Are you referring to the same AMS survey where 57% of the respondents say on page 24 that they don't consider themselves experts in climate science?
A poster above (arguing for the consensus position btw) posted a recent survey that indicates only 67% of AMS members believe that a majority of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. That's not a consensus. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.... [GiordyS]
That was me. Why do you seem to think that survey is a good way to estimate the scientific consensus on AGW among experts in the subject?
Estimating the scientific consensus on AGW can be performed repeatedly and independently by surveying peer-reviewed scientific abstracts which state a position about whether humans caused most of the global warming since 1950. Cook et al. 2013 (C13) did this.
Another method of estimating the scientific consensus is to email the scientists who write those peer-reviewed papers and ask if their paper(s) endorse AGW. C13 did this, but it can't be repeatedly indefinitely because the authors would eventually stop answering. One might also search for statements by those authors, to avoid self-selection bias caused by some authors not responding to emails. Anderegg et al. 2010 did this.
Why do you keep ignoring those estimates in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents explicitly don't consider themselves experts in climate science? If you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?
However, the evidence I've seen regarding consensus is mixed. I've seen some worthless studies - one "97%" survey only surveying~75 scientists and asking a near worthless question... [GiordyS]
Good grief. I've already explained that Doran and Zimmerman 2009 surveyed 3146 scientists, and reported all those results in their figure 1. I also already explained that their question wasn't "worthless". I also already explained that Doran and Zimmerman examined the most expert subset: 79 scientists "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".
Again, if you surveyed doctors about a topic involving heart surgery and only 77 out of 3145 of those doctors were actively practicing heart surgeons, wouldn't you be more interested in what those experts have to say?
But it's interesting that GiordyS doubles down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample. Keep that in mind.
... I've recently seen a paper that only shows ~65% agreement among AMS members for example. [GiordyS]
Since only 37% of those AMS survey respondents consider themselves experts in climate science, that's consistent with figure 1 in Cook et al. 2016 which shows the AGW consensus is lower among samples having less expertise in climate science.
So yeah, I question the value of former cartoonist "I am not a scientist" John Cook's dubious paper claiming a vast scientific consensus, when clearly agreement among AMS members is only at ~65%. That's just one example of contradictory evidence. You respond to this contradictory evidence by immediately dismissing the views of AMS members as irrelevant. Don't let inconvenient facts get in your way! [GiordyS]
It might be interesting to see the subset of answers for the 37% of those AMS members who do consider themselves to be experts, but it would also be helpful to cross-check against an independent metric like the total number of climate-related publications and total citations for those papers, like Anderegg et al. 2010 did.
Meanwhile a paper studying "United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change" and a survey looking at "Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage" are considered climate science literature that endorses consensus. You don't need expert domain knowledge to see that a) Cook stated that social science research and surveys were not to be included and b) they included social science research and public surveys anyway. Please show me respected climatologists defending such actions. [GiordyS]
So you disagree with ratings given to some of the 11,944 abstracts. Given the large sample, that's almost inevitable. Here are all 11,944 abstract ratings. Change the ratings on whichever ones you think are wrong, then recalculate the consensus. If the new number is sufficiently different, and your re-ratings are reasonable, you might actually be able to publish your re-analysis. But I suspect that reasonable changes would only have minor effects on the consensus, because any of these supposed problems with the raters wouldn't affect the authors' ratings of their full papers. When you change the ratings, you should also email the authors to see if they agree with your new ratings, like Cook et al. 2013 did.
since when are social scientists (who are included in Cook's 97% figure) climatologists? Since when are public surveys considered climate science literature? AMS members are a lot closer to 'climatologists' than many of the scientists he includes in Cook's 'consensus' paper. [GiordyS]
Remember that GiordyS just doubled down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample? This time, GiordyS is objecting because Cook et al. didn't take an expert subset of the full sample of papers returned by their Web of Science search. It's "tails I win, heads you lose" once again.
Furthermore, given that 57% of those surveyed AMS members don't consider themselves experts in climate science, wouldn't GiordyS only have a point if 57% of the scientists and papers included in Cook's 'consensus' paper were social scientists and public surveys? Since 57% of 11,944 abstracts is 6808, GiordyS only has to find 6,808 public surveys in the abstract ratings.
The little graph you keep posting from their activist blog shows their paper got it wrong 62% of the time?? Is that supposed to be a defense?? [GiordyS]
The authors were rating their full papers, while the Cook et al. raters were only rating the abstracts. Since the two ratings are actually measuring different things, they're not expected to be exactly the same because an abstract contains less information than the full paper. As I've explained, most scientists don't see the need to include obvious information in the abstract, but many try to include background information in their papers' introductory sections.
More importantly, the fact that more authors gave their full papers higher endorsements of AGW than the Cook et al. abstract ratings really should make you reconsider all your bizarre accusations. Again, isn't it strange that all your supposedly "atrocious" and "misleading" rater problems actually caused the Cook et al. raters to underestimate the consensus rate compared to the authors' self-ratings?
Read error 5:
T14 uses as a basis for this argument an excerpt from stolen private forum discussions (Lacatena, 2014) which is quoted out of context. Discussion of the methodology of categorising abstract text formed part of the training period in the initial stages of the rating period. When presented to raters, abstracts were selected at random from a sample size of 12,464. Hence for all practical purposes, each rating session was independent from other rating sessions. While a few example abstracts were discussed for the purposes of rater training and clarification of category parameters, the ratings and raters were otherwise independent. This was discussed in C13;
"While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves."
Independence of the raters was important to identify uncertainties based on interpretation of the rating criteria, but had little bearing on the final conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the vast majority of rater disagreements were between no position and endorsement categories; very few affected the rejection bin.
That's the one where Richard Tol says: "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."
I gave you a peer reviewed critique by an IPCC author and that wasn't good enough to raise any doubts or questions. Peer review is apparently only useful when it produces 'correct' results. [GiordyS]
I raised my doubts and questions about Tol's peer reviewed critique after he claimed the existence of ~300 extra rejection abstracts. Richard Tol simply refused to list the extra ~300 rejection abstracts his paper claimed exist.
Richard Tol is not to be trusted until and unless he either lists the extra ~300 rejection abstracts he claims exists, or he retracts that claim. (To the extent that scientists trust anyone, that is.)
Note that Richard Tol's response still doesn't include a single example of his ~300 gremlin-conjured rejection abstracts.
Someone dismissed Judith Curry's views because she wrote about it in her blog. Imagine that: dismissing Judith Curry as a mere 'blogger' when defending a paper written by... a mere blogger. Unbelievable. [GiordyS]
When Judith Curry publishes these views in a peer-reviewed journal (like Cook et al. did) then scientists will be more inclined to read those peer-reviewed views. Curry's blog, however, is a cesspool of ignorance. For example, after years of arguing that scientists don't agree closely about the causes of Earth's warming, Curry just wrote on her blog that:
"I think the Brumbergs are correct to conclude: 'In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming.'"
I was going to explain how Curry's self-contradictory "tails I win, heads you lose" nonsense was wrong, but then I realized that anyone who seriously cites Curry's blog probably wouldn't be able to understand why Curry is wrong here anyway. If Curry ever tried to publish this nonsense, it wouldn't get through peer review. That's why I ignore Curry's blog, but I would read her response if it were actually peer-reviewed.
Cooks paper is atrocious but people want to push this idea of consensus so I guess it gets a free pass. It seems warmists are blinded by bias: they can't pick out a horribly rotten apple sitting right on top. So how can we trust them to get anything right? They can't see clearly. [GiordyS]
But I'm more interested in the quality of the paper making this 97% claim. Unfortunately it seems global warming activists, scientists, and even NASA (!) will endorse really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results. It's a travesty. [GiordyS]
It's tragicomedy to see people line up to support horrendously bad studies simply because they reach the 'correct' conclusions. This sort of uncritical acceptance of anything which supports your 'side' while rejecting anything critical, no matter how well thought out, is actually helping climate deniers gain support and momentum. [GiordyS]
You on the other hand are giving a free pass to an atrociously bad paper because you agree with the results. And so are many scientists. [GiordyS]
So the question is: how can you keep defending such a paper? [GiordyS]
Apparently alarmists will defend crap science as long as it produces 'correct' results. [GiordyS]
How ironic. GiordyS repeatedly accuses NASA and other scientists of endorsing "really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results" while GiordyS simultaneously cites Tol 2014, a paper which fails to list even a single example of the extra ~300 rejection abstracts Tol claims exists.