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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
