Timeline for Is it accurate to say that 97% of experts agree that global warming is anthropogenic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2014 at 9:33 | history | edited | Sklivvz |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| Jul 12, 2014 at 0:45 | history | edited | Sklivvz |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 23, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | Brad | define "expert". | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | user18604 | Papers that do not state a position on AGW provide no information on the question, and hence should be excluded. Including them and concluding that the support for AGW is only 36.2% is making the error of treating a lack of an explicit statement of support as an implicit statement of a lack of support. | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | user18604 | Similarly, not every paper on climate change is concerned with the cause of climate change, whether natural or not. For instance they are concerned with the consequences of climate change, or some methodological issue in analysis of observations. Scientists generally refrain from making statements that are not directly supported by the findings presented in the paper, so we should not expect even the majority of papers on climate change to express an opinion on the cause of the climate change, even if the authors are known to be strong supporters of AGW. | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | user18604 | Say we want to know the ratio of posters on a sports blog that think that England will win the next Ashes series. We sample comments containing the keyword "cricket" and find that 66.4% of comments expressed no position on the Ashes series (perhaps because they were discussing West Indian cricket etc.), 32.6% thought that England would win, 0.7% thought that Australia would win and 0.3% were uncertain. To determine the level of support for an England series victory, the thing to do is to analyse those comments that expressed an opinion on the series outcome, which would give the answer 97%. | |
| Jun 13, 2013 at 19:21 | answer | added | TallDave | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 2, 2013 at 14:50 | answer | added | glenra | timeline score: 10 | |
| May 27, 2013 at 21:16 | comment | added | matt_black | No answers yet have asked whether the statistical methods of the authors were sound. Some have certainly queried them in the blogosphere, and not just the anti-AGW crowd. Others have questioned whether the rating system or the sampling used were reliable. | |
| May 26, 2013 at 23:34 | answer | added | cloudpoint | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 24, 2013 at 15:58 | comment | added | user5341 | There was a time when 99+% of experts agreed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Much much later, 99% of experts agreed that true gentlemen doctors should not be asked to wash their hands before delivering babies in the hospital. 99% of published biologists in USSR agreed that Mendelian genetics is a bourgeois fakery. Frankly, the mere fact that AGW pushers feel the overwhelming need to use this "statistic" to shut up opponents is what caused me to be skeptical of AGW before I knew of any of the details. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 20:24 | comment | added | matt_black | @MichaelEdenfield Thats a pretty good concise summary of what I thought, though even discovery quote omits the context of the proportion having an opinion. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 14:20 | answer | added | Dr. Delos | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 22, 2013 at 12:53 | answer | added | user1873 | timeline score: 14 | |
| May 19, 2013 at 13:12 | comment | added | KutuluMike | Your Discovery quote appear to be accurate: "97.2 percent of the papers that took a position on the subject ..."; the others are apparently mis-quoting or poorly summarizing. | |
| May 19, 2013 at 5:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/335983472529264640 | ||
| May 18, 2013 at 22:58 | comment | added | user5582 | I would like to make this an answer, but I don't know how to support it with references: "It is not known if 97% of climate scientists agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)." | |
| May 18, 2013 at 22:27 | answer | added | Mark Adler | timeline score: 24 | |
| May 18, 2013 at 18:24 | answer | added | Mark | timeline score: 34 | |
| May 18, 2013 at 18:15 | history | edited | Mad Scientist♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 408 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2013 at 17:44 | history | asked | matt_black | CC BY-SA 3.0 |