{"id":152380,"date":"2024-01-26T09:15:45","date_gmt":"2024-01-26T14:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=152380"},"modified":"2024-01-25T19:55:12","modified_gmt":"2024-01-26T00:55:12","slug":"the-myth-behind-the-99-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=152380","title":{"rendered":"The myth behind the 99% scientific consensus on ‘human caused’ climate change"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I posted about the myth of the 97% consensus on human caused climate change in this post<\/a>. A new study was done that continued where this previous paper left off. This study concluded that there was greater than 99% consensus among scientists on “human caused” climate change. However, a reading of this new paper calls this conclusion into question.<\/p>\n

According to the latest paper, the researchers downloaded 88,125 climate related papers that had been published since 2012. From this total, the researchers focused on 3,000 papers. These papers were not read in entirety. The researchers focused on the abstracts instead. For context, the abstract of a paper is like a teaser on a book cover. One purpose of the abstract is for other researchers to see if the information in the paper is relevant to their study.<\/p>\n

The study’s authors had to determine how many papers did not support the man-made global warming theory. So, they created an algorithm that identified specific keywords. These keywords were those that showed up in what the researchers called “skeptical.” As with the 97% consensus study, the researchers focused on the title of the paper, the abstracts, as well as the authors.<\/p>\n

From the paper:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We took the 150 most predictive words, then manually reviewed them to remove words that appeared to be there by chance (e.g. ‘walk’ and ‘nearest’) leaving those we believed could be predictively useful (e.g. ‘cosmic’ and ‘rays’).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice the words, “we believed could be predictably useful.” The researchers developed an algorithm based on what they felt would predict a consensus paper versus a skeptical paper.<\/p>\n

Their search restricted the source of their papers to English language studies found on “Web of Science.” This is one of many databases that contain scientific articles. By extension, they excluded non-English language papers as well as papers available on other portals. Their keyword search was broad, using the words “climate change”, “global climate change”, and “global warming.”<\/p>\n

Searches on academic journal portals, containing these studies, run on similar concepts as regular open internet searchers. The results that come up are influenced by the words that are used. Although the researchers “went out of their way” to sniff out the skeptical articles, their keyword search guaranteed that they would’ve pulled articles mentioning the utilized keywords at the expense of climate studies that did not use those terms.<\/p>\n

For example, had they used “global cooling”, “natural climate change,” or something similar, they would’ve pulled up more results under the “skeptical” category. Additional “skeptic” papers could’ve been found had they used “new ice age” or “new mini ice age” as keywords.<\/p>\n

Now, for how they arrived at the “greater than 97% consensus.” Of the 3,000 papers that their algorithm checked, 282 were not relevant to their research question, reducing the workable sample to 2,718. From this new total, they found that 4 were “skeptical” versus 2,714 that were “consensus.” Dividing 2,714 by 2,718 resulted in over 99% in favor of the consensus papers.<\/p>\n

Based on an algorithm that they designed based on “what they believed,” over 99% of their sample provided “agreement” in favor consensus among scientists behind man-made global warming.<\/p>\n

This latest study depended on 3,000 papers before they removed 282 papers. From the previous study<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, 11,944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If 11,944 papers represent only a fraction of the climate literature, what is 3,000 compared to an even larger body of climate literature?<\/p>\n

The authors of this paper also claimed that the scientists are not arguing over whether climate change is man-made or not… Insinuating that this question is rather settled. However, they leave out a fact that should be obvious to them… These researchers would not address a broad topic such as whether climate change is caused by humans are not. Instead, the research questions are more specific, with the researchers potentially using their results to bolster the “man caused” climate change argument.<\/p>\n

In other words, this latest paper does not prove that over 99% of the world’s climate scientists agree with man-made global warming. The papers that these authors reviewed constituted a small fraction of the total papers published on the topic. These researchers, by omitting information they know would be damaging to their argument if included, practice academic dishonesty. They abused their capacity as researchers to force a conclusion to support a narrative, rather than changing the narrative based on the results of a valid scientific method-based research.<\/p>\n

More on this study could be reviewed here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I posted about the myth of the 97% consensus on human caused climate change in this … The myth behind the 99% scientific consensus on ‘human caused’ climate change<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":661,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[694,98,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorial","category-global-warming","category-blather"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/661"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=152380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=152380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=152380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=152380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}