Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 Next
Comments 34201 to 34250:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:36 PM on 19 September 2014Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
Mike, such journals already exist. One of the top journals in my field is the Journal of Machine Learning Research. This runs on volunteer effort (most reviewers and editors for commercial journals are also unpaid, so that isn't much different). The difference is the journal is published online and the papers are open access and neither the authors nor the readers pay. A print-on-demand version is made available for libraries that want it. It is not completely clear that there is any need for commercial journals, given the success demonstrated by JMLR.
HOWEVER, I suspect the success of JMLR is largely due to the support of the very top researchers in the field that form the editorial board and panel of action editors etc.
Most journals, even the commercial ones, tend to allow authors to distribute pre-prints of their papers from their websites or institutional websites, so the papers are still available to the public. You can find out the journals policy using the Sherpa/Romeo database. However, if all else fails, sending an email to the corresponding author asking for a pre-print of the paper will usually be successful, most authors are only too pleased to hear somebody wants to read their work!
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:18 PM on 19 September 2014Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
Yeah scaddenp, very interesting stuff. Some folks sure must hate that pesky real information stuff
-
jwalsh at 17:55 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Tom Curtis@60
jwalsh, to reduce the probability of anthropogenic factors contributing 50% or less of observed warming from 1951-2010 to 4.99%, you have to increase the uncertainty shown in Fig 10.5 by 208%, and the uncertainty relative to model uncertainty by 419%.
What evidence beyond hand waving do you have that the uncertainty is understate by such a large margin? What evidence beyond handwaving do you have that the IPCC's original increase of uncertainty by 201% relative to the innate uncertainty of the models is insufficient?
First, If you water-board me to come up with a figure for AGW since 1950, I'd probably say 66-75%, so I am arguing from a position "within" the 97% (if I had published something on climate). If I had strong evidence that the figure 10.5 uncertainties were off in a publishable manner, I'd probably point you to my peer-reviewed paper on that! Heh.
I don't know if the CMIP5 models inputs or outputs correctly characterize uncertainties or not. However I do know that the outputs regarding temperature have been "running hot" for a couple decades now. Something must be wonky, without knowing precisely "what". And yes, I know there is no shortage of potential explanations. But it may not be the uncertainties that are wrong, but the underlying assumptions. Figure 10.5 shows natural variation as effectively "nil" with a small uncertainty. I don't believe the evidence points that way.
When I read Gavin Schmidt's statement from the realclimate discussion, I did a bit of a double-take.
"It is worth pointing out that there can be no assumption that natural contributions must be positive – indeed for any random time period of any length, one would expect natural contributions to be cooling half the time. " - Schmidt
He's right of course. You can't assume that the net natural contributions must be positive. But the same argument can be made about assuming them to be "zero" or negative over a short time frame. And I think the models make that assumption (and 10.5). I'd dearly love to be able to play with a super-computer for a while and test out various things myself, but I can't be certain I wouldn't use the computer time to mine Bitcoins or pick stocks instead...
But if you look at longer-term trends and paleo-climate studies, most (but not all) show cooling or warming over centuries long periods. So to me, it seems at least plausible that we're still (since 1600 or so) in an upward natural trend that would shift the value for the natural component up in figure 10.5.
I don't think those arguing for 50% or less are completely off-base, or unscientific, for thinking as they do.
Moderator Response:[RH] "I don't think those arguing for 50% or less are completely off-base, or unscientific, for thinking as they do." But they are putting forth a position that holds the same likelihood as >160% man-made contribution, and completely ignoring that fact as well.
While I appreciate you staying on topic here, the discussion doesn't seem to be moving forward, and is only circling back on to previous themes. Please find a way to advance the conversation so that it doesn't become repetitive.
-
scaddenp at 15:19 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh - then try for something less noisy in the models. The attribution statement equally well for total OHC. Not much in way of pesky natural cycles operating there. Do you accept that pdf is accurate representation of cause of increase in OHC - or do you have some other source of energy that might do?
-
Tom Curtis at 14:57 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh @57:
"My quibble was with deciding her opinion (alone) was representative of a larger group."
Thankyou for your quibble (=def "small complaint or criticism usually about something unimportant") that Curry, being a borderline member of the 97% cannot be taken as representative of the 3%. The corrollary, that the position of the 3%, is even less rational or evidence based than hers is duely noted.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh, to reduce the probability of anthropogenic factors contributing 50% or less of observed warming from 1951-2010 to 4.99%, you have to increase the uncertainty shown in Fig 10.5 by 208%, and the uncertainty relative to model uncertainty by 419%.
What evidence beyond hand waving do you have that the uncertainty is understate by such a large margin? What evidence beyond handwaving do you have that the IPCC's original increase of uncertainty by 201% relative to the innate uncertainty of the models is insufficient?
-
jwalsh at 14:10 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Do you think that model failure to have any skill at short term prediction, especially ESNO/PDO variability affects the way in which models are used in attribution studies?
I am going to assume this is on topic. It's getting hard to tell. :) I don't know that it does affect the attribution studies, but I see no reason why it can't affect the attribution breakdown picture. Could be anything at issue, stratospheric aerosols, transient carbon dioxide sensitivity estimates, etc.. We might not really know without model enhancements, better computers, and a couple of decades of new (or better) data. I have seen some commentary about employing better and more modern statistical analysis techniques to get a better handle on uncertainties as well.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please move any further discussion of climate modeling to a more appropriate thread.
-
scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh, " And I would not do that. I merely made the observation that the 10.5 graph was primarily derivative of CMIP5 models."
The repeated issue here would appear to be some confusion between how the models are used for attribution as opposed to forecasting long term climate. Do you think that model failure to have any skill at short term prediction, especially ESNO/PDO variability affects the way in which models are used in attribution studies?
-
jwalsh at 11:57 AM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
I suspect that the moderator will remove your post on the grounds of excessive repetition, and given the warning you have recieved they would be quite justified in doing so. That will not preclude your posting on this thread on topic - ie, attempting to show why the IPCC assessment is wrong beyond your mere say-so (your only evidence todate); or why Curry is right, or why some third explicitly stated position is right.
I'll try not to mischarecterize your arguments, but please do me the courtesy of the same. I no more think the IPCC assessment is fully "wrong" any more than I think it's fully "right". On balance, I think the assessment is much more right than wrong though. And even if I did, why should my opinion matter a whole lot? To do so is improperly pretending that the complexites are simple. And I would not do that. I merely made the observation that the 10.5 graph was primarily derivative of CMIP5 models. The CMIP5 model assumptions (educated ones) about variables may indeed be correct or very close to it. I was a bit questionable about placing an inordinate amount of focus on models. Reliance on models and their outputs is one of the major criticisms of climate science in general. But I fully understand why they are used. We can hardly experiment with altering the variables of the planet (although some would argue that we are in an unguided way). Therefore models are used as a proxy. And they get better and better with time, and increased computational power.
FYI: I think Curry is right about some things and wrong about others. My quibble was with deciding her opinion (alone) was representative of a larger group.
You keep complaining that I haven't responded to things like the 10.6 graph. There's a reason for that. I looked at it again (not the first time I have read the entire chapter), but I have not yet found or read, any of the referenced papers. So I didn't comment on it (yet). I am not going to flat out be forced to make an uneducated opinion. When I get a chance to I'll probably take a look.
As a side observation, I think the denigration of a "side", any side (doesn't matter), online or otherwise, does not serve a useful purpose. It's more about the human tendency to form "tribes". As such, probably of interest to anthropologists, but not climate science.
Moderator Response:[RH] This is continuing to drift far off topic. Please bring it to a close or locate a more appropriate thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 19 September 2014Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
scaddenp @5, very interesting. I notice one of the documents (Fig 5) notes that the station is "about a mile south east of Rutherglen". The current station is well over two miles from the town. That suggests the "office" in 1958 was one of the farm houses, and the site to have been where the BOM suggests, or even further north.
-
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 19 September 2014Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
Just noticed this - BOM have gone into archives and showed evidence for the move which was obvious from the record. I wonder if they got an apology from Dr Jennifer Marohasy (perhaps they should have sent her a bill for wasting their time). I wonder if Ashton still thinks "it may be that those questioning the integrity of the BoM might, just might, not be miisguided conspiracists". Looks to me like BoM integrity intact - conspiracy theorist - not so much.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:51 AM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh @56:
1) I have twice explicitly stated that Curry just falls inside the 97%. There is no basis for your misrepresenting me as saying otherwise. I do share the moderator's (RH) belief that she argues as though she thought the value was lower, and suspect she states her position as 50/50 merely to position herself as "in the middle" and by implication "fair and balanced" when neither of those are in fact true.
2) I left several discussions in my preceding comment to which you are responding explicitly dealing with the actual attribution studies. True to form you totally ignore them, concentrating solely on the trivial (whether or not Curry falls just inside or just outside the 97% when it is blindingly obvious that she does not fall within the IPCC concensus), and the off topic.
3) The two Curry papers endorsing the consensus were both written prior to 1996. It is well known that she has had a major shift in position since then, and it follows that they are irrelevant to determining her current position. I find it difficult to believe that you did not know this, and if you did you have deliberately and knowingly presented irrelevant evidence in the hope that it will be mistaken as relevant. Perhaps, however, it was a mere accident. Doubly so because you present that as an argument for removing those papers from the consensus when by her own statement she accepted the consensus at the time.
4) There is no "much larger third side of the coin" either as determined by Cook et al (2013) or Verheggen et al (2014). My comments under (3) above apply.
5) One of the features of trolling is the repeated concentration on trivial or off topic points, a feature that describes your behaviour perfectly. I stand by my assessment.
I suspect that the moderator will remove your post on the grounds of excessive repetition, and given the warning you have recieved they would be quite justified in doing so. That will not preclude your posting on this thread on topic - ie, attempting to show why the IPCC assessment is wrong beyond your mere say-so (your only evidence todate); or why Curry is right, or why some third explicitly stated position is right. If they remove your post they will, of course, remove mine as well, as responding to a deleted post (and are welcome to do so). Just remember when you go of to other boards, if your posts are deleted, you clearly brought it on yourself.Moderator Response:[RH] The moderator is in agreement.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:48 AM on 19 September 2014Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
John Abraham, recently during discussion of a very poorly referreed article by Ross McKittrick, I had reason to look up Jeffrey Beal's list of predatory pubishers. The journal that published McKittrick's paper was part of the Scientific Research group, and indeed, Scientific Research appears as number 405 on Jeffrey Beal's list. You, however, recommend it, or at least indicate it is going to be a successful academic publisher. You may want to reconsider that judgement, or alternatively give your reasons for disagreeing with Beal.
-
Mike3267 at 07:37 AM on 19 September 2014Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
I'd like to see a system were non profit journals get grants and then go all open access. Now tax payers and college tiotion money goes to libraries and then to journals in sub fees. Just fund journals directly and have open access for all.
-
Climate_Wisdom at 05:32 AM on 19 September 2014There is no consensus
Link is broken:
13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
-
Philip Shehan at 04:42 AM on 19 September 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #36
As a follow up to my comments above and the helpful replies, I finally got around to sending Ross McItrick an email on the subject as his blog does not appear to have a comment section. I mentioned on Jo Nova that i intended to do so and got the usual go on we dare you responses.
I will let you know if I get a reply, but here is the business end of my email after the introductory para introducing myself:
Anyway, I have previously said on skeptic blogs that the requirement for statistical significance for warming or cooling (the error margins do or do not cross the zero trend line) is "unfair" as far as a hiatus is concerned.
By definition, a hiatus means that the trend is (or is very close to) zero, so any error margins no matter how small will include positive and negative trend values. It is difficult to see how you can get a "statistically significant" pause by this criterion.
So I was wondering whether your calculations are a way of dealing with this problem.
I would like to point out similarities and difference in your results from those obtained using Kevin Cowtan’s algorithm for the calculation of trend and 2 sigma error margins, which take into account autocorrelation of the data. For Cowtan’s trend calculator I have input the year from your tables (inclusive) for the start date and 2014.25 (up to but not including April 2014) as an end date, which I understand to be the period you are covering.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
The data in tables 1-3 appear to be very similar to the results returned by Kevin Cowtan’s trend calculator, which calculates the 2 sigma values taking into account autocorrelation of the data. The results here use the year and the endpoint of 2014.25 (up to but not including the month of April).
I will examine the years you have put in bold on tables 1-3 of your paper, which are the years furthest back in time for which the CI lower bound includes negative trend values.
Table 1 of your paper deals with Hadcrut 4 data:
19 1995 −0.0063 0.0925 0.1913 36.8666 19.8734
Which to 3 decimal places give the trend and error margins as
0.093 ±0.0.99 °C/decade
Which is essentially the same result as Cowtan’s algorithm:
Trend: 0.093 ±0.100 °C/decade (2σ)
Table 2 of your paper (UAH data):
16 1998 −0.0586 0.0609 0.1804 10.9176 5.6454
0.062 ±0.120 °C/decade
Cowtan’s algorithm gives essentially the same trend but almost twice the error margin:
Trend: 0.062 ±0.221 °C/decade (2σ)
Table 3 (RSS):
26 1988 −0.0005 0.1184 0.2373 41.6345 35.4573
0.118 ±0.119 °C/decade
Cowtan:
Trend: 0.121 ±0.109 °C/decade (2σ)
The trends and error margins are very close.
Again the years for which Cowtan’s 2 sigma error margins cease to include a cooling trend for Hadcrut4 and RSS are 1995 and 1990 (your dates 1995 and 1988) but Cowtan’s year for which this occurs for UAH data is 1994, commensurate with his larger error margin (your date 1998).
So, are you able to explain why Cowtan’s and your results are very close for Hadcrut4 and RSS, but UAH data has almost twice the error margin?
How are the results of your analysis different from saying that when there is no longer statistically significant warming, there is a statistically significant pause?
Thank you if you have the time to answer.
Phil Shehan
-
Andy Skuce at 04:15 AM on 19 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Critics of the Consensus Project seem to have two rather contradictory arguments:
- Everyone agrees with the consensus as defined by Cook et al— even prominent contrarians accept it.
- Cook et al's survey exaggerated the extent of the consensus.
Of course, the author self-ratings proved that the first objection is invalid. Some 28 scientists said that their papers rejected the consensus. That's 2.4% of all the authors who responded and 3.6% of the responders whose papers expressed an opinion on the AGW consensus.
As for the second one, it would be easy to show that the 97% estimate is too high, simply by finding consensus rejection abstracts that we missed. You don't have to slog through 12,000 abstracts (twice) like we did, just make a list (hint, ask Poptech) of the most prolific contrarians and search for their papers. Richard Tol performed some statistical alchemy that predicted that 300 such papers should exist, so there is surely some basis for expecting success here, unless of course you think that Tol's analysis is bunk.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:01 AM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
I have responded to a couple of jwalsh's comments about Cook et al on an appropriate thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:59 AM on 19 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Elsewhere, jwalsh quotes Stranger, who says:
"I don't know if anybody asked jwalsh why the skeptics don't do their own survey and present it for peer review?"
(My emphasis)
To which jwalsh responds:
"As far as I know, the Cook 2014 study was replicated by others, using the same papers. If you're interested you can find them."
In fact, AFAIK no AGW "skeptic" has replicated the study (or even a portion of the study) and posted the results on the internet. jwalsh can prove me wrong by posting a link. Even Tol's well known, and failed critique, which is often misdescribed as a replication only replicated the document search, and did not replicate either the abstract ratings nor the author ratings, and hence is not a replication of Cook et al 2013.
More importantly, jwalsh's response is a simple evasion of Stranger's question. "Replications" that pass muster in the denier blogosphere but stand no chance of passing peer review (typically because they are just short lists of cherry picked examples) are irrelevant. They just underline yet again that while deniers are very good at carping, they rarely bother to do science, still less quality science.
Two posts further on, jwalsh responds to me, writing:
"I have a science degree, but I don't think I could confidently rate a whole lot of papers not in my field based on that criteria by abstract alone. Would be a bit of a crap-shoot to be honest."
While a refeshing admission of his own incompetence, this point totally ignores that Cook et al was a test of the accuracy of that method by comparison of the results with author self ratings, and that the author self-ratings also showed a 97% consensus. It is getting so you can tell the troll criticisms of Cook et al by their apparent complete lack of awareness of the author self ratings.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:35 AM on 19 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh @53:
"Do I?"
Yes you do. In fact you wrote:
"Because unquestionably, Curry's beliefs would fall under the 97% and not the 3% under the Cook 2014 methodology. And in the Verheggen methodology, we're not sure. At 50/50 or "middle tercile" it's unclear whether Curry would have put herself at 26-50% or 51%-75% under that method."
That clearly indicates that you consider the Cook et al criteria to be >0% anthropogenic contribution rather than the 50%+ also used by Verheggen et al. Further, you are simply rehashing a trivial point with regard to Curry. As I have already noted:
"As labels they are not ideal in this case, in that Curry does (barely) accept that 50% of recent warming has been anthropogenic with a very large error margin. As such, she nominally falls inside the consensus position as categorized by Cook et al (and more directly relevant, Doran et al, 2009). She is, however, clearly a challenger of the IPCC consensus position."
How much a challenger is seen by the fact that she assigns a 50% probability to a possibility (anthropogenic contribution <50%) that the IPCC assigns a 5% or less probability to in its exectutive summary, and a <0.1% probability in its formal attribution (Fig 10.5). Even using the purely empirical data from Fig 10.6 (which you steadfastly refuse to discuss), and inflating the (Fig 10.5) uncertainty by 50%, there is still a less than 5% (3.7%) probability of an attribution less than 50%. If we consider the probability of less than 40%, or less than 30% the comparison would likely be still worse for Curry, who, however gives us no estimate of uncertainty dispite he many criticisms of the IPCC for inadequately stating uncertainty.
Given this vast discrepancy, the detail of whether or not Curry just scrapes into the 97% or the 3% is trivial, and your obssession with looks exactly like evasion of more substantive discussion. Indeed, having been shown that you were wrong about Fig 10.5 being purely model based; and being directly shown that purely empirical methods of attribution yield a mean result scarcely distinguishable from that for Fig 10.5 you suddenly went completely silent on the substantive points of the post, and started of on misrepresenting Cook et al 2013 and obsessing about whether Curry was just in, or just out of Verheggen's consensus category.
People who have nothing to of substance to say about the main points of the article often obsess about the details, especially when they don't want people to pay attention to the substance of the article.
Which reminds me:
But they sure can tell when your a troll:
-
jwalsh at 17:11 PM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Tom Curtis @52
jwalsh @51, you continue to pursue off topic discussion; and continue to push the deceptive misinterpretation of the Cook et all classification as indicating only some of recent warming is anthropogenic.
Do I? Curry as representing the "3%" seems very much on topic. Let me see after having read that link that I now understand it correctly then. It sounds like your suggesting that Curry should be rated a "7", and part of the 3% based her belief about it being approximately 50/50. If Curry had simply gone that extra 1%, and quantified anthropogenic as at least 51%, she'd be a "1"? Curious, since the vast majority of those taking a position as endorsing, were rated as either the 2 or 3 part of the 97% simply because they didn't sign up to a numerical value that could be inferred from the abstract. It was never my intent to get stuck into the paper that hard, since, as I said, I would do it differently. I have a science degree, but I don't think I could confidently rate a whole lot of papers not in my field based on that criteria by abstract alone. Would be a bit of a crap-shoot to be honest.
However, we don't need to do that at all. Turns out Judith Curry is actually in the 97%. Two of her papers were rated "3" in Cook 2014. And a couple were "4's". So she either speaks for some aspect of the 97%, or speaks for the vast majority of papers taking no position, or she speaks for herself! :)
Moderator Response:[RH] You and Russ have had this explained to you several times now. Curry continually argues minimal influence <50% from man-made sources, which is consistent with rating levels 5, 6 and 7.
As stated to Russ, you and others, if you believe Cook13 results are not robust, you are more than encouraged to produce your own research and submit to peer review. Posting comments of the same ilk as this one will be deemed as excessive repetition and deleted, per policy.
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Of those papers that do quantify (73), 9 (12%) find less than 50%, and 64 (87%) find greater than 50%. I feel the authors of the study are being exceedingly generous in including most, if not all, of those nine. Four are from the same group of authors. The method and/or physics has been soundly debunked on most if not all (S&W 2011 isn't even a proper attribution study--just a curve-fitting exercise. Actually, I'm not aware of any comprehensive attribution study performed by anyone associated with the position that AGW accounts for less than half of the observed warming.). If we look at attribution studies that have not had serious claims against their methods, the number is not going to end up at 97%. It's going to end up at 100%.
Russ, if you were shown sound evidence strongly suggesting that the work of the Chilingar group was based on fundamental errors of physics and/or method, would you be critical of Cook et al. for including that work? -
sauerj at 12:53 PM on 18 September 2014Thousands of ‘Nameless Short-Lived Lakes’
sidd, Thanks! Very helpful!
-
Tom Curtis at 11:59 AM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
jwalsh @51, you continue to pursue off topic discussion; and continue to push the deceptive misinterpretation of the Cook et all classification as indicating only some of recent warming is anthropogenic. I have discussed why that is deceptive, and a misinterpretation here, where it is on topic. I suggest you take the discussion there.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:51 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R keeps on trying to push Duarte's list of abstracts he claims should not have been included in the results. For much of the list, Duarte's argument is weak, apparently presuposing that only articles dealing with attribution (and possibly climate sensitivity) are relevant. That represents a category error. Cook et al looked at the extent of endorsement of AGW in the scientific literature. A paper endorses a view if it states it, but also if it accepts it as the basis for further study. Duarte (and many AGW "skeptics") treat Cook et al as a survey of papers which provide evidence for attribution of 50% (or greater than 0% based on their misrepresentation) of recent warming to anthropogenic factors. Endorsing, and providing evidence for, are two very distinct things. The apparent inability of many supposedly intelligent AGW "skeptics" calls into question their knowledge of basic english. Cook et al, of course, was about endorsement as a proxy for acceptance of the theory by scientists. It had no need to survey evidence for the theories in that we have a set of comprehensive surveys of that evidence already, the most recent having been released by the IPCC last year.
Still, there are a few papers where the endorsement may be considered tenuous as an indication of the opinions of physical scientists. For the sake of argument, let us supose that they should not have been included in the survey. What difference would removing them make?
I have listed below key words that can be found in the titles of all articles identified by Duarte that might come under that category. After each key word, I have indicated the number of titles in his list in which the word appears, and the number of titles and/or abstracts in the Cook et al database in which they appear. (I have added Duarte's list at the end of this post, with relevant search words or word stems highighted. Titles with no words highlighted are in my opinion appropriately included, or have no convenient keyword that will not pick up a vast majority of obviously relevant abstracts.)In all, 10 out of 19 of Duarte's list are covered by my search words, and another 2 were rated 4, and hence did not contribute to the consensus percentage in any event.
I then recalculated the consensu result on the assumption that all abstracts found by the searches using the key words should have been excluded. That is an absurd overestimate of the number that should have been excluded even if we grant Duarte's case because many of those found in the searches were categorized in categories that were not counted, rated at 4 and hence not counted, or clearly are appropriate for inclusion.
Despite bending over backwards to exclude papers based on Duarte's criticisms, the end result is that it adjusts the consensus rate down from 97.1% to 96.8%. That is right, even grossly inflating the figures for papers that should be excluded on Duarte's criteria only reduces the consensus rate by 0.3%
Duarte (and Russ R), of course, never make that calculation. Nor do they do a mini survey to estimate the rate of papers that should be excluded in their opinion. They do not do so because they have seen enough to know that the effect will be miniscule. Therefore they trump up a few cherry picked examples and hope the question of proportions never arises, all the better to decieve their readers.
The failure to determine ratios, and the failure calculated estimated effects of their "corrections" shows their criticism to not be science but pseudo-science.
I understand the moderator to have excluded several attempts by Russ R to introduce discussion of this material in comments, and will understant if the moderator considers even my discussion of topic and deletes it. However, it is trivially easy to show how pathetic is Duarte's criticism of Cook et al, and it seems a shame to me not to show that. Shoudl Russ R attempt to use this post a a springboard for more pseudo-science, I recommend that he only be permitted to discuss this list if in fact he determines ratios (making clear how he does so), and from that calculates the effects of his "corrections" on the headline result of the paper.
***********************************************************************
Opinion: 3, 50
Television: 1, 4
Perception: 2, 74
Promoting: 1, 97
Informing: 1, 6
Motiv: 1, 117
School: 1, 33
Total: 10, 381
(3896-381)/(4014-381) 96.8%
Chowdhury, M. S. H., Koike, M., Akther, S., & Miah, D. (2011). Biomass fuel use, burning technique and reasons for the denial of improved cooking stoves by Forest User Groups of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(1), 88–97.
Mitigation, 4
Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11.
Mitigation, 2
De Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., & Faaij, A. (2009). Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(3), 322–332.
Mitigation, 3
Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K., & Tomoda, T. (2007). Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1(1), 101–112.
Mitigation, 3
Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., & Kok, G. (2006). A strategy and protocol to increase diffusion of energy related innovations into the mainstream of housing associations. Energy Policy, 34(18), 4042–4049.
Impacts, 3
Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–287.
Mitigation, 3
Şentürk, İ., Erdem, C., Şimşek, T., & Kılınç, N. (2011). Determinants of vehicle fuel-type preference in developing countries: a case of Turkey.
Mitigation, 2
Grasso, V., Baronti, S., Guarnieri, F., Magno, R., Vaccari, F. P., & Zabini, F. (2011). Climate is changing, can we? A scientific exhibition in schools to understand climate change and raise awareness on sustainability good practices. International Journal of Global Warming, 3(1), 129–141.
Methods, 3
Palmgren, C. R., Morgan, M. G., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Keith, D. W. (2004). Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(24), 6441–6450.
Mitigation, 3
Semenza, J. C., Ploubidis, G. B., & George, L. A. (2011). Climate change and climate variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Health, 10(1), 46.
Mitigation, 3
Héguy, L., Garneau, M., Goldberg, M. S., Raphoz, M., Guay, F., & Valois, M.-F. (2008). Associations between grass and weed pollen and emergency department visits for asthma among children in Montreal. Environmental Research, 106(2), 203–211.
Impacts, 3
Lewis, S. (1994). An opinion on the global impact of meat consumption. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59(5), 1099S–1102S.
Mitigation, 3
De Boer, I. J. (2003). Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science, 80(1), 69–77
Mitigation, 3
Acker, R. H., & Kammen, D. M. (1996). The quiet (energy) revolution: analysing the dissemination of photovoltaic power systems in Kenya. Energy Policy, 24(1), 81–111.
Mitigation, 3
Vandenplas, P. E. (1998). Reflections on the past and future of fusion and plasma physics research. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 40(8A), A77.
Mitigation, 4
Gökçek, M., Erdem, H. H., & Bayülken, A. (2007). A techno-economical evaluation for installation of suitable wind energy plants in Western Marmara, Turkey. Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, 25(6), 407–427.
Mitigation, 2
Gampe, F. (2004). Space technologies for the building sector. Esa Bulletin, 118, 40–46.
Mitigation, 3
Ha-Duong, M. (2008). Hierarchical fusion of expert opinions in the Transferable Belief Model, application to climate sensitivity. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 49(3), 555–574.
Methods, 3
Douglas, J. (1995). Global climate research: Informing the decision process. EPRI Journal.
Mitigation, 3
Moderator Response:[RH] One can also assume that the reverse is true, that there are papers that were included in the "no position" category that should have been included with an endorsement level, thus rendering Duarte's objections null and void. He's arguing statistical noise.
Once again, if they doubt Cook et al results are robust, Duarte, Tol, Russ and others are enthusiastically invited to perform their own ratings analysis and submit to peer review.
I believe this horse (as aptly noted before) has been flogged... to... death. Let's please lay it to rest lest it stink up the place any further.
-
Riduna at 10:59 AM on 18 September 2014Certain Arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they release
Dr Anthony asserts that …. “on a longer-term scale, they switch to become climate coolers because they ultimately soak up more carbon from the atmosphere than they ever release”. Lord Keynes made the sage observation that in the long term we are all dead. So are thermokarst lakes.
Permafrost usually decays from the surface downward, lowering the water table and, in combination with surface evaporation, increasing the ability of surface water to drain away. Over time, thermokarst lakes tend to become more shallow, reducing their capacity to absorb atmospheric CO2.
As lake depth reduces, CH4 formed through methanogenesis of biota on the lake bed is oxidised by methanotrophic bacteria before reaching the atmosphere as CO2. Does this not indicate that over time, as thermokarst lakes become more shallow, they will tend to release larger rather than reduced quantities of CO2?
-
jwalsh at 09:17 AM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Stranger @48
I don't know if anybody asked jwalsh why the skeptics don't do their own survey and present it for peer review?
As far as I know, the Cook 2014 study was replicated by others, using the same papers. If you're interested you can find them. I am not. Why? Because, as I have argued, the Cook 2014 study isn't really that germane to the Cook/Schmidt debate at all. Nor would any other literature surveys be. The direct opinion study of Verheggen 2014 would be more so, but also not completely. I don't know about a skeptic, but If I did want to answer the question of where climate scientists would put attribution, I would go about it in different ways than both papers. I would not replicate either. That's just me.
Why? Because unquestionably, Curry's beliefs would fall under the 97% and not the 3% under the Cook 2014 methodology. And in the Verheggen methodology, we're not sure. At 50/50 or "middle tercile" it's unclear whether Curry would have put herself at 26-50% or 51%-75% under that method. You'd have to ask her.
But that's not even the major reason. Neither Schmidt or Curry were making opinion arguments. They were stating their own opinions based (arguably) on science. Attacking either position should be done in a similar manner. Neither one referenced Cook 2014, or any other poll, in their arguments that I read.
And attribution is merely one element of climate change. And a complicated and still uncertain one at that. Magnitude being a more important one, in my opinion. I'd be more worried about warming of 6 degrees C. even if only 50% due to anthropogenic causes, than I would be worried about 1.5 degrees, 120% due to anthro causes.
-
Russ R. at 09:17 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I'll take Moderator RH's response above as an implicit "No."
To clarify: "Category (4) Not climate-related" is described as papers relating to "Social science, education, research about people's views on climate".
That said, please see the following paper:
Semenza, J. C., Ploubidis, G. B., & George, L. A. (2011). Climate change and climate variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Health, 10(1), 46.
The abstract describes the paper's methodology as follows: "In 2008, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in the United States using random digit dialing... Of 771 individuals surveyed, 81% (n = 622) acknowledged that climate change was occurring..."
This is a survey of the general public, and pretty obviously constitutues "research about people's views on climate" which should have been counted as "not climate-related" and excluded according to the paper's stated criteria.
And yet, the paper was included as "Mitigation" and counted as "Endorsement Level: 3". See here.
How exactly does this qualify as a "peer-reviewed climate science paper"?
I'll ask one more time (despite already knowing the answer)...
Did Cook et al. (2013) include psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public, as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change?
(snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] Snipped for sloganeering.
Edit: Again, if you or anyone else believes the results of Cook13 are not robust, you're highly encouraged to perform your own research.
-
Russ R. at 08:22 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
It's truly remakable that a critique of a paper's methodology violates your site's comment policies.
(snip)
I'll ask again, specifically about the paper's method, making no allegation of intent or motives:
Did Cook et al. (2013) include psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public, as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change?
Moderator Response:[RH] Moderation complaint snipped.
Note: Category (4) Not climate-related,
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Tom Curtis - I wholly agree with your comment. As I've stated several times, the 'skeptics' making this argument simply ignore the context of the range of exclusive classifications, not to mention the instructions provided to the raters and to the self-rating authors. And then they compound the nonsense by relating explicit attribution statements to all papers, rather than just the explicit attributions they highlight endorsing (65) versus those explicitly rejecting AGW (10).
Utter nonsense, disingenous misinterpretations of the paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:58 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R is now running the misinterpretation of the classifications scam vs Cook et al 2013 (ie, claiming that the criteria for endorsement in Cook et al is only that some warming since 1950 be anthropogenic). I say it is a (rhetorical) scam because it was not the first or intuitive response of AGW "skeptics" to that paper. The first response was that authored by Poptech, in which Nicolas Scaffeta wrote:
"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."
You will notice that correctly identifies the Cook et al criteria for endorsement, ie, that it indicates that 50% plus of recent warming was anthropogenic, and tries to call it a strawman because it does not match his blatant misrepresentation of the IPCC position.
Indeed, if a paper that endorses only that some recent warming is anthropogenic belongs to the Cook et al 97%, then both Sceffeta's and Shaviv's papers (discussed by Poptech) should have been classified as endorsing the consensus. Likewise, if a paper that endorses only that some recent warming is anthropogenic belongs to the Cook et al 97%, then all four of Richard Tol's papers which he claims to not have endorsed the consensus, should have been classified as endorsing the concensus.
A number of major AGW "skeptics" and Richard Tol have endorsed these claims of misclassification, including Watts (who reposted the claims), Tol who reposts it and a number who have commented either at WUWT or on Tol's tweet without demuring that Shaviv's description of the Cook et al classification was wrong. In fact, I have been unable to find one objection to Scaffeta's claims, or the claims that these papers were misrated based on the supposed fact that the Cook et al 97% endorsed only some anthropogenic warming rather than 50% +.
That, of course, merely demonstrates that the AGW "skeptics" are inconsistent in their criticism of Cook et al. It does not demonstrate that Scaffeta (and Tol's) 50%+ interpretation is correct. So, let us examine the possibility that "level of endorsement of AGW" in Cook et al means just endorsement of the claim that at least some of recent warming has been anthropogenic (ie, that anthropogenic factors have not had either no effect, or tended to cool recent temperatures).
So, consider the classification scheme used in Cook et al:
"Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming 'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined 'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'
(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission'"For this categorization to be consistent it must satisfy two criteria:
1) No paper must fall under more than one classification;
and
2) If different levels of concensus represent different minimum percentages of anthropogenic contribution, they must change monotonically with classification level.
Now clearly if "endorse AGW" means "endorse that "at least some of recent warming has been anthropogenic", then the categorization fails criteria (1). That is because any paper endorsing >0% but <50% anthropogenic warming must be categorized either 2 or 3, but also 7. Further, it also fails condition (2) for category 1 clearly applies only to papers which endorse 50% or more anthropogenic contribution to recent warming, while category 7 applies only to papers that endorse less than 50% anthropogenic contribution. The only monotonic ordering of endorsement levels possible, therefore, is on in which for all categories endorsement of AGW means endorsing 50% or more of recent warming as anthropogenic, and disendorsing means endorsing less than 50%.
If there are two ways to interpret a paper, one of which is consistent, and one of which is inconsistent, then clearly we must give preference to the consistent interpretation. Doing otherwise merely raises a strawman. Therefore, there is no rational way to interpret endorsement in Cook et al as anything other than "endorsement that 50% or more of recent warming was anthropogenic".
Ironically, despite this several AGW "skeptics" have criticized Cook et al both for using a definition of endorsement that allowed even hardcore deniers to belong to the 97% and also for being inconsistent. They prove thereby that there intent is only to criticize, not to actually rationally critique the paper.
-
Russ R. at 07:31 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
KR:
"You reference several blog posts by J. Duarte - who seems to feel that the Cook et al authors were dishonest idiots (the paper passed peer review of methods and results by reviewers the editors respected for domain knowledge), that the raters were blinded by ideological bias (totally ignoring the author ratings giving confirming identical results), complaining about raters discussing criteria (when it's essential for everyone to agree on the same critera, clarifying ambiguities - and that radom presentation prevented collusion on any particular item), and in general making truly absurd and unsupported accusations."
Let's look at some of his claims then, shall we?First: "The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change."
Cook and Nucitelli claim their team reviewed "over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers" and that papers which were "not climate-related" were excluded from the analysis.
Yet "in ten minutes with their database" Duarte found 19 papers that were included as endorsing the consensus, which were clearly not "climate science" papers.
His list begins in the fourth paragraph here.
The first two examples:
Chowdhury, M. S. H., Koike, M., Akther, S., & Miah, D. (2011). Biomass fuel use, burning technique and reasons for the denial of improved cooking stoves by Forest User Groups of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(1), 88–97.
or
Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11.
Would you argue that any of these should be considered "climate science" papers?
(snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] You're going to have to find a way to do this without Duarte as his entire premise violates SkS policy:
- No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
It's been suggested many times over that Duarte, if he feels the results of Cook et al are not correct, he should endeavor to produce his own research into the issue.
-
Russ R. at 06:59 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Sorry, was trying to respond to the moderators comments @312, but for some reason my last comment was repeated.
I'll try again... shorter this time:"Please note that the OP is written by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Cook is the lead author of Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Cook et al, 2013, Environmental Research Letters. Nuccitelli is a co-author of the ERL paper. Are you stating that Cook and Nuccitelli deliberately misrepresented the findings of the ERL paper in the OP?"
No, I'm not refering to the OP (i.e. "Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature" Posted on 16 May 2013 by dana1981, John Cook).
I'm specifically refering to another post (and subsequent comments), The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing? Posted on 15 September 2014 by dana1981.
Dana writes:
"96–97% of climate experts in arguing that humans have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950"
and
"96–97% of climate science experts and peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the main cause of global warming."
These claims are not supported by Cook et al (2013), since only 1.6% of the reviewed papers stated "that humans are causing most of global warming".
Whether the overstatement is deliberate or not, I don't care to speculate. But it is a misrepresentation regardless.
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R. - Once again, you are ignoring details such as Category 4, "a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming" - excluding humans as a minor cause from 1, 2, and 3
Not to mention the instructions for applying categories:
The second drop down indicates the level of endorsement for the proposition that human activity (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is causing global warming (e.g., the increase in temperature).
Not "a cause", but "causing", as in the main actor. Instead, you play rhetorical games, reject common English usage, and ignore the context within which the categories were defined.
You reference several blog posts by J. Duarte - who seems to feel that the Cook et al authors were dishonest idiots (the paper passed peer review of methods and results by reviewers the editors respected for domain knowledge), that the raters were blinded by ideological bias (totally ignoring the author ratings giving confirming identical results), complaining about raters discussing criteria (when it's essential for everyone to agree on the same critera, clarifying ambiguities - and that radom presentation prevented collusion on any particular item), and in general making truly absurd and unsupported accusations.
Your uncritical presentation of his blog rants as support is, IMO, the clearest evidence that you are far more interested in attacking conclusions that ideologically offend you, than actually concerned about the methods that highlight those conclusions - playing the man and not the ball, a type of ad hominem fallacy.
-
Russ R. at 06:38 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Don't worry KR, the paper's methods do more than enough to discredit it, but that's a different matter, which I can get into later. (Or you can read for yourself here, here, and here.)
(snip)
Assuming for the moment that the methodology was valid, I'm only objecting to a misrepresentation of its findings, specifically the word "most" in "humans caused most of the warming." (I have absolutely no objection to the claim that "97% of papers stated (implicitly or explicitly) that humans are causing warming")
The word "most" can only apply to Level 1 endorsement that actually contain some measure of attribution. It does not appear in Level 2 or 3 endorsement. To claim that these abstracts support a consensus of "most warming being caused by humans" is outright false. They say no such thing:
1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.For the record, if asked, I'd self-rate my own personal opinion as Level 2 "endorsement without quantification". So, this isn't part of a denier agenda.
(snip)
I just expect this website to accurately report the paper's actual findings... not make up whatever suits your cause.
But do what you like... it's your credibility that you're risking.
Moderator Response:[RH] You'll have to conduct this discussion without the aid of linking to outside sources accusing fraud.
-
John Hartz at 06:16 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R: Please note that the SkS Comments Policy includes the following prohibition:
No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Russ R. at 06:08 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Don't worry KR, the paper's methods do more than enough to discredit it, but that's a different matter, which I can get into later. (Or you can read for yourself here, here, and here.)
Assuming for the moment that the methodology was valid, I'm only objecting to a misrepresentation of its findings, specifically the word "most" in "humans caused most of the warming." (I have absolutely no objection to the claim that "97% of papers stated (implicitly or explicitly) that humans are causing warming")
The word "most" can only apply to Level 1 endorsement that actually contain some measure of attribution. It does not appear in Level 2 or 3 endorsement. To claim that these abstracts support a consensus of "most warming being caused by humans" is outright false. They say no such thing:
1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.For the record, if asked, I'd self-rate my own personal opinion as Level 2 "endorsement without quantification". So, this isn't part of a denier agenda.
I just expect this website to accurately report the paper's actual findings... not make up whatever suits your cause.
But do what you like... it's your credibility that you're risking.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that the OP is written by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Cook is the lead author of Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Cook et al, 2013, Environmental Research Letters. Nuccitelli is a co-author of the ERL paper. Are you stating that Cook and Nuccitelli deliberately misrepresented the findings of the ERL paper in the OP?
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R. - Then perhaps you should actually read the Cook et al paper, paying some attention to the exclusive (i.e., pick only one) and ordered endorsement categories in that methodology. Categories applied to how AGW was referenced, how the literature (and authors) regard AGW, not just to what are explicitly attribution studies.
If your abstract/paper implied, expressed, or explicitly stated that people have minimal impact on climate change, i.e. "a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming", your abstract/paper would be rated as 5, 6, or 7 respectively.
If your abstract/paper implied, expressed, or explicitly stated that "humans are causing global warming" - note, not "contributing" but "causing", i.e. the primary or dominant cause as per any reasonable use of English, the abstract/paper would be rated as 3, 2, or 1 respectively.
From the methodology, the instructions to the authors for self-ratings: "Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming":
The claim that only category 1 ratings count is utter nonsense, raised only by ignoring the categories as a whole, taking the AGW endorsement ratings out of context from the AGW rejection categories. And by what I consider deliberate misreading of "are causing" as the semantically distinct "are a cause".
I will note that this issue has been discussed at some length - I suggest you read through some of this thread. As per the categories which describe whether an abstract/paper endorses/rejects AGW, 3896 endorsed and only 78 rejected it.
---
What I find most fascinating is that the rated abstracts are made readily available - it would be almost trivial to define your own categorization criteria, as specific as you want, and review a hundred or so abstracts in an afternoon to see if those criteria gave different results. Nobody criticizing Cook et al has stepped up to this.
I suspect (personal opinion) that's because everyone realizes that the only way to get a significantly different percentage from rating the literature is to do it wrong, with patently absurd criteria. And that barring any support for 'skeptic' positions from the data, the only avenue they have left is to nitpick, misinterpret, and distort in an attempt to discredit (not disprove) the conclusions.
-
Composer99 at 05:08 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R:
I would say you're playing at rhetorical silly buggers, and your attempt to limit the response space to your carefully-worded set is insultingly obvious.
Basically, your line of reasoning only makes sense if you ignore studies of paleo- and historical (read: Holocene) climate and simultaneously ignore the physics of greenhouse gases.
Consider how Cook et al defines category 3 (implicit endorsement):
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means "implicitly endors[ing] that humans are a cause of warming" where "a" is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as-yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as-yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.
I'm pretty sure we're getting into extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence territory here, so I think you need to pony up some research hinting at these as-yet undiscovered sources and sinks if you wish to persist with this line of argument.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:53 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
RussR, I think you are missing an important point about academic publishing in general and climatology in particular. Journal papers tend not to make specific claims in the abstract of a paper unless the contents of the paper specifically addresses that particular question. However, quite often the abstract will indirectly refer to some piece of commonly accepted knowledge in providing background or motivation for the question actually addressed in the paper.
In climatology, there is a type of paper known as an "attribution study" which seek to discover what factors explain climate in some region or period of time. It is only in these papers where you should expect the abstract to contain an explicit statement on the cause of the warming. However, most climate papers are not attribution studies, and discuss some other aspect of climate change. For instance I contributed to a paper on statistical downscaling (which relates large scale atmospheric circulation to small scale local climate). The methods for this are the same whether the climage change is anthropogenic or natural or a bit of both, so there is no good reason for it to have anything more than implicit acceptance (in explaining the reasons why downscaling is likely to be a useful thing to do).
The measure used by TCP is perfectly reasonable, if you understand the nature of scientific publication, and are aware that attribution studies are only a small fraction of the papers publiched on climate change.
-
Russ R. at 04:28 AM on 18 September 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
KR,
happy to discuss in the appropriate thread... reposting what I wrote before:
Only 64 out of 11,944 abstracts reviewed by Cook et al (2013) were rated as "Explicit endorsement with quantification", stating that "humans are the primary cause of global warming".
That amounts to a "0.5% Consensus" (64/11,944).
Excluding the 7,930 abstracts which were viewed to take no position, the ratio (64/4,014) rises to a "1.6% Consensus".
The reported "97.1% Consensus" excludes those abstracts which took no position, but includes 2,910 abstracts that do not explicitly state that humans are a cause of warming, and 922 that explicitly identify humans as a cause of warming, but not quantify the amount or state that humans as the primary cause.
Does anyone dispute the above?
According to the data, only 1.6% of abstracts said that "humans are the primary cause of recent global warming".
Consensus at the 97% level did not include quantification, so it's factually misleading to say that the 97% position is that humans caused "most" of the warming.
Citing this paper you can say that:
- 97% of papers implicitly endorse that humans are a cause of warming, or that
- 24.6% of papers explicitly endorse that humans are a cause of warming, or that
- 1.6% of papers explicitly endorse that humans are the primary cause of warming.
Which will it be?
-
Firgoose at 03:59 AM on 18 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38A
@Ashton: According to the site where the report can be obtained, FS-UNEP Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2014 ...
"the investment drop of $US35.1 billion was partly due to the falling cost of solar photovoltaic systems. The other main cause was policy uncertainty in many countries, an issue that also depressed investment in fossil fuel generation in 2013"
-
The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
@jwalsh and TomC, your discussion is interesting, but is it goal oriented?
I think the more interesting observation comes from a link that was only in the Guardian version, in which Dan Kahan muses about what makes people like Curry tick. His analysis and the comments, some of which could easily act as an unsolicited sample of people like Curry, point to a fascinating pschycological phenomenon, the fact that you can "know" but still deny. The derogative term sometimes used for that is the "smart idiot effect".
I have little doubt that the "3%" and their followers have the capacity to understand the science. Most are very smart people and have/had distinguished careers. We scientists have a hard time comprehending why they deny (or partially deny) the obvious. The evidence is clearly not in their favor and their arguments are weak at best. Yet their existence, publicity, and popularity with the pervading neo-liberal politics of the times spells doom for everybody. Is it any wonder we dislike or despise them?
So, as good scientists, we try to analyze them. Kahan and others are contributing most to that. I think his analysis is useful at worst, and right-on at best. While Curry most likely suffers from "dualism" (see above link), the followers, may also include the other three categories Kahan lists. "Dualism" seems a more common pathology to me than expected. I think if any of us are self-critically examining ourselves, we may find some form of "dualism" we hold, where the evidence is crystal clear to us, but we still deny all or parts of it (like Curry) for unrelated reasons (knowing that, or finding it after reflection of yourself means you converted from "dualism" to "partitioning"). Religion (e.g. the "muslim doctor" story in Kahan's blog) is a prime example. For the 3%, it is somewhat obvious that a neo-liberal ideology is the reason for their "dualism". They are not that shy about that at all (Curry: "I am independent, with libertarian leanings."), and they do not understand that their positions show clear contradictions, i.e. they are unaware of their "dualism", considering it the normal position others should hold as well.
We already know that arguments from evidence are very unlikely to convince somebody in denial. And while normally ignoring or minimizing the person suffering from the dualism pathology is a way to deal with the issue (since the person's pathology is not neccesarily harmful to her/himself or society), it is not in the case of global warming, because 1. the person's societal influence is out-proportional relative to the occurrence of the pathology, and 2. the consequences for society are therefore potentially disastrous.
While calling out Curry and others on their "dualism" may not be nice, it may be a start to find a way out. Her logic has already been called flawed, but, like the "muslim doctor", we cannot expect her to realize that. Alas, we should read up on "dualism" in the pschycology literature to see if there is a way to address and ameliorate the pathology, and, like in the case of the broader issue of "denialism", begin developing a communication strategy.
For the by-standers, it will remain important to highlight the contradictions in the "dualist's" mind, since this is the only way to highlight why is makes little sense to follow these people if you want to prevent or address the consequences of warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:15 AM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Stranger @48... I have asked the exact same question innumerable times on various forums over the past year or so. It doesn't even take funding to replicate, it just requires some dedication of time.
It really doesn't even require that much time. Cook et al was really overkill in terms of the number of papers. You could easily get a robust statitistical sampling with much smaller numbers, something like Oreskes did.
What I also know (and I think "skeptics" also know), is they'll end up with the exact same result. I read a large number of the abstracts for Cook et al and I can say, with no hesitation, the number of papers that reject AGW are vanishingly small.
This ends up being exactly like the hockey stick in that, those attacking the paper are merely trying to find reasons to reject the conclusions rather than actually test the results. They aren't looking for the truth, they're looking to bury the truth.
-
Stranger8170 at 00:54 AM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
I don't know if anybody asked jwalsh why the skeptics don't do their own survey and present it for peer review? It seems like the Koch brothers or some other benefactor could come up with a little chump change to find out. They helped fund Richard Muller’s historical temperature reconstructions. Of course it didn't pan out for the skeptics since Mueller found out the Hockey Stick was the real McCoy. I wonder if that’s the reason they haven't made an attempt to shoot down Cook et el by doing their own research? Obfuscation may be the only arrow left in their quiver.
-
The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Russ R. - This thread is on the particular discussion of attribution, based on the discussion between Schmidt and Curry (who clearly misinterprets the IPCC report on this matter).
Misinterpretations (such as yours) of Cook et al methodology should be discussed on an appropriate thread, and I have replied there.
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Russ R. - Given that the question asked by Cook et al was really "what percentage of the literature agrees with the consensus", and that implicitly (Cat. 3) or explicitly (Cat. 2) were using the consensus position as a background fact of the abstracts and papers, your post is utter nonsense.
-
The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Good grief, Russ: not THAT again. How many studies quantified attribution?
-
Russ R. at 00:05 AM on 18 September 2014The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
Only 64 out of 11,944 abstracts reviewed by Cook et al (2013) were rated as "Explicit endorsement with quantification", stating that "humans are the primary cause of global warming".
That amounts to a "0.5% Consensus" (64/11,944).
Excluding the 7,930 abstracts which were viewed to take no position, the ratio (64/4,014) rises to a "1.6% Consensus".
The reported "97.1% Consensus" excludes those abstracts which took no position, but includes 2,910 abstracts that do not explicitly state that humans are a cause of warming, and 922 that explicitly identify humans as a cause of warming, but not quantify the amount or state that humans as the primary cause.
Does anyone dispute the above?
Moderator Response:[JH] When you pivot to a totally different topic, please find the appropriate OP and post your comments there. Pleae follow KR's recommendation.
-
Ashton at 20:13 PM on 17 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38A
In view of the predictions (generally dire) about climate change/global warming I wonder why new investment in clean energy is declining in many countries (http://tinyurl.com/qxvdvg5). I was most surprised that new investment in clean energy by Germany in 2013 was 40% below that in 2012. Is this because Germany has now decided that clean energy is now less desirable/necessary than previously thought? Are the falls of 33% in France and 73% in Italy also due to the belief by those governments that investment in clean energy can now be scaled back? In view of the hatred of the Abbott government in Australia by the Greens and their supporters, it is a surprise to see that the 4% fall in Australia's investment in clean energy is, with China, the lowest decline in the nine countries showing a decline. On that, of the 12 countries listed that only three had invested more in clean energy in 2013 than in 2012. Why are so many countries apparently not heeding the advice of the IPCC and climate scientists?
Prev 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 Next
