Abstract Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus. Did you even read it?
It continues: The consensus paper by Cook et al (2013) generated a lot of interest. Consensus is not proof, but occasional stock takes of the state of scientific knowledge are useful for identifying fruitful new research avenues and potential paradigm shifts. Agreement, or perceived agreement, about the extent and causes of climate change has no bearing on rational choices about greenhouse gas emission reduction—those are driven by the trade-offs between the impacts of climate change and the impacts of climate policy—but it does affect the public perception of and the political debate on climate policy, as does the integrity of climate research. Cook et al (2013) estimate the fraction of published papers that argue, explicitly or implicitly, that most of the recent global warming is human-made. They find a consensus rate of 96%–98%. Other studies6 find different numbers, ranging from 47% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 100% in Oreskes (2004)—if papers or experts that do not take a position are excluded, as in Cook et al. If included, Cook et al find a consensus rate of 33%–63%. Other studies range from 40% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 96% in (Carlton et al 2015). Cook et al use the whole sample. Other studies find substantial variation between subsamples. Doran and Zimmerman (2009), for instance, find 82% for the whole sample, while the consensus in subsamples ranges from 47% to 97%. Verheggen et al (2014) find 66% for the whole sample, with subsample consensus ranging from 7% to 79%. Figure 1 shows these estimates; see also table A1 in the appendix.
You see what you want to see. Cook et al selected papers that mentioned AGW but then dismissed over 60% of them because they took no position. Think about it. Those papers were selected but took no position, how? As the link I posted shows there were serious errors in their methodology which brings the results into question. If you want a better example take a look at the Oreskes study, she was a student from what I remember. The nonsense of it is that they're asking very leading questions then interpreting the results how they want them.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf This will get shot down by the alarmists because he's a Lord but he does sum up the real issue with the consensus and it's well worth a read.
Blono, if we are going to do a research project then lets try and get some funding? The reason I didn't read all of Tols 2016 paper was that it was a critique of Cook et al 2013 paper. Cook et al in their 2016 paper repudiated Tols views in a far more detailed way than I am able to do or have the time to undertake. In their subsequent 2016 paper Cook et al said -
Most if not all of his points have been challenged by Prof Abraham and a number of his arguments have been criticised by the very scientists he was referencing. It was also written well before the Cook et al papers of 2013 & 2016. He isn't a member of the House of Lords. https://members.parliament.uk/members/Lords We could go on like this for ever.
Yeeeeeehah,finito,the end,kaput,......,party time ......well done blono for your research into Armageddon and your sceptical stance.....also to Mr merde for his unflinching desire to do his part in keeping mother earth from imploding and going round for a while longer for he obviously takes a more "I believe it" theme....but whichever side you are on let's put this hopefully into the "filed" drawer and enjoy the day because either way it may well be your last, not climate change but your own ****ing body .....now switch off the lights on this
Billions of people in this world still believe in a God of some form with much less evidence than Climate Change so I wasn't expecting to get anywhere with Eric. I do apologise for monopolizing the thread though.
Might have a solution to fossil fuel / replenishable energy by oooh, 2100 or so. Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News
never do that.... on what is after all your opinion and we all have one of those to play with, hopefully for a while yet ........are you starting a thread on the god subject ffs
I must say I admire your faith in your belief that climate change isn't happening, personally I prefer to err on the side of caution.
https://www.treehugger.com/ethanol-worse-for-climate-than-gasoline-study-5219116 It seems that the ethanol we're forced to pump into our cars isn't as green as they say. Oh dear. On top of that there's a mandate for all of us to drive electric cars. Many thousands have done as they have been told and will see their fuel costs increase by 40% in April. These increased costs are a drop in the ocean compared to what it could be like if we continue on this ridiculous road to nowhere.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...y-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/#2f5c614d36d8 This is an excellent article. It spotlights exactly the problem with the Climate Change message. When you talk to the actual Climate Scientists, not the celebrity scientists, and read the actual IPCC reports you get a very different message. The MSM, Politicians, Swedish gnomes and protest groups aren't following the science so, unless you're reading the reports, you don't know the truth.
Ethanol was only every really a development to enable oil companies to keep selling oil and car manufacturers to do little. A bit like low tar cigarettes being better for you than full tar. The article does say:
Justifying this sort of exaggeration by claiming it draws attention to the issue is, as the article points out, not the best way to discuss what is actually happening and what can and is being done, as it diminishes trust. My children are concerned but not anxious or worried. They tend to point out that there isn't a need to buy a RAM 3500 when a standard UTE will do perfectly well and that electric cars would be good, if only we could get some more solar panels installed to charge them.
