More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,874
5,290
290
N/A

AND


Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.



The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.
 

AND


Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.



The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.
what caused the last ice age eh ? or is an ice age climate change ?
 
what caused the last ice age eh ? or is an ice age climate change ?
An ice age is a climate change. The article is not saying that humans caused all climate change. It is saying that there is an overwhelming consensus among published climate scientists that humans are primarily responsible for the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.
 
"Studies" are just fudged fraud to fit the narrative.

We do not need STUDIES. We do not need 5000 taxpayer funded LIARS. ALL WE NEED IS THE DATA

TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS

Satellites and balloons, which produced highly correlated data, including both showing a cooler than normal atmosphere in 1998 when Bill Clinton claimed "warmest year ever"


As Co2 went up as a % in the atmosphere, did temperature?

NO according to THE DATA...



satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data



Government should not fund studies. Government should just publish data open to all. ALL we need is THE DATA


The data = increase in atmospheric Co2 resulted in PRECISELY NO WARMING AT ALL


and what these conflicted liars did with that data is a case "study" of what a taxpayer funded "climate study" ALWAYS DOES

It takes data showing NO WARMING and FUDGES IT
 
And 51 Intelligent experts called Hunter Biden’s laptop Russian Misinformation.

It’s what happens when monies involved in anything.



They did taxpayer funded "climate studies" and concluded it was a Russian hoax!!!

LOL!!!!
 
kermit-worried.gif


78.65% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's rectum
 
An ice age is a climate change. The article is not saying that humans caused all climate change. It is saying that there is an overwhelming consensus among published climate scientists that humans are primarily responsible for the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.
Not what this scientist says

 

AND


Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.



The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.
As I've mentioned in other threads you keep creating on this topic.....

 

Forum List

Back
Top