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.
The researchers THEMSELVES emailed all the scientists to verify the categorizations, then adjusted any miscategorizations.
Really? The researchers emailed "all" of the scientists? Did you bother to read it?
"For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers…" Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Just for clarification, there were 29, 083 authors.
They received verification that their papers were indeed pro-AGW from 746 authors.
Edit:
Take a look at Table 5.
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%)
Actually, it looks like from the self-ratings of the authors, 35.5% either don't take a position or are undecided, which isn't a majority, but is a strong minority position.
At any rate, of the people that emailed a response, 62.7% confirmed an endorsement of AGW. IF one were to accept the terrible methodology used as valid, that's the highest number one could report from these findings. 62.7% endorse AGW.
Which is closer to what survey's say than that crazy 97% figure.
See table 5.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 04-04-2014 at 09:47 PM..
Reason: fixed
LOL! You're the owner of that denialist blog site? You smear your own website with your misrepresentation and lies. You've been caught out too many times.
Why do you keep lying about my website as I believe the Holocaust happens. I have not misrepresented or lied about anything. Why are you being dishonest like this?
you only want to believe what some denialist blog says...
I think it is quite hypocritical to denigrate the article as being from a "denialist blog" (Which it is not)
when the original study itself was conducted with people who volunteered on pro AGW website to do the
data collection.
You really can't have it both ways. If you believe the article loses credibility because you falsely assume that it comes from a denialist blog, you must then also apply the same standards to the John Cook paper that touts the 97% consensus.
Given all of the Publication Bias issues,
Given the construct issues surrounding articles vs. scientist
Given that a guy who publishes 3 articles is counted as three scientist
Given the miscoding
Given the fact that this was just a "citizen's science" project, where normal institutional safeguards aren't in place
Given that this papers findings are so different than the actual survey that I had posted earlier
Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss this paper is unreliable, at least in as much that it doesn't prove 97% of the climate scientist support AGW? Wouldn't that be the most objective stance to take?
Boxcar, where are you getting your 'information'? From WUWT?
I don't take it as anything other than what it is- a citizen project that encourages everyone to check for themselves. Do I think it's a robust study? No. But it acknowledges it's own limitations. Yes, I think they are over-reaching to use it as any sort of strong support for a 97% consensus. But I don't think you could deny that the majority of climate scientists certainly accept that AGW is happening.
My point is that so many people come on threads like this and just repeat the nonsense they find on denialist blogs. Most have clearly never even read a published peer-reviewed paper (or have access to them) or ever bother to check the claims they read on 'conspiracy' websites or muck-raking infotainment sources.
Really? The researchers emailed "all" of the scientists? Did you bother to read it?
"For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers…" Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Yes, I did. And I shouldn't have said 'all'.
But that's fantastic that you are at least starting to check for yourself instead of just blindly swallowing and regurgitating what some denialist blog-writer says.
Boxcar, where are you getting your 'information'? From WUWT?
I don't take it as anything other than what it is- a project that encourages everyone to check for themselves. Do I think it's a robust study? No. But it acknowledges it's own limitations. Yes, I think they are over-reaching to use it as any sort of strong support for a 97% consensus. But I don't think you could deny that the majority of climate scientists certainly accept that AGW is happening.
My point is that so many people come on threads like this and just repeat the nonsense they find on denialist blogs. Most have clearly never even read a published peer-reviewed paper (or have access to them) or ever bother to check the claims they read on 'conspiracy' websites or muck-raking infotainment sources.
I am reading each of the publications myself. Every bit of what I am saying is my own analysis.
I don't mean to over-inflate my credentials, but I am at least as qualified to critique that study as the writers of that study were to make it. I'm a university professor. I've taught research methods at the master's level and supervised the Master's thesis of several students. I've authored several peer reviewed papers, and I will publish more again this year. I'm pretty sure that if one of my students would have came to me with this research design I wouldn't have accepted it. Everything I am pointing out is fairly standard fair in critiquing research.
Their research doesn't prove what they are contending it proves, and it goes about it in a horrible fashion.
That is my professional opinion.
Edit: I agree that the majority of the scientist endorse AGW, although that doesn't mean they have a great degree of confidence in it or that it will lead to any kind of existential threat.
But the use of the 97% figures is a means to suppress dissent. It is used to make those who disagree look like crackpots. That I object to. There is a large enough degree of skepticism in the scientific community to make it a legitimate point of view.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 04-04-2014 at 10:12 PM..
I think it is quite hypocritical to denigrate the article as being from a "denialist blog" (Which it is not)
when the original study itself was conducted with people who volunteered on pro AGW website to do the
data collection.
You really can't have it both ways. If you believe the article loses credibility because you falsely assume that it comes from a denialist blog, you must then also apply the same standards to the John Cook paper that touts the 97% consensus.
There is a difference:
The John Cook paper states what it is (a citizen project) and is open about it's methodology and limitations. It encourages people to check for themselves and makes it's data freely available.
The denialist blog (which it is) deliberately misrepresents it.
The John Cook paper states what it is (a citizen project) and is open about it's methodology and limitations. It encourages people to check for themselves.
The denialist blog (yes, it is) deliberately misrepresents it.
You have that exactly backwards as has been cited numerous time by others in this discussion.
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.
