Experts Urge Buyers To Take Precautions When Buying Used Cars And Trucks

Where Can I Watch Spring Breakers Online Free Full Movie.. No Survey !?

What Is Your Assessment Of The New 97.1% “consensus” Paper? Yesterday, a new “consensus” study came out finding “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.”[1]. This study was done by Cook and Nuccittelli at skepticalscience.com. This conclusion was reached by doing on online survey of 12,280 abstracts which were given one of the following ratings[1]:

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification -Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification – Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming.
(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
(5) Implicit rejection – Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification – Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification – Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming

The specific findings (showing the 97.1%) were as follows[1]:

Position * % of all abstracts * % among abstracts with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW * 32.6% (3896) * 97.1
No AGW position * 66.4% (7930) * –
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) * 1.9
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) * 1.0

This means that the conclusions were based on rejecting all with a rating of 4 and comparing the ratings of 1-3 vs. 5-7. Let’s look at the breakdown in more detail[2] “(and note that the numbers do add up to the above):

Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4 (neutral): 7930
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10

You’ll note that the preponderance (75%) of the abstracts supporting the consensus conclusion have a rating of 3. If you go back to [2] you can see a more detailed breakdown of what a rating of 3 means:

3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)

So as I asked in the subject heading, what is your assessment of this new paper’s conclusion?

(As a guide, here are some questions you may want to ask yourself:
1. Does reading an abstract give enough information about what the study actually addressed?
2. Do the vast majority of papers being neutral mean anything?
3. Do abstracts mentioning or linking to climate change actually represent a solid endorsement of the scientific consensus?
4. From 3. I thought this study was to find a consensus not endorse a previous one???)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

[1] “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” Cook et. al., 15 May 2013, Environmental Research Letters http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

[2] http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/#comment-113199
________________________________________________________________________
And if you don’t believe this survey/study is important, consider that Obama tweeted about it: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160

Also note that Obama threw in the modifier “dangerous” just for kicks.
Also note that the link that Obama provided in his tweet was to a Reuter’s article where they state: “The report found an overwhelming view among scientists that human activity, led by the use of fossil fuels, was the main cause of rising temperatures in recent decades.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516

If you recall from the above, “main cause” would be solely a rating of 1. which was applied to only 65 abstracts. I guess that type of reporting is used to diffuse public confusion over what the consensus really means. Well that had the opposite effect on me. Actually, I fib. I’m not confused at all about it.
______________________________________________________________________
@pegminer: “the vast majority of earth scientists accept that AGW is real”

Couldn’t agree more. So where does Obama’s use of the word “dangerous” and Reuters “main cause” come from?

“I think things like this are a waste of time.”

Well it prompted a misleading tweet from the President of the United States and a misleading article from the most prominent mainstream news outlet in the world.
_____________________________________________________________
@JC: 97.1% of your answer was good and I agree to some degree to that part. However, you state: “and that is clearly where the use of the word ‘dangerous’ comes from.” (from Obama’s tweet which as a recap was: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”)

That tweet can accurately be condensed to: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is … dangerous.” That’s not even rhetoric or opinion. That’s making a false claim about what the study said.

You may think I am nit-picking but you have to realize that if you want to “start working toward a workable compromise”, you have acknowledge Obama’s tweet for what it is and also whenever something similar arises. I’ll do the same. That’s how you break impasses. Oh, and don’t bring along Hey Dook. He’d just piss in the punchbo
…p!$$ in the punchbowl.