Bjørn Lomborg August 28, 2013 Ugh. Do you remember the 97% consensus, which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors dont want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper (iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical). The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesnt actually specify the numbers, notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/). It ditches about 8,000 papers because they dont take a position. They put people who agree into three different bins -- 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that implicitly endorse because theyre looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming. Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors havent released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantative assessments). Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards (by Obama and many others). Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they dont want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous. Read Tols letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative. (uq.edu.au/about/vice-chancellor) It would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad. richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:36:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015