Re: "Scientists Say" blather
Reply #57 –
Shall we try this a bit at a time?
The Cook Consensus paper begins with the statement:Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
Oreskes, in the essay cited, stated:
[…] analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
“climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
- explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
- evaluation of impacts,
- mitigation proposals,
- methods,
- paleoclimate analysis, and
- rejection of the consensus position.
(list format added)
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Are we on the same page, ersi? Are we talking about the same paper?
And have I mis-represented anything — yet?