Regarding my previous reluctance to answer your question first, I am disappointed that you didn't at least try to answer my question beforehand so that you may have been able to figure out whether you were citing sources from qualified climate scientists in peer reviewed publications, or from non-experts who are no more qualified to comment as authorities on climate change than Paris Hilton. I honestly hoped you could learn something about reading and referencing reliable authors from peer-reviewed publications. Regrettably it appears from the tone your previous posts, you do not seem open to doing so.
Now firstly, I should correct the wording of my previous posts. I should not have said "97 percent of climate scientists" but should have said "an estimated 97 percent of climate scientists." You can find John Cook's peer reviewed journal article here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. The abstract clearly states, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." He covered 11,944 abstracts from peer-reviewed publications from 1991 to 2011. I repeat that this is a peer reviewed journal article providing a mathematically reliable estimate here. Where is there evidence of John Cook distorting or omitting data?
Before I continue, I think there is a good reason why 66.4% of abstracts would express no position on anthropogenic climate change. The natural sciences are different from social sciences such as politics and economics where researches accept there is room for debate. in the natural sciences, researchers do not agree to disagree. Either you accept the established theory or you publish groundbreaking research convincing all or the overwhelming majority of fellow scientists otherwise. If you are a physicist, an evolutionary biologist or climate scientist, you either 1) accept quantum physics, evolution or climate change as the established theory respectively, or 2) you propound your own theory (which to date hasn't happened). It's a given that many climate scientists would not express a position on climate change in their abstracts as to call themselves climate scientists, readers would assume that they accept the established theory.
I don't know who this David Friedman is as there is no information about him, his qualifications or publications on his blog, but all he is trying to do is cast doubt from John Cook's findings that 66.4 percent didn't express a position on climate change in their article abstracts. Furthermore, why hasn't he provided his own estimate about the scientific consensus on climate change? Moreover, why is he uploading his claims on BlogSpot instead of submitting articles to peer reviewed journals? See my above paragraph as to why it is highly unlikely that the real figure is as low as 1.6 percent. It is also important to remember that while estimates are not counts, they can corroborate each other through approximate findings. Let's look at some other recent peer reviewed publications which found that consensus among climate scientists is 98.7 percent (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774), more than 99 percent (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) and 100 percent (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266)
Further to my first paragraph, climate change denial is void of academic merit. Imagine if an historian researched diaries that had been kept by German Jews in the 1930s and stated in an abstract of an article, "We find that 66.4% of diaries did not comment on the Nazi regime, 32.6% expressed fear and/or aversion, 0.7% expressed feeling safe and/or positive about the regime and 0.3% expressed feeling uncertain about the regime. Among diaries expressing an opinion on the Nazi regime, 97.1% expressed fear and/or aversion." One can only imagine that David Irving would try to cast doubt on whether Jews felt unsafe in Nazi Germany based upon that 66.4 percent. Climate change denial is to climate science what Holocaust denial is to history.
Nonetheless if you can provide peer reviewed research, please do so.
reply
share