Sunday, 1 March 2015

As Cook wrote on Skeptical Science

New comment on your post "rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change"
Author: Tom Fuller
Comment: Marco, (snore)

"As Cook wrote on Skeptical Science, “We’re basically going with [a definition of] AGW = “humans are causing global warming” Eg [sic] – no specific quantification.” This is very different from what the IPCC says–that humans have caused 90% of global warming."

During the study that was the basis for QTC, two teams of citizen scientist analysts classified papers using 7 different categories ranging from explicit endorsement to explicit rejection. The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts:
1. 65     explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
2. 934 explicit endorse
3. 2,933 implicit endorse
4. 8,261 no position
5. 53     implicit reject
6. 15     explicit reject
7. 10     explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

The highest level of endorsement–“Endorsement level 1, Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%.(human actions causing 50% or more warming)” was assigned by the raters to a grand total of 65 out of the 12,000 papers evaluated. This certainly is a weak finding. Even combined with level 2’s 934 papers it amounts to less than 10%.

"“Let’s walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
Permalink: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/24/rigorously-eschewing-the-unfortunate-ad-hominem-arguments-that-too-often-characterize-public-debate-about-human-caused-climate-change/#comment-52782

No comments:

Post a comment