Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DemocRAT's Global Butt-Warming Hoax - DemocRATs Caught Lying, Again - Oops. What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty
0 views
Skip to first unread message
DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Aug 2, 2015, 10:34:00 AM8/2/15
to
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the
IPCC “95%” certainty
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/43-percent-climate-consensus-m.gif
No 97% consensus, man-made global warming, survey climate scientists
…
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded
certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen
Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The
“97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less
than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the
topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature,
would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate
scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of
climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and
mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were
invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and
April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles
with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’,
covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were
included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or
just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s
database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream
science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But
hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna
LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He
notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant
driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this
group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or
“extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully
agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate
scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg,
or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and
try to “guess”.
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up
the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see
why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t
know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the
IPCC 95% certainty.
The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the
observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to
2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”
— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1a.jpg
Climate scientists, survey, consensus, 97%, certainty,
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1b.jpg
Climate Scientists, consensus, survey, 97%, 43%, certainty
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly
over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to
the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage
points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get
sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get
published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified”
pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I
daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global
warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get
papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons.
UPDATE: Curiously this new detailed study builds on a previous study
by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, which was issued in
2014 and includes the same authors, as well as John Cook and a few
others.[2] Jose Duarte responded to that first version, pointing out
that many of the people surveyed worked in mitigation and impacts of
climate change, (not climate “science” per se) which artificially
inflated the results.[3]
Is there an alternate skeptical theory in climate science?
Fabius Maximus asks whether there is a common skeptic view-point, or a
dominant paradigm, and talks about Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions.
Kuhn’s work shows that a paradigm cannot be disproved, only replaced
(details here). Unless the skeptics form a theory, they’ll remain
minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the
public policy debate about climate change (they’re distinct, although
often conflated).
To that end, I would say that no one has ever done a decent survey of
skeptical scientists, so we don’t know. Though the fact that so many
psychologists say they want to understand skeptics and so few of them
survey the scientists or leaders involved in this is rather
significant, methinks.
To venture a guess I would say that among skeptics the dominant
hypothesis is that some factor to do with the Sun is far more
important than man-made CO2. To the end that skeptics need an
alternate hypothesis, I agree, and there are many working on just
that. Dr David Evans (my other half) is still hammering through
climate model architecture, assumptions, and solar datasets. Readers
may be impatient waiting for an update; I can only say that sometimes
the art of real research and discovery is better done in silence and
without the pointless “bloodsport” of blog publication, but we are
thinking “August” or “September”, and there are many posts in draft.
David prefers to keep a lower profile while researching, but he is
working full time, and will be suggesting a paradigm shift in model
design which looks like it will resolve a great many of the current
model failures. The shift is only a small change in architecture,
while keeping most core assumptions of IPCC models, yet it makes a
profound change to the output. He has gone right back through the
central assumptions of calculating climate sensitivity and the leading
papers of the last fifteen years. As far as we know, he is the only
skeptical scientist who comes from a professional background in model
development combined with major league maths.
Independent science and independent commentary is only possible thanks
to donations from readers.
We are very grateful to our team of supporters.
POST NOTE: Naturally, a study of “consensus” tells us something about
socio-cultural factors but nothing specifically about the climate.
REFERENCES
[1^] Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer (2015) Climate
Science Survey, Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, pp 1 – 39.
[2^] Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland, Kees
Vringer, Jeroen Peters, Hans Visser, and Leo Meyer. (2014) Scientists’
Views about Attribution of Global Warming. Environmental Science and
Technology. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e, 2014.
[3^] Duarte, Jose (2014) Comment on “Scientists’ Views about
Attribution of Global Warming”, Arizona State University, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (23), pp 14057–14058, DOI: 10.1021/es504574v
CORRECTION: The reference was originally incorrectly cited as the
older (2014) paper (now numbered 2), though it was linked to the newer
paper. This is now fixed.
--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame©!
76,000+ Buckwheat, DemocRAT, Funny & FAIL Pics & Animations!
Over 17 Million Hits Since 2/10!
2/28/15: Galleries Updated!
Over 450 New OBAMA & 'RAT Cartoons & Animations Added!
Learn the TRUTH about: Bradley K Sherman, Bret Cahill, Dakota, David Johnston,
Denny, Lee Curtis, LiberalHere, Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Military Service,
MI Wakefield, Mitchel Holman, Ramon Herrera, Roneal, Sid9, Sir Gay, Tom Sr,
Yoorghis.
What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the
IPCC “95%” certainty
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/43-percent-climate-consensus-m.gif
No 97% consensus, man-made global warming, survey climate scientists
…
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded
certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen
Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The
“97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less
than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the
topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature,
would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate
scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of
climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and
mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were
invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and
April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles
with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’,
covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were
included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or
just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s
database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream
science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But
hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna
LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He
notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant
driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this
group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or
“extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully
agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate
scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg,
or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and
try to “guess”.
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up
the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see
why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t
know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the
IPCC 95% certainty.
The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the
observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to
2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”
— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1a.jpg
Climate scientists, survey, consensus, 97%, certainty,
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1b.jpg
Climate Scientists, consensus, survey, 97%, 43%, certainty
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly
over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to
the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage
points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get
sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get
published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified”
pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I
daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global
warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get
papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons.
UPDATE: Curiously this new detailed study builds on a previous study
by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, which was issued in
2014 and includes the same authors, as well as John Cook and a few
others.[2] Jose Duarte responded to that first version, pointing out
that many of the people surveyed worked in mitigation and impacts of
climate change, (not climate “science” per se) which artificially
inflated the results.[3]
Is there an alternate skeptical theory in climate science?
Fabius Maximus asks whether there is a common skeptic view-point, or a
dominant paradigm, and talks about Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions.
Kuhn’s work shows that a paradigm cannot be disproved, only replaced
(details here). Unless the skeptics form a theory, they’ll remain
minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the
public policy debate about climate change (they’re distinct, although
often conflated).
To that end, I would say that no one has ever done a decent survey of
skeptical scientists, so we don’t know. Though the fact that so many
psychologists say they want to understand skeptics and so few of them
survey the scientists or leaders involved in this is rather
significant, methinks.
To venture a guess I would say that among skeptics the dominant
hypothesis is that some factor to do with the Sun is far more
important than man-made CO2. To the end that skeptics need an
alternate hypothesis, I agree, and there are many working on just
that. Dr David Evans (my other half) is still hammering through
climate model architecture, assumptions, and solar datasets. Readers
may be impatient waiting for an update; I can only say that sometimes
the art of real research and discovery is better done in silence and
without the pointless “bloodsport” of blog publication, but we are
thinking “August” or “September”, and there are many posts in draft.
David prefers to keep a lower profile while researching, but he is
working full time, and will be suggesting a paradigm shift in model
design which looks like it will resolve a great many of the current
model failures. The shift is only a small change in architecture,
while keeping most core assumptions of IPCC models, yet it makes a
profound change to the output. He has gone right back through the
central assumptions of calculating climate sensitivity and the leading
papers of the last fifteen years. As far as we know, he is the only
skeptical scientist who comes from a professional background in model
development combined with major league maths.
Independent science and independent commentary is only possible thanks
to donations from readers.
We are very grateful to our team of supporters.
POST NOTE: Naturally, a study of “consensus” tells us something about
socio-cultural factors but nothing specifically about the climate.
REFERENCES
[1^] Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer (2015) Climate
Science Survey, Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, pp 1 – 39.
[2^] Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland, Kees
Vringer, Jeroen Peters, Hans Visser, and Leo Meyer. (2014) Scientists’
Views about Attribution of Global Warming. Environmental Science and
Technology. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e, 2014.
[3^] Duarte, Jose (2014) Comment on “Scientists’ Views about
Attribution of Global Warming”, Arizona State University, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (23), pp 14057–14058, DOI: 10.1021/es504574v
CORRECTION: The reference was originally incorrectly cited as the
older (2014) paper (now numbered 2), though it was linked to the newer
paper. This is now fixed.
--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame©!
76,000+ Buckwheat, DemocRAT, Funny & FAIL Pics & Animations!
Over 17 Million Hits Since 2/10!
2/28/15: Galleries Updated!
Over 450 New OBAMA & 'RAT Cartoons & Animations Added!
Learn the TRUTH about: Bradley K Sherman, Bret Cahill, Dakota, David Johnston,
Denny, Lee Curtis, LiberalHere, Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Military Service,
MI Wakefield, Mitchel Holman, Ramon Herrera, Roneal, Sid9, Sir Gay, Tom Sr,
Yoorghis.
0 new messages