Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
And there you are again showing the class how you simply can't read printed words. My quote from the post--
tell us more about how many scientists make up 97%? please, share with the class.
You are really just stupid.
It was a SAMPLE. Samples are quite commonly used in science. It appears that in Cook it was 4,014 papers that expressed a position in re AGW while in that same study a subset was sself-analyzed by the actual authors (1,381 papers) and both arrived at a 97% consensus.
Every drug you currently take that the doctor prescribed was tested for efficacy and safety based on a sample of the overall population. By necessity this is always less than the full population.
From Cook we learn about the Cook13 study which outlines how many were in the given cohort:
"Following a similar methodology, C13 analysed the abstracts of 11 944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that matched the search terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ in the ISI Web of Science search engine. Among the 4014 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus. In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
One of the critiques in Cook about earlier studies sums up the problem:
"Tol (2016) effectively treats no-position abstracts as rejecting AGW, thereby deriving consensus values less than 35%. Equating no-position papers with rejection or an uncertain position on AGW is inconsistent wit the expectation of decreasing reference to a consensual position as that consensus strengthens (Oreskes 2007, Shwed and Bearman 2010). Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol’s method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking ‘no position’."
I find it interesting that by Tol's methodology plate tectonics wouldn't even be considered a scientific consensus. (hint: PT is extremely well established and generally a consensus exists that it is real).
Anderegg's study from 2010 utilized 1,372 authors and papers which independently from Cook et al. arrived at a similar 97% consensus.
This is how science works. Multiple independent analyses arriving at a similar response.