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.
Get your tin toil hat on, why do 97% of scientific studies agree that current climate change is manmade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
Care to elaborate, public are not science either, whatever that means, why is there a discrepancy with the general public?
The general public is variously dispersed from "peer control" enough so that when it looks up in the sky, it can observe and announce. Sort of like Galileo with his telescope, but minus the telescope.
Peer-controlled scientists, however, are allowed only as a control, to stay within the control of the group.
Others can consider extraneous factors outside the control of kweered peerage.
The control group is not allowed to recognize and factor the effects of HAARP or chemtrails.
Try to think of HAARP as a giant butterfly, flapping its wings in Alaska.
There was a study of all publiched peer reviewed papers on climate change published between 1994 and 2004. There were 11,994 papers written, representing the combined work of almost 30,000 scientists. Of those nearly 12k papers, almost 4,000 of them took a position on whether or not climate change was influenced or caused by human activity. Of those 4,000 papers 97.1% said yes, 2.2% were unsure and only 0.7% denied human causation or significant influence.
There was a study of all publiched peer reviewed papers on climate change published between 1994 and 2004. There were 11,994 papers written, representing the combined work of almost 30,000 scientists. Of those nearly 12k papers, almost 4,000 of them took a position on whether or not climate change was influenced or caused by human activity. Of those 4,000 papers 97.1% said yes, 2.2% were unsure and only 0.7% denied human causation or significant influence.
Not so much texantodd, the problem is with their selection. There were 7 categories they used to establish this position. The problem is that the top 3 categories were used to establish a definitive support for strongly influenced human causation when the top 3 according to their criteria were not as such.
The majority of the responses fall within category 3.
Quote:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)
The trick in this is the same old hat trick that has been done in the past. That is, they blur the line of significance and relevance. This then takes the meaning of a given paper in such a category down specifically to the paper itself and what they were actually implying. Layers of misdirection here.
Here is a clear write up on what they did. The method is reproducible.
Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).
I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.”
Not so much texantodd, the problem is with their selection. There were 7 categories they used to establish this position. The problem is that the top 3 categories were used to establish a definitive support for strongly influenced human causation when the top 3 according to their criteria were not as such.
The majority of the responses fall within category 3.
The trick in this is the same old hat trick that has been done in the past. That is, they blur the line of significance and relevance. This then takes the meaning of a given paper in such a category down specifically to the paper itself and what they were actually implying. Layers of misdirection here.
Here is a clear write up on what they did. The method is reproducible.
Basically... it is another case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
The break down I did earlier, including the supp data shows other issues and questions with this "study". As I said it is filled with subjectivity and ambiguity. It's funny that the whole public vs scientist thing is being brought up though because I see nothing scientific here. Wasn't it also described as a "citizen science" project?
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.
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.
Get your tin toil hat on, why do 97% of scientific studies agree that current climate change is manmade?
