Author: Tom FullerComment: 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/
Permalink: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
