something other than these papers?

Position Abstract rating Self-rating

Endorse AGW 791 (36.9%) 1342 (62.7%)
No AGW position or undecided 1339 (62.5%) 761 (35.5%)
Reject AGW 12 (0.6%) 39 (1.8%)

Last edited by CDusr; 05-20-2013 at 01:15 PM..
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,370,986 times
Reputation: 9616
why do the fascist liberals deny science...because they want to tax it


NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming

the globe evolves..the global enviroment changes..periodicly...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher

science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2

science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2

science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago

science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times

science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice

science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice

science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)

science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm


The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.



science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.

SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration



common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it


why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
 
Old 05-20-2013, 01:48 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,908,718 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Your list is cooked by Anthony Watts, your biased big oil god. It is monumental BS, and not worth reading.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy"...........David Suzuki recommends Skeptical Science for accurate science on the topic of climate change......There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts" Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dissecting Anthony Watt’s Pathetic Climate Disinformation on PBS | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Doing a great job digging yourself a deeper hole.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 03:00 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,872 times
Reputation: 4784
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?
That's because not all scientific research on global warming is about the causes, let alone whether or not those causes are man-made.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 03:09 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,872 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Actually it was less than 1.

So approximately 0% of studies oppose the theory of AGW. Pretty sure if you were to ask the layman you'd get a lot more than that, why????

Because the average layperson doesn't have the background in science to appreciate the scientific research, or even bother to read summary reports by experts.

One of the ways we can evaluate information is to look at the source. A scientist who has been studying global warming all of his or her professional life has more credibility than a non-scientist. You also need to look at bias. A scientist who is working for the oil industry is going to have less credibility than someone who is working at a non-profit university or climate center. Then you need to look at the evidence for and against something. There is a lot of scientific evidence in support of the fact that man-made increases in CO2 levels have contributed to accelerated global warming, and very little scientific evidence refuting this.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,380,733 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
That's because not all scientific research on global warming is about the causes, let alone whether or not those causes are man-made.
Then why did they make the assumption that they were about causes - at least in this case and instance?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 05:34 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,902,573 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Then why did they make the assumption that they were about causes - at least in this case and instance?
This whole study seems very delphi based. Really it doesn't amount to a hill of beans and has nothing to do with using the scientific method at all.
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