Having had the 97% consensus meme shown to be a 100% farce, Warmists refuse to give up on their anti-science drumbeat of consensus on the current warm period being mostly/solely caused by Mankind. And away we go
97% consensus on climate change? More like 99.94%, study finds
The general trend in the media seems to suggest that there’s a 97% agreement between scientists regarding the validity of climate change. However, that might not be accurate. Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement. (snip)
There are thousands and thousands of studies documenting climate change and its effects and among scientists, there’s essentially a consensus regarding climate change. While the details and the exact specifics of how it is happening are still very much an area of active research, there’s not much denying that it is happening and that we are causing it.
To portray this, the media often uses the phrase “97% consensus†— likely originating from a 2014 study by Cook et al. entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“. In the study, Cook analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.
Belief is not science. And, like the Cook et al “study”, this one will surely be found lacking, and that the vast majority of papers will portray the current warming period as not mostly/solely caused by Mankind. In fact, even Skeptical Science, a hardcore Warmist site, had issues with his previous paper proclaiming a 99.99% consensus.
“While the details and the exact specifics of how it is happening are still very much an area of active research, there’s not much denying that it is happening and that we are causing it.”
If the details of HOW it is happening are an area of active research, then declaring “we are causing it” is a contradiction.
Can everyone see my “shocked” face? Scientific illiterates “believing” in science.
Well. 97% I was skeptical. But at 99.7%, I’m convinced.
/Sarc
97% vs 99%?
Like all those Saddam Hussein votes.
Jeff,
You claim to have cured cancer, yet you can’t read scientific knowledge. The article used a met-analysis, people who read real scientific papers know that a meta-analysis is just about as useless as to paper in the magazine to be used to clean your backside. Then the papers use “peer” reviewed articles to assess climate concerns and association with CO2. We are well aware that the peer review process in all areas of science is broken due to editors filtering out material that they don’t agree with rather than look at the facts of a given piece of literature. So, your statement, as usual, is fairly stupid.
I didn’t claim to cure cancer you smelly old liar.
And I didn’t make a statement, I quoted the article, which was stating a scientific fact.
The scientists who refute the theory of greenhouse global warming would become very famous, yet no one has been able to do it.
“THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! WE’VE BEEN SAYING SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!! WHY DO YOU INSIST ON CONTINUING AN ARGUMENT WE TOLD YOU 30 YEARS AGO YOU’D ALREADY LOST!!!???”
It’s clear that the current warming results from added greenhouse gases, mostly CO2.