Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s well understood that cold kills many more than heat.
Yes, we all know that, but it doesn't falsify what the UNEP have said.The UNEP are lying. And you are promoting their lies. Shame on you.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s well understood that cold kills many more than heat.
Yes, we all know that, but it doesn't falsify what the UNEP have said.The UNEP are lying. And you are promoting their lies. Shame on you.
Terminally stupid? I'd say so.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s well understood that cold kills many more than heat.
Yes, we all know that, but it doesn't falsify what the UNEP have said.The UNEP are lying. And you are promoting their lies. Shame on you.
Terminally stupid? I'd say so.
alarmists said:
Nearly 1.2C of global heating so far has already unleashed an escalating barrage of deadly impacts across the planet.
“Has already“ means it, the escalating barrage, has already started, which is not true. That means it’s a lie.Currently the increasing temperature is saving far more lives than it takes. The downward trend of an order of magnitude greater number of cold related deaths is far higher than the upward trend of heat related ones.
Gadgetmac said:
...a little more balance...and data that incorporates solely heat related deaths including Coronary events and other health issues - unlike the numbers from conspiracy theorists who seem to think that natural disasters like earthquakes, droughts and floods are the end of the story.
Released in the last 48 hours...
High temperatures may have caused over 70,000 excess deaths in Europe in 2022
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-high-temperatures-ex...
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
The burden of heat-related mortality during the summer of 2022 in Europe may have exceeded 70,000 deaths according to a study led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal).
The authors of the study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Europe, revised upwards initial estimates of the mortality associated with record temperatures in 2022 on the European continent. The study is titled "The effect of temporal data aggregation to assess the impact of changing temperatures in Europe: an epidemiological modelling study."
In an earlier study, published in Nature Medicine, the same team used epidemiological models applied to weekly temperature and mortality data in 823 regions in 35 European countries and estimated the number of heat-related premature deaths in 2022 to be 62,862.
It’s odd (not) that phys.org chose to highlight the increased deaths due to heat whilst ignoring the reams of data and comments in the paper that indicate that cold, particularly moderate cold, is far more deadly.Released in the last 48 hours...
High temperatures may have caused over 70,000 excess deaths in Europe in 2022
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-high-temperatures-ex...
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
The burden of heat-related mortality during the summer of 2022 in Europe may have exceeded 70,000 deaths according to a study led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal).
The authors of the study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Europe, revised upwards initial estimates of the mortality associated with record temperatures in 2022 on the European continent. The study is titled "The effect of temporal data aggregation to assess the impact of changing temperatures in Europe: an epidemiological modelling study."
In an earlier study, published in Nature Medicine, the same team used epidemiological models applied to weekly temperature and mortality data in 823 regions in 35 European countries and estimated the number of heat-related premature deaths in 2022 to be 62,862.
It’s like they are trying to misinform, either that or they are incompetent.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s well understood that cold kills many more than heat.
Yes, we all know that, but it doesn't falsify what the UNEP have said.The UNEP are lying. And you are promoting their lies. Shame on you.
Terminally stupid? I'd say so.
alarmists said:
Nearly 1.2C of global heating so far has already unleashed an escalating barrage of deadly impacts across the planet.
“Has already“ means it, the escalating barrage, has already started, which is not true. That means it’s a lie.Currently the increasing temperature is saving far more lives than it takes. The downward trend of an order of magnitude greater number of cold related deaths is far higher than the upward trend of heat related ones.
As for now and what the UNEP are saying..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/...
Extract:
This warming has driven widespread and rapid global changes, including sea level rise and climate extremes – resulting in widespread harm to lives, livelihoods and natural systems.
It's increasingly clear that vulnerable people in developing countries – who have generally contributed little to greenhouse gas emissions – are often disproportionately affected by climate change.
Intergenerational inequities are also likely. A child born now is likely to suffer, on average, several times as many climate extreme events in their lifetime as their grandparents did.
The world is up the proverbial creek – but we still have a paddle. Climate change is worsening, but we have the means to act.
So yes, the escalating barrage would appear to have started. Your favourite hobby horse of cold kills more people than hot is not the killer argument you think it is due to the suffering that increased heat will and is bringing in a myriad of ways.
And you still haven't answered the question, what level of temperature increase is acceptable?
Let me have 3 peer reviewed papers from the deniersphere that are in favour of a 3+ degree increase in global temperatures.
NASA:
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.
Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.
Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Got one but sadly it's just TB's cleaner wrasse so can go back.. 
Gadgetmac said:
Peer reviewed study finds....
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
Peer reviewed paper highlights many, if not most, of the obvious issues that us deniers had with this paper. Scientists describe Lynas’s 99.9% results as biased and formed as a result of circular reasoning.More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Peer reviewed study finds....
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
Peer reviewed paper highlights many, if not most, of the obvious issues that us deniers had with this paper. Scientists describe Lynas’s 99.9% results as biased and formed as a result of circular reasoning.More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
You had no problems with the paper at all as is self evidenced by the fact that you didn't bring it up at the time. You've stumbled upon a paper that takes issue with 99% paper and are now trumpeting it as in-line with what you were thinking all along. You're not smart enough to have come up with arguments yourself which also will not have come as any surprise to anyone watching the thread.
Here's another question for you.
Demonstrate that other PH deniers had an issue with this paper when it came out. Show some posts.
Also your link has issues loading but I'll try again.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Peer reviewed study finds....
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
Peer reviewed paper highlights many, if not most, of the obvious issues that us deniers had with this paper. Scientists describe Lynas’s 99.9% results as biased and formed as a result of circular reasoning.More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
You had no problems with the paper at all as is self evidenced by the fact that you didn't bring it up at the time. You've stumbled upon a paper that takes issue with 99% paper and are now trumpeting it as in-line with what you were thinking all along. You're not smart enough to have come up with arguments yourself which also will not have come as any surprise to anyone watching the thread.
Here's another question for you.
Demonstrate that other PH deniers had an issue with this paper when it came out. Show some posts.
Also your link has issues loading but I'll try again.
Now it has also been ridiculed in a peer reviewed study.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0...
Edited by Kawasicki on Saturday 2nd December 19:00
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Peer reviewed study finds....
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
Peer reviewed paper highlights many, if not most, of the obvious issues that us deniers had with this paper. Scientists describe Lynas’s 99.9% results as biased and formed as a result of circular reasoning.More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
Extract:
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.
"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said. "That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere."
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. "We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000," Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles." The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. "This pretty much should be the last word," he said.
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
Personally that comes as no surprise as it shouldn't to anyone watching this thread.
You had no problems with the paper at all as is self evidenced by the fact that you didn't bring it up at the time. You've stumbled upon a paper that takes issue with 99% paper and are now trumpeting it as in-line with what you were thinking all along. You're not smart enough to have come up with arguments yourself which also will not have come as any surprise to anyone watching the thread.
Here's another question for you.
Demonstrate that other PH deniers had an issue with this paper when it came out. Show some posts.
Also your link has issues loading but I'll try again.
Now it has also been ridiculed in a peer reviewed study.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0...
Edited by Kawasicki on Saturday 2nd December 19:00
Also, you seem to be extolling the virtues of peer review of this new paper and yet back in 2021 at your link provided you say "peer review is increasingly meaningless".
So another question, Has something changed?
And again you still havent answered my question, wheres all of the posts from the other deniers over this 99% paper.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 3rd December 08:21
Hang on a minute. I’m told, matter of factly, that I didn’t have a problem with the Lynas 99.9% propaganda paper. Then when I showed I did I was criticised for showing that I did. It took about 10 seconds to find the old posts and another 30 seconds to post a link to the page.
STR160 also commented, if I remember correctly. Not sure I want to check that, as it might draw criticism!
Peer review clearly isn’t working. The Lynas paper can be torn apart in seconds by a non scientist on a car forum.
STR160 also commented, if I remember correctly. Not sure I want to check that, as it might draw criticism!
Peer review clearly isn’t working. The Lynas paper can be torn apart in seconds by a non scientist on a car forum.
Hang on a minute. I’m told, matter of factly, that I didn’t have a problem with the Lynas 99.9% propaganda paper. Then when I showed I did I was criticised for showing that I did. It took about 10 seconds to find the old posts and another 30 seconds to post a link to the page.
STR160 also commented, if I remember correctly. Not sure I want to check that, as it might draw criticism!
Peer review clearly isn’t working. The Lynas paper can be torn apart in seconds by a non scientist on a car forum.
STR160 also commented, if I remember correctly. Not sure I want to check that, as it might draw criticism!
Peer review clearly isn’t working. The Lynas paper can be torn apart in seconds by a non scientist on a car forum.
Here's one, came out a couple of days ago...
Extreme heat and drought typical of an end-of-century climate could occur over Europe soon and repeatedly
Peer reviewed paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01075-y...
Extract:
In the last 30 years, up to 30% of heat-related deaths globally can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
Extreme heat and drought typical of an end-of-century climate could occur over Europe soon and repeatedly
Peer reviewed paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01075-y...
Extract:
In the last 30 years, up to 30% of heat-related deaths globally can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
Gadgetmac said:
So here's your chance, start posting up current papers that support your denialist position on AGW, there should be plenty of them.
This paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
Does it not? What’s my position on climate change? IThis paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
So here's your chance, start posting up current papers that support your denialist position on AGW, there should be plenty of them.
This paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
Does it not? What’s my position on climate change? IThis paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
I might also add that your paper states the following in its conclusion...
We stress here that this work does not wish to discuss the level of the climate consensus nor to express support or objection to the claim of an existing climate consensus. Indeed, other indications for a “climate consensus” (in the form of, e.g., surveys and questionnaire have been published in the literature, and some degree of consensus seems to be plausible.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
So here's your chance, start posting up current papers that support your denialist position on AGW, there should be plenty of them.
This paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
Does it not? What’s my position on climate change? IThis paper you've just linked to doesn't support your position on climate change you get that right?
I might also add that your paper states the following in its conclusion...
We stress here that this work does not wish to discuss the level of the climate consensus nor to express support or objection to the claim of an existing climate consensus. Indeed, other indications for a “climate consensus” (in the form of, e.g., surveys and questionnaire have been published in the literature, and some degree of consensus seems to be plausible.
You posted/highlighted the Lynas paper on here, you and others defended it. Either you read it and didn’t understand it, or you did understand it and posted it anyway. Neither looks good for you.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff