@ExtremeNext References J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. [b]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.”[/b]
@IstillmissEP Because if you’re looking at people active in the field, you don’t need to go back more than 20 years - if you haven’t published anything in 20 years, you’re no longer active.
Papers that do not take a position are irrelevant to that particular study, but the synthesis mentioned by badminton is a meta study, and there are others in there that use different methods, including simply polling active researchers even if their papers aren’t directly on the topic of causes behind climate change.
@IstillmissEP There was no global cooling panic of the 70s.
I repeat, anyone who isn’t publishing in the field, is no longer active in the field. Talking about what scientists thought 100 years ago is useless when you’re trying to establish the [i]current[/i] consensus.
[quote]It also disposes of all the studies showing the change is caused by orbital changes.[/quote] Bwahaha.
[quote]But if no position is a negative response, those papers greatly outnumber the man made numbers.[/quote] No position simply means the paper didn’t deal with the causes. “We don’t know why climate change is happening” would be a negative position. That’s in the 2.x%.
@IstillmissEP It’s odd that you’re using an example where we followed policy recommendations from relevant scientific bodies, and the situation dramatically improved 🤔
