"In 2013, scientist John Cook examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. He and his co-authors found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research, and that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics." (Wikipedia)
"Approximately two-thirds of abstracts [in the aforementioned study] did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming [so, as required by clear and simple logic, those abstracts that offered no relevant data for analysis were removed from analytical consideration.]" (skepticalscience.com)
The revoltingly phony and perfectly absurd argument I refer to above pretends that for an abstract of Cook's study to express no position on AGW equates to that abstract's author being undecided or having no position on AGW (which is nonsense), further pretending that for Cook & company to remove these irrelevant items from analytical consideration was to engage in an act of blundering negligence. *LOL*
Consider this analogy:
1,000 independent "reviews" (consisting simply of a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down") of 1970s movies are conducted with each independent reviewer giving either a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" to each of 10 films independently selected by each reviewer. (So if each reviewer selects a uniqueThe question is raised, is there a consensus among the reviewers that the 1975 film "Jaws" is worthy of a "thumbs up"?
600 of the 1,000 reviews express an opinion on "Jaws", while 400 do not include "Jaws" among the 10 films they reviewed. Obviously, plain and simple logic requires that the 400 reviews providing no relevant information be shelved while the 600 that DO express an opinion are examined. Of the 600, 582 (97%) were "thumbs up," while 18 (3%) were "thumbs down." A logically calculated 97% consensus!
Can you even begin to fathom just how insulting to your intelligence is the very presentation of an argument so preposterous as to claim that the above calculations are flawed because the irrelevant 400 were duly given no analytical consideration?
"Misinformation about climate change has been observed to reduce climate literacy levels (McCright et al 2016, Ranney and Clark 2016), and manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change is one of the most effective means of reducing acceptance of climate change and support for mitigation policies (Oreskes 2010, van der Linden et al 2016). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the most common argument used in contrarian op-eds about climate change from 2007 to 2010 was that there is no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming (Elsasser and Dunlap 2012, Oreskes and Conway 2011). The generation of climate misinformation persists, with arguments against climate science increasing relative to policy arguments in publications by conservative organisations (Boussalis and Coan 2016).
Consequently, it is important that scientists communicate the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW to the public (Maibach et al 2014, Cook and Jacobs 2014). Explaining the 97% consensus has been observed to increase acceptance of climate change (Lewandowsky et al 2013, Cook and Lewandowsky 2016) with the greatest change among conservatives (Kotcher et al 2014).
From a broader perspective, it doesn't matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong."
Source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
"Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=The%20current%20scientific%20consensus%20is,and%20severity%20of%20global%20effects.
"Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause"
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-happening-and-humans-are-primary-cause
"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618
"More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change"
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
"Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming?" [Umm, NO.]
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming
"The scientific consensus on climate change gets even stronger"
https://lens.monash.edu/@science/2021/10/21/1383952/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-gets-even-stronger
"‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans
"'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99
"The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)"
https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370
"Did the scientific consensus on climate change reach 100 % ?"
https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-reach-100/
"Concerning the scientific consensus, it does not matter if it is 97%, 99% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on the human origin of global warming is extremely high and is only getting stronger and closer to 100%, with thousands of research papers supporting it.
Unfortunately, climate deniers still exist, and they usually refuse to participate in scientific debates. It’s simple: if you think that global warming is a hoax: publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, refrain from talking nonsense."
Message Thread
« Back to index