tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post5024847759610917946..comments2024-02-25T04:18:42.461-06:00Comments on Sam's Posts: Study: literally looking at a single pie chart increases support for action on climate changesam posthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06492835294287504609noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post-21117002078550602452015-08-14T11:53:59.231-05:002015-08-14T11:53:59.231-05:00Okay, you're right, it's of papers, not sc...Okay, you're right, it's of papers, not scientists, but isn't that probably a better measure of consensus? After all, people come along with all sorts of quirky beliefs/biases, but it's much more difficult to get that biased belief—at least if it's false—represented in peer-reviewed research, at least in the "hard"-er sciences.<br /><br />Also note again that in phase 2, the self-rating phase, it was 65.5% that expressed a position on AGW, of which 97% endorsed the consensus view.<br /><br />Again, I would refer readers (and you, though sounds like you've probably been here) specifically here: <br /><br />http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm<br />sam posthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06492835294287504609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post-80722533253157738562015-08-14T06:02:58.271-05:002015-08-14T06:02:58.271-05:00(Plus the 97% is "amongst decided voters"...(Plus the 97% is "amongst decided voters" only, i.e., of that 33% of papers that appeared to express an opinion on the AGW topic at all.)Frank Ch. Eiglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535966377820034604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post-54194860758635860962015-08-13T23:10:28.320-05:002015-08-13T23:10:28.320-05:00Hi Sam. I hadn't personally taken a close loo...Hi Sam. I hadn't personally taken a close look at the Cook paper & supplementary data before tonight. But if the 97% number is really dependent on counting even the type-3 "implicit endorsement" level of support as part of the "consensus" (and it's 75% of that 97% all by itself), maybe it's not that strong a claim. AIUI, some skeptic types would agree that humans could be partly a cause, and thus could author / agree-with type-3 papers. If so, then the "consensus" as defined by Cook et al. does not discriminate between the AGW true-believers and these skeptics.<br /><br />It may also be noteworthy that the stated 97% is of -abstracts-, not -scientists-.Frank Ch. Eiglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535966377820034604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post-13254899224438475082015-08-13T22:36:14.295-05:002015-08-13T22:36:14.295-05:00Hi, there, Mr. Frank Ch. Eigler! I don't know ...Hi, there, Mr. Frank Ch. Eigler! I don't know whether your motivations are innocent or nefarious, but I'm guessing you're in the "exposure to evidence only hardens views" camp based on the false and misleading information contained in the links you've shared! Nevertheless, for the skeptical and un-hardened reader, I will correct some of the most egregious falsehoods; for a complete and comprehensive rebuttal, I refer readers to a real and reputable climate science blog like skeptical science (skepticalscience.com).<br /><br />First and most importantly, the "97% consensus study" authors not only rated the papers involved themselves (in phase 1), but also elicited self-reported ratings in a second phase, with the same level of consensus reached. (Readers can see the abstract at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article which details this process pretty clearly). Secondly, meteorologists are not climate scientists, so I'd go with Cook et. al's methods. Not that any of that really matters, since a 52% that the oceans will all be made of acid in 100 years should probably be enough to move us to action anyway.<br /><br />And while some of the commentary in the second link is reasonable regarding the effectiveness/non-effectiveness of consensus messaging, some of the other stuff in there is just plain false, for instance when claiming that the consensus-message study didn't move people's own opinions about the causes of climate change, but only moved their self-reported estimation of the scientific consensus. Again, follow the link to the research, and you'll see that that's just wrong.<br /><br />sam posthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06492835294287504609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1912286501198044525.post-83871526185386533222015-08-13T21:23:59.104-05:002015-08-13T21:23:59.104-05:00But see also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20...But see also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/ and http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/17/against-consensus-messaging/ .Frank Ch. Eiglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535966377820034604noreply@blogger.com