Minichan

@OP
Not clicking that right wing conspiracy link. CLIMATE ACTION NOW!

@previous (B)
Gonna eat more beef and dairy!

Hogwash from the Washington Times
Owned by WackJob weirdo Unification movement leader Sun Myung Moon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Science_coverage



OP~idiot cums along with Fake News Article

@previous (Syntax)
I mean even the "scientists and engineers" are a bunch of nobodies, with some fossil fuel industry stooges mixed in for good measure. It's not a real group of independent scientists.

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I did not really even think about looking up the fake science guys the newspaper used. They publish a mass of bad science information.



Clearly if 97% of Doctors agree the patient will die unless operated on, only a fool wood go to a Witch Doctor for an opinion and ignore the 97%.

@previous (Syntax)
I really do think fear is the driving factor here. Nobody likes hearing that disaster is coming, and that it is our fault, and they especially don't like hearing that fixing it requires massive, quick societal changes. So as soon as they hear some wackjob or some "scientist" paid off by the fossil fuel industry tell them that, no, everything is fine, they're quick to believe them, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Recently I bought a new car. First step was to offload the trunk loaded with Earthquake survival gear. A kit good for camping out including can food stove water clothes for 5 days. Then to clean up and toss old cans for new provisions.

Where I live currently not so much serious Earthquakes as I experienced in Los Angeles area - But after helping out a friend in San Fernando Valley where houses slipped totally off foundations - Mass destruction and back then living in Marina del Rey where I was tossed out of my bed on2 the floor from such Northridge Earthquake - Most of my friends ended up buying survival stuff. Me with all the Mountain Climbing and Backpacking-Hiking - I figured it was real easy to have a simple survival kit on board -

That said I park my car underground where in the past - Twice the whole thing was flooded to the max with water from fuck ups on street re drainage during storm and I learned a bitter lesson about trusting pumps to get the water OUT - With car insurance company making threats to jack up my insurance I invested in one hell of a backup power system and set of pumps REDUNDANT.

I have to have Backup generators as part of my work but that system design is set-controlled by another insurance company as part of my consulting biz and I am not allowed to use one microAmp as part of the rest of my house.

Fact is where I live and it's on a Bluff with Bluffs to the Right and Left of me collapsing with increasing frequency - I could lose everything real easy including my car with the back up gear. I once even had a pool and had to get rid of the weight per city order wayyyy back.

Grumple Thtiltskin is going to be most upset about this.

@1,048,138 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
> no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Please link to the evidence.

@previous (G)
Here is a good starting point for you. Follow the references.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Of course, I'm sure your response will be something along the lines of NASA being liberal propoganda or some other bullshit.

@1,048,162 (G)
evidence of climate change word wide
71,400,000 results
Scholarly articles for evidence of climate change worldwide
… evidence of worldwide early Holocene climate change - ‎Beget - Cited by 91
Climate and Environmental Change in - ‎Qin - Cited by 72
… change impacts on human health: empirical evidence … - ‎Markandya - Cited by 67
Climate change: How do we know? - Evidence | Facts ...

https://climate.nasa.gov › evidence
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. How do we know ... The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last ...

Evidence for global warming - Skeptical Science

https://skepticalscience.com › evidence-for-global-warming
There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the poleward migration of ...
The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global

https://insideclimatenews.org › news › infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-cli...
Oct 3, 2017 - Sign up to receive our latest reporting on climate change, energy and environmental justice, sent directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.
Global Warming Effects Map - Effects of Global Warming

www.climatehotmap.org
Explore the Climate Hot Map to see evidence of climate change including heat waves, sea-level rise, flooding, melting glaciers, earlier spring arrival, coral reef ...
Global Warming Impacts | Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.ucsusa.org › our-work › global-warming › science-and-impacts
An overview of the impacts of global warming, including sea level rise, more frequent and severe heat waves, increasing wildfire risks, and more. Many are ...
9 ways we know humans triggered climate change ...

https://www.edf.org › climate › 9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climat...
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its ... of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause. ... Scientists are more confident than ever that humans are causing global warming.
Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

https://royalsociety.org › topics-policy › projects › basics-of-climate-change
Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and ... Earth's global average surface temperature has risen as shown in this plot of ...
Education and Outreach - ESRL Global Monitoring Division

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov › gmd › education › faq_cat-1
by EW Team - ‎2005
Jump to How can we talk about climate change over the next 100 ... - The methods used to forecast changes in ... the potential impacts of global warming ...
[PDF]
Climate Change - Division on Earth and Life Studies

dels.nas.edu › resources › static-assets › exec-office-other › climate-change...
findings about climate change are continually analysed and tested. ... Scientific information is a vital component of the evidence required for societies to make ... 11 If the world is warming, why are some winters and summers still very cold?

Anon G

Will show more yet your limited education when cut off by expulsion in 5th grade, means anymore information unless it's from your Fox News Fake news source is
Oh Wait Tucker Fucker Carlson came down on Trump the other day so there may be some hope left for Fox the Fake News Network

@1,048,165 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
@previous (Facts R Us)
Thanks.

> Will show more yet your limited edu... <cut ridiculous desperate ad hominem attack>
By the way I never watch Fox News.

@previous (G)
Sorry me bad for thinking you were Bert. He so often only uses Fox as his go to source for news.

All of the plastic in the ocean comes from rivers in Africa and China. Ignore that.
China is the biggest polluter in the world. Ignore that too.

USAmericans need to pay more taxes to the government to change the weather. Thanks

Your random capitalization is so upsetting.

@1,048,266 (H)
> All of the plastic in the ocean comes from rivers in Africa and China.
All of it, huh? That seems obviously wrong. Not really a climate change issue either.

> China is the biggest polluter in the world. Ignore that too.
No one is ignoring that, not even China. You might have noticed other nations pressuring China to enact stricter emissions standards and make emissions goals.

> USAmericans need to pay more taxes to the government to change the weather. Thanks
That's a fucking stupid idea. You need better strawmen.

@previous (J)
When is Gunther Thermocouple visiting China to rant and cry?

@previous (H)
We're all counting on you to alert us with butthurt cries of rage if that should happen.

@previous (J)
Pay your carbon tax faggot

@1,048,385 (H)

When is the UN moving its headquarters there?

@previous (K)
When China tells them to

It's an "emergency" in the same way continental drift or the sun becoming a red giant is.

@1,048,386 (J)
Why would they rage and cry about it happening when they've already raged and cried about it not happening?

(Edited 56 seconds later.)

@previous (M)
The same way they voting for walls to curtail illegal immigration 10-12 years ago and now say walls are bad.

liberals lol

@1,048,789 (M)
Plenty of butthurt people will seize upon any opportunity to cry about Greta Thunberg.

You know how older people don't actually follow Billie Eilish or One Direction or whatever? They just know about them because the kids won't shut the fuck up about it. It's like that. I'm counting on you guys to alert me when the 2019 angry anon butthurt world tour continues.

@1,048,165 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
> Here is a good starting point for you. Follow the references.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I've had some time to look into each of those references carefully. I really had high hopes for this article, but I'm afraid to say I am horrified. Here's what I found out:

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
- John Cook is an Australian author of climate alarmist literature: Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand (with forward by Naomi Oreskes who is also one of the sources cited)
- He and his co-author have an extremely biased viewpoint.
- He is not by any means an objective observer, nor does he use proper scientific method to conduct his research.
- He uses emotional language when describing people with whom he does not agree, calling them "cruel".
- Basic findings: 97% of articles published between 1991 and 2011 agree with the view that humans are responsible for some warming.
- He counted the abstracts only, not the full papers.
- Reviews of this study found that the complete opposite was true, based on the same data:
- Legates et al: "just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic".
- Tol: "The main finding of this paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative".
- Monckton: "The project was not a scientific investigation... but a public relations exercise".

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
- This was a case of a student (William Anderreg) in the process of obtaining his masters or doctorate by getting his stuff published, and the professor adding their name to it.
- He magically finds that 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the IPCC findings.
- How? He took 50 of the most prolific climate alarmists, who had on average published 408 times. 49 of 50 of course agreed with the IPCC.
- Where did he find them? He used Google Scholar - such a quality source! There is an unbelievable amount of non peer reviewed junk on Google Scholar.
- Again, he counted the abstracts only, not the full papers.
- Being published less often does not make a scientist less credible. Obviously quality is better than quantity. I would trust the scientist who works slowly and methodically over several months, before publishing maybe 1 or 2 papers a year, far more than one of these Google Scholar spammers. In fact I'd go as far as saying being published more than 400 times is evidence of either fraud or a corrupt peer review system.
- Sorry but 49 science spammers is not a consensus.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002
- Maggie Zimmerman was another college student doing a paper for her professor, who added his name to it to get it published in an accredited journal.
- This study was a "less than 2 minutes" online survey of 10,257 "Earth scientists", who were invited to answer "up to nine questions", of which "two primary questions" were examined. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a high school project or a PhD study??
- 3146 of the 10,257 responded to the invitation. And "approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists"... sorry, come again? FIVE PERCENT? So that's about 157 actual climate scientists doing a 2 minute online survey, answering loaded questions: 1. Have temperatures risen? And 2. Was human activity a "significant contributing factor"
- Those 157 are trimmed down even further to 79 based on the number with recently peer-reviewed papers.
- "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered 'risen' to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered 'yes' to question 2."
- So the final "97% community consensus" in this study refers to the one-word answer views of just 79 cherry picked climate scientists.
- Let that sink in a minute.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
- Naomi Oreskes was a professor at the University of Calfornia, San Diego - one of the most leftie colleges in the U.S.
- She is not a scientist and calls herself a "socialist historian". Bitch please.
- This was an opinion piece, and although it appeared in a peer reviewed journal, the study itself was not peer reviewed.
- Like Cook & Anderegg, she looked at 928 abstracts only, from papers published between 1993 - 2003.
- She concluded that 75% of the abstracts (some implicitly, not explicitly) supported the IPCC's view that humans have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years.
- A later review of her study found that many of these abstracts contained keywords which had nothing to do with the actual content of the paper. In particular, many of the articles had nothing to do with humans being the cause of climate change or not.
- It also appears she did not search for papers on GLOBAL climate change, but about climate change in general. So she missed out a whole bunch of good science, and either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpreted many of the articles.
- She didn't explain how exactly the abstracts agree with the IPCC's claim about climate change.
- Not only could her findings not be replicated, but the review also concluded that in actual fact only 7% of the papers (not just the abstracts) supported the "consensus".

How anybody can look at this bullshit and think, "hey, these are excellent sources which totally prove the question of consensus!" is beyond me. NASA should be ashamed of themselves.

(Edited 5 minutes later.)

@previous (G)
If you had spent less time looking for reasons to scream "leftie" and more time reading the articles you probably would have gotten more out of it.

The Cook paper is pretty good, actually. And there are plenty of subsequent explorations of this topic by Cook. Consensus on consensus explores some of Tol's criticism, but even Tol's conservative estimate places agreement on those in field at above 90%. The other two you mention, Legates and Monckton, don't offer any real criticism and both work for research institutes that are heavy funded by ExxonMobil. The Anderegg paper did a subsample of 50 scientists, but also showed similar rates of agreement with 100 and 200 as well. You would almost have to deliberately misread the paper to pick that number out of it. Doran & Zimmerman did exactly what you would expect if you were looking for a consensus among scientists. They polled them. I'm not sure what you think they could have done differently. None of your criticisms for the Oreskes essay are cited, so I have no idea where you came up with facts about particular articles or search criteria.

> How anybody can look at this bullshit and think, "hey, these are excellent sources which totally prove the question of consensus!" is beyond me.
To be fair, they probably actually read the papers.

@previous (J)
> If you had spent less time looking for reasons to scream "leftie" and more time reading the articles you probably would have gotten more out of it.
I can see why you think I didn't suffer reading this trash, but I really did, or at least as much as I could find. One of them I did admittedly only read the abstract then read around it. However you should be perfectly fine with this method of research, and you should accept that I haven't deliberately mischaracterized anything, or you'd be be criticizing the exact same method employed by the student, the hysterical Aussie blogger and the social historian.

You are right that I am biased, but unlike you, I don't lean towards one political faction or another. I am biased towards good science, and I don't see any here. I am so very glad that I completed my studies when the universities had not been ravaged by left (and in some cases, right) wing politics. And now I see the rot has set into the scientific community too. Politics should have no place in science. It's a tragedy.

> The other two you mention, Legates and Monckton, don't offer any real criticism
They do. However I'll give you Monckton, who is admittedly quite eccentric, and keep David Legates, who is an actual climatologist.

> The Cook paper is pretty good, actually.
Did you actually read it?

> > 50
> You would almost have to deliberately misread the paper to pick that number out of it.
"We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest-expertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facilitates comparison of relative expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This method reveals large differences in relative expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2). Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate publications (median = 344), the top UE researchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 2,455; P < 10−15). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group."
Sorry, how did I misread this? As you can see, this same paragraph contains the horrific notion that quantity of study is better than quality. You seem like a reasonable person to me. How on earth can you justify this nonsense?

> Doran & Zimmerman... polled them.
To be specific, they polled their cherry picked favourite 79.

> I'm not sure what you think they could have done differently.
- Conduct a proper, non politically biased study (which would be bloody difficult these days but not impossible)
- Ensure the scientists are actual climate scientists, and not just harvested from say a Google Scholar search for the words "climate change"
- Actually read their work, not just the abstracts, and ensure it is properly peer reviewed (internationally, not just within some circle jerk)

> None of your criticisms for the Oreskes essay are cited.
I'm not surprised. She seems to be one of these particularly nasty people who ensures the destruction of people's careers if they dare to criticise her.

> I have no idea where you came up with facts about particular articles or search criteria.
In the usual way - reading and reading around.

@previous (G)
> Conduct a proper, non politically biased study (which would be bloody difficult these days but not impossible)

I think what you really mean is, conduct a study that agrees with you, then you'll accept it as valid. Anything else is bullshit, every poll is cherry picked, every stat is made up, every source is biased or somehow otherwise invalid. Yet you'll go to great lengths to ignore any of the overwhelming number of red flags that come with the "research" that agrees with you.

It's okay to be scared about climate change; it's a scary idea. But burying your head in the sand and pretending it isn't real isn't going to help anything. This isn't the sort of problem that will go away if you ignore it long enough.

@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
> > Conduct a proper, non politically biased study (which would be bloody difficult these days but not impossible)
> I think what you really mean is, conduct a study that agrees with you, then you'll accept it as valid.
Well, you're wrong. I don't mean that at all. I don't have any preconceived ideas, and unlike all these charlatans I admit that I don't know for sure what truth is... which is why I want to seek the truth, not merely have any preconceived notion I might have of it echoed back to me. The sort of science I accept as valid is that which is based in evidence, empirical data, experimentation, and properly drawn conclusions based on reproducible results. I do not accept: arguments from authority, ad hominem attacks, opinion pieces, anything that smells politically motivated, marketing ploys and all the other things these four pieces of crap have turned out to be.

> Every poll is cherry picked
No, but the Zimmerman one is. Take your blinkers off, read it again and understand it.

> Every stat is made up, every source is biased or somehow otherwise invalid.
Again, no and no. Not every one... but these 4 certainly are. I urge you put your opinions to one side, if you can, and read them carefully.

> It's okay to be scared about climate change; it's a scary idea.
I agree, it is. Which is why it's a great one to manipulate people with, isn't it?

> But burying your head in the sand and pretending it isn't real isn't going to help anything. This isn't the sort of problem that will go away if you ignore it long enough.
If you want to call me spending two days taking the trouble to read, absorb and dissect as much information from both sides of the debate as I can "burying your head in the sand", then I don't know what to say to you. You're either trolling or you're being idiotic. Either way, I'm done, cheers, thanks for your time.

By the way, your name reminds me of a Kenyan guy I used to know: L. Odongo. He's dead now though. :(

@previous (G)
STFU Carl

@1,049,098 (G)
> > The Cook paper is pretty good, actually.
> Did you actually read it?
Yes, I even cited a more recent one that was more thorough. I'm sorry you don't agree with his politics, but that's not much in the way of criticism. I don't see too much of a problem using abstracts. Usually scientific papers use the abstract to sum up relevant results and conclusions. As a general criticism this is pretty weak unless you have examples of where Cook went wrong doing this. You cite some other people's criticisms. Tal still finds a wide consensus. Legate seems to have just moved the goalposts by redefining "consensus" to be unrealistic. And Monckton is just a journalist who called it a PR exercise in public. That's not real convincing criticism.

> "We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest-expertise) researchers from each group...
> Sorry, how did I misread this? As you can see, this same paragraph contains the horrific notion that quantity of study is better than quality. You seem like a reasonable person to me. How on earth can you justify this nonsense?
The paragraph right before the one you quote begins:
"The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC."

Did you not read that or are you just mischaracterizing the numbers intentionally?

> > Doran & Zimmerman... polled them.
> To be specific, they polled their cherry picked favourite 79.
Literally no. This is wrong.

Doran & Zimmerman set out to "assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists." They surveyed 10,257 scientists from "geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA facilities, U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories, and so forth)." A total of 3146 individuals completed the survey, and 79 fit the stated criteria of specializing in climate science. The criteria being: "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those 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."

This is clearly stated in the first two paragraphs of the paper. They intended a broad survey of scientists working in climatology and adjacent fields. They separated out the climate scientists in their response pool from volcanologists, glaciologists, and other scientists working in related fields in the final accounting. I don't get it. Are you mad they had standards? Even if you disagreed with their stance on what constituted a climate scientist, they still find consensus rates at around 90% for other groups of actively publishing geoscientists.

> > I'm not sure what you think they could have done differently.
> - Conduct a proper, non politically biased study (which would be bloody difficult these days but not impossible)
They asked scientists, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" That seems pretty straightforward. I don't see the bias here. How would you ask the question?

> - Ensure the scientists are actual climate scientists, and not just harvested from say a Google Scholar search for the words "climate change"
That's actually been done here by Doran and Zimmerman working from faculty lists. The Anderegg paper collected names, publication numbers, and citation rates from Google Scholar. They discuss it at length in the paper, specifically mentioning: "Researcher publication and citation counts in Earth Sciences have been found to be largely similar between Google Scholar and other peer-review-only citation indices such as ISI Web of Science. Indeed, using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise (e.g., higher levels of publications and more experts considered) because it archives a greater breadth of sources than other citation indices."

They actually thought about what they were doing, compared it with numbers from other academic search indices, and worried about whether they were measuring what they thought they were measuring. You seem to delight in pretending they just plucked some names of "spammers" off Google Scholar.

> - Actually read their work, not just the abstracts, and ensure it is properly peer reviewed (internationally, not just within some circle jerk)
I don't see the reasoning here. Are there, in your opinion, many scientific papers that use the abstract to do something other than summarize the research? If an abstract reads: "The growth rate in emissions is strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China. Together, the developing and least developed economies (forming 80% of the world's population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004, but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-eighteenth century." Do you think that paper might then go on to say something different in the paper itself rather than discussing the methods by which it arrived at that conclusion?

I genuinely don't understand this criticism. Unless you have a demonstrated reason for assuming abstracts in this field are insufficient, it sounds like an arbitrary standard. If someone does read all 1000+ papers, are you then going to demand they check all the math until you're happy? If they check all the math are you going to demand a statement of each researcher's political leanings so you weed out people you don't like?

See, you say shit like this:
> I do not accept: arguments from authority, ad hominem attacks, opinion pieces, anything that smells politically motivated, marketing ploys and all the other things these four pieces of crap have turned out to be.

And then you say shit like this:
> the exact same method employed by the student, the hysterical Aussie blogger and the social historian
> She seems to be one of these particularly nasty people who ensures the destruction of people's careers if they dare to criticise her.
> a professor at the University of Calfornia, San Diego - one of the most leftie colleges in the U.S.

See, it's this shit that leads me to believe that you aren't actually interested in the science. You seem to want this is to be political or hinge on your own personal attacks against the researchers so you can hold everybody to imaginary neutral standard while you call them names and mischaracterize their work as politically motivated marketing ploys. If you don't understand why I'm not convinced by your criticism, then you might want to try sounding less politically motivated yourself once in a while.

We've just been discussing the first four citations off the first point in the reference section at https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (we haven't even gone into points 2-14 and the various statements on climate change from different scientific associations around the world) So far we've seen measures of consensus working from the results of the studies themselves and measures of consensus that rely on asking the researchers their professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change. I'm eager to see how you'll criticize the IPCC or National Academy or Joint science academies' statement.

(Edited 9 minutes later.)

@1,049,329 (N)
Who the hell is Carl?

@previous (J)
> Yes, I even cited a more recent one that was more thorough.
That's the one I only read the abstract only for. I will read the whole thing when I get the time.

> I'm sorry you don't agree with his politics, but that's not much in the way of criticism.
I'm glad we agree, at least, that political opinions should have fuck all to do with climate science.

> I don't see too much of a problem using abstracts. Usually scientific papers use the abstract to sum up relevant results and conclusions.
They are supposed to, but these days a great many people (ab)use them to advertise themselves and boost their ranking in searches. I've even seen people blatantly embedding a list of comma separated keywords.

> "The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC."
Oh God, this is exhausting. Of course I read that. It is simply stating how they constructed their "UE group". As I said before, the main problem I have with this methodology is this: "ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)". Why on earth is quantity better than quality?

> You seem to want this is to be political
I really don't, and I'm sorry you think this, because it's clouding your judgement. You are right though: perhaps I should not have mentioned politics at all. The reason I went there was because it was so glaringly obvious to me, particularly given that at least 2 of these people aren't even scientists.

> See, it's this shit that leads me to believe that you aren't actually interested in the science.
Anyway, yeah, as I said, I'm done. Not because I am not interested, but because I don't have the time right now, and this is exhausting. You win. Cheers, and thanks for your time.

> I'm eager to see how you'll criticize the IPCC or National Academy or Joint science academies' statement.
Perhaps I will get onto it some time, but I can't right now. I'm sure angry Anon N will be happy to hear that.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

@previous (G)
> I'm glad we agree, at least, that political opinions should have fuck all to do with climate science.
It's very sad this issue has become politicized.

> > I don't see too much of a problem using abstracts. Usually scientific papers use the abstract to sum up relevant results and conclusions.
> They are supposed to, but these days a great many people (ab)use them to advertise themselves and boost their ranking in searches. I've even seen people blatantly embedding a list of comma separated keywords.
That's not some plot. Including keywords is actually part of the publication format for abstracts. Modern academic databases need them to sort for relevancy in some cases. For instance, if a researcher publishes a paper called "Neuronal Interaction with Glial Cytokines: Analysis of IL-1α+ Microglia and S100β+ Astrocytes" it might be startlingly obvious to scientists in their field that this paper is about Alzheimer's disease progression, but that isn't obvious to anyone else or a piece of SQL code doing a search for words in titles.

Keywords are specifically called for in APA format as well as publishing guidelines for medical journals and scientific publications. Wider databases like Springer or El Sevier specifically offer guidelines about the practice.

> > "The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC."
> Oh God, this is exhausting.
Isn't it though? Here we go again.

> Of course I read that. It is simply stating how they constructed their "UE group".
Nope. They constructed the UE (unconvinced) group by compiling names of scientists from prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions in statements to world leaders, the UN, scientific societies, interviews, and documentaries. That is explained in the Methods section. The sentence above is showing that the consensus for agreement doesn't change if they relax their expertise requirement to include 100 or 200 scientists.

> As I said before, the main problem I have with this methodology is this: "ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)".
Because successfully published scientific articles in journals that are peer reviewed by scientists in the field is a reasonable gauge of expertise. You have to operationally define things like expertise or credibility (that is, come up with a definition that expresses those concepts numerically in a way that can assigned or ranked or subjected to standards) if you want to be able to justify talking about researchers that are most "prolific" or "active" or "credible" within a certain field.

> Why on earth is quantity better than quality?
I'm not sure how you would define "quality" in a way that isn't subjective or arbitrary. Anderegg discusses using citation rates as well as publication numbers as an estimator of credibility or importance. Much of the Discussion and Methods sections are devoted to explanations about how they sought to control for factors like self-citation, older researchers having more publications, and "the single paper effect" where a single important or contested paper is cited by many. They do actually try to control for these effects by averaging over the second to fourth most cited papers or the top four most cited papers and running separate analyses to see if their findings are truly robust. After that they describe their choices as such: "Publication and citation analyses are not perfect indicators of researcher credibility, but they have been widely used in the natural sciences for comparing research productivity, quality, and prominence. Furthermore, these methods tend to correlate highly with other estimates of research quality, expertise, and prominence. These standard publication and citation metrics are often used in many academic fields to inform decisions regarding hiring and tenure."

In the end, that research put a lot of thought into how they operationally define their measures and spend much of paper showing that those choices are statistically defensible. It's certainly unfair to pretend like they just plucked an arbitrary metric out of the air and started plugging in numbers.

> Anyway, yeah, as I said, I'm done. Not because I am not interested, but because I don't have the time right now, and this is exhausting. You win. Cheers, and thanks for your time.
> Perhaps I will get onto it some time, but I can't right now. I'm sure angry Anon N will be happy to hear that.
Well, I hope you find some answers that make you happy someday. I look at this and all the other statements by scientists and see a pretty clear consensus on ACC. Maybe someone could argue that some findings aren't as dire as they seem or that current research underplays non-anthropogenic factors, but I don't see a whole lot of researchers in the field claiming that man-made factors aren't even factors worth considering.

(Edited 1 minute later.)