The myth behind the 99% scientific consensus on ‘human caused’ climate change
I posted about the myth of the 97% consensus on human caused climate change in this post. 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.
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.
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.
From the paper:
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’).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
This latest study depended on 3,000 papers before they removed 282 papers. From the previous study:
Nevertheless, 11,944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature…
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?
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.
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.
More on this study could be reviewed here and here.
Category: Editorial, Global Warming, Pointless blather
“Its Trumps fault.”
Lars
Always.
Well it’s been said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics…and here we are unsurprisingly.
Your conclusions are not surprising and not at all unexpected for me, that the data was manipulated to return the expected results is also a sadly all too common event in statistical probabilities these days.
A case in point is the canard that marriages end in divorce 50% of the time, an alarming statistic on its face except it is also quite false. The researchers came up with that based on the idea that there 1.2 million marriages in a year and 600,000 divorces that same year so thus half ended in divorce…except it never considered that there were already 66 million married couples in these United States that same year. When taken in that context it’s a considerably lower percentage than 50%.
Appreciate the article on climate change bullshit, as it reinforces what I’ve seen myself and with others looking skeptically at the “settled science” of it all.
I was attempting to get that across to the Commissar yesterday, but he’s blinded by the numbers that make his point. His numbers were absolutely correct, but inflated by changing the method of counting. The result is a pretty lie, wrapped up with a nice pretty bow.
Indeed for far too many of our fellow Americans lies become truths when told correctly using snapshot statistical considerations.
Confirmation bias in statistical aggregation is an easy trap to fall into without ever having an intent to do so…if one is determined to make bias a component of the outcome it’s often not difficult to do so, especially in areas where the “settled science” or “majority opinions” are largely based along political ideologies.
Try to find someone who doesn’t believe that half of all first marriages end in divorce largely for the reasons state above and you’ll find it quite difficult.
Reporters routinely state how dangerous the USA is due to the number of murders that take place, but you’re more likely to die from a fall than murder. Especially if you are not involved in the drug trade. Removing the murders that take place due to the drug trade and the US suddenly becomes a very, very safe nation after all.
But that doesn’t sell advertising on the evening news, so if it bleeds it still leads.
Remove gang hoodlums killing each other from the stats and this country becomes even safer.
Hartford is responsible for about a quarter of all murders here in CT.
Ain’t squabbles over rowdy Pokemon games.
Because they be criminals, we get disarmed and restricted, to the betterment of nothing.
Edit:
It is a fraction causing all the friction.
I was unaware Stamford made the list. The others have been cesspools for decades now but Stamford I thought turned around sharply since the 1990s and early 2000s.
thebesig – my, my, my, will you ever learn? Facts, logic, proper research, sound reasoning, acting like you’re all educated. Obviously, you’re not. You couldn’t possibly be as you insist on conclusions contrary to what the educated overlords and their simp minions know to be truth.
^^^This.
Everyone knows that FACTS are rayciss – and are a product of masochism, white privilege, and perpetuated by middle-aged heterosexual white men.
Keep it up, and you’ll find yourself in one of those re-education camps where you’ll learn to think correctly and be forced to enjoy your daily ration of bugs.
One of the reasons why they do not like social media competing with them when it comes to information sharing, and why there is an effort to “rig” social media to favor their narrative.
and yet we still don’t know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop
3.
The world may never know.
Ask Mr. Owl.
… for he is the wisest of us all.
I’ll just leave this here for everybody’s amusement.
REEEEEEEEEEE!
Ok, don’t get me started on Greta memes
Request acknowledged and denied.
That sack of shit deserves every little bit of hate she receives and then some.
From this Princeton Climate Institute “Doctor?” to your ears:
She’s like something out of Grimm…
Gretta (2028)
If she sits on you, it is game over.
If she sits on your face, you won’t be able to hear the stereo, and that’ll be the least of your worries!!!
My Chessie was not amused.
His ancestors help build that bridge and thats why the area is
named after the breed. Little known fact.
😉😎
😉😎
The Real Reason Why Dinosaurs Became Extinct (Human Caused…)
😆
I imagine that oxygen-depriving, pain-inducing stench coming from that huge, steaming pile of Phil Monkress down at All-Points Logistics in Merritt Island, Florida has a large and negative impact on the climate.
When I was high school age I was told there were 3 classes of liars in descending order of honesty. Liars, damned liars and statisticians. Having taken statistics in college I learned the validity of that statement. Any study can be manipulated to produce any desired result by the statistician (or source of funding) setting up the premise to be validated. It’s actually a simple process.
Decrease the amount of coffee we consume to “Save The Planet”?
Yeah. Right…🙄
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up…
Also, NO THANK YOU on “Instant Coffee”. We had our shares of that nasty stuff that was in our C-Rats and MREs..🤮
“Coffee’s ‘Contribution To Climate Change’ Is Just The ‘Tip Of The Iceberg,’ Study Says.”
“The Researchers Suggested That ‘Limiting’ Your Coffee Intake Is ‘Part Of The Solution’ To Fight Climate Change”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/coffees-contribution-climate-change-just-tip-iceberg-study-says
“Canadian researchers analyzed coffee’s “contribution to climate change” in a piece published in early January and suggested people moderate their consumption of the popular drink as a part of the solution.”
“Researchers Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Charles Marty, Jean-François Boucher and Pierre-Luc Dessureault wrote in an analysis published in The Conversation that pollution from preparing coffee was “just the tip of the iceberg.”
“Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs (greenhouse gases) and moderating your consumption are part of the solution,” the researchers at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi wrote.”
“The study also found that using coffee pods to brew coffee contributed less to the carbon footprint than brewing coffee with a traditional filter.”
“They found that instant coffee was the most environmentally sound.”
Fuck these guys!
Thy can have my coffee when they pry it from my cold dead hands!
One would have to be Chock Full of Nuts to deny me my brew.
Hmmm, makes me wonder if those Canadian researchers have been drinking this stuff before making their analysis:
8955-00-085-1588 Coffee, Instant, Decaffeinated, (Sanka) / s
Welcome back, Claw!
You have been missed!
Sanka…YECK!!!
I’m caffeinated for the protection of others.
SFC D:
You and 26Limabeans are stealing shot term puns from our beloved Jeff…😉
We are with Fyefighter…those “researchers” for “climate change” will have to pry coffee from our cold, dead hands!
😎
Wasn’t a pun. It’s a historically documented fact. But yeah, I’m guilty as charged.
I found this:
Yeah, let’s force all the world’s coffee drinkers to only drink that vile C-rat instant coffee. If that doesn’t start an insurrection, nothing will.
I used to drink that swill in my canteen cup in the Viet of the Nam.
Apparently, farting contributed to climate change, just ask the dinosaurs. According to this article, they farted themselves into extinction.
https://www.foxnews.com/science/dinosaurs-gassed-themselves-into-extinction-british-scientists-say
I’ll just stick this right here…
Correct.
Just like gun control, attempting to mitigate “man-made” global warming is just a Trojan horse for exerting more control on the people.
Confirmation bias. Pure and simple.
*SAVE THE EARTH!!!
*50% of animal species are at risk of becoming extinct
*40-50% of humanity is at high risk of being dead
CROPLANDS are becoming deserts due to manmade climate change
*ACID RAIN will kill off aquatic and marine life
*DEFORESTATION will eliminate the Amazon Rain Forests
*THE POLAR ICE CAPS will be gone
“ALL THIS will happen by the year 2000 …” is what was being fed to me while I was in college in the late 1980’s and none of that shit has happened, but they’re still pushing their propaganda to the gullible young to con them into being good little useful idiots to carry out their agenda.
Just went our ‘ally’ needs us the most, the USG decides to kick Germany and the rest of Europe right in the balls.
Biden hits pause on approvals of liquified natural gas exports (link to NBC)
It ain’t offical until the denial.
Did you know Germany is in recession and’s been crushed under the weight of high energy prices?
Good thing they were robbed of that pipeline thing by someone…
Unbelievable.
Substantial changes in temps on earth over billions of years, causing real climate changes over the eons with nary a man in sight. Yet somehow we caused the single-decimal-point levels of variance now in the most recent .0000000000000000001 percent of earth’s life and and need to change our whole way of life (and do it NOW!). Call me a skeptic.
When people like Leo DiCaprio and Barack Obama buy beachfront mansions, I become quite skeptical that the oceans are rising and/or climate change will destroy humans in “10 years” if we don’t do something now!
If you want to dig deep and see the manmade global warming/climate change BS for what it really is, check out Tony Heller, a climate scientist who has debunked the lie thoroughly again and again. Be forewarned, Tony is very thorough and there are thousands of sources, but that is what makes his research so good. The Algore types try to ignore him but you ignore the truth at your own peril.
https://realclimatescience.com
Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller/videos