Essays om Klimaet Hva betyr konsensus I klimasaken?
Yüklə 236,07 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Hva betyr konsensus i klimasaken?
File: Konsensus D.1 Page: 11 The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr. David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21 st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post- 1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1 %, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3 %.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95 % confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public. Dr. Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97 % climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1 %.
“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.” Dr. Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.” Dr. William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1 % consensus when there was not. “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Hva betyr konsensus i klimasaken?
File: Konsensus D.1 Page: 12 Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.” Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth
% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3 % of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming. “It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.” Cook et al 2016 Sammen med 15 andre forfattere publiserte Cook en ny artikkel i Environmental Research Letters nr 11 i 2016, med tittelen «Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human- caused global warming». Den nye artikkelen presenterer resultatene fra seks forfattere som tidligere har undersøkt graden av konsensus blant forskerne. Og alle seks er medforfattere i artikkelen Cook et al 2016. Resultatene i denne nye artikkelen støtter den 97 % konsensus som ble rapportert i Cook et al 2013. I Cook et al 2016 er det imidlertid referert til en gallup og 13 artikler, hvorav én var nettopp Cook et al 2013. Graden av konsensus i disse artiklene varierer mellom 67 og 100 % Cook et al 2013 inngår i materialet og konklusjonene i Cook et al 2016. Men Cook et al 2013 har klare metodefeil og burde vært trukket tilbake. Når Cook et al 2016 går god for resultatene i Cook et al 2013 er dette strengt tatt en grunn til å diskvalifisere også Cook et al 2016. Imidlertid er det ingen tvil om at et flertall av forfattere som får antatt artikler i anerkjente tidsskrifter er enige i at klimaendringene i større eller mindre grad er påvirket av menneskelige aktiviteter. Skeptikerne blir sensurert, de har store problemer med å få forskningsmidler og blir derfor lite synlige i fagtidsskriftene og i klimadebatten. Doran and Zimmerman 2009 En av artiklene som er referert i Cook et al 2016 er «Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate change» publisert 20. Januar 2011 i Earth & Space Science News, skrevet av professor Peter T. Doran og hans masterstudent Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. Artikkelen konkluderte med at 97 % av klimaforskerne sto bak en konsensus om menneskeskapte klimaendringer. Antakelig er det tallet 97 % som har fått Cook til å planlegge en studie der tallet 97 % skulle bekreftes. Det finnes flere artikler som konkluderer med en konsensus nær 100 %. Alle er sterkt omstridte, men alle forsvares iherdig av et flertall av klimaforskerne. Jeg finner det ikke nødvendig å diskutere disse artiklene, men nøyer meg med å gjengi en skarpsindig analyse av Doran and Zimmerman 2009 i Financial Post den 3. januar 2011, med tittelen «Lawrence Solomon: 97 % cooked stats».
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats Yüklə 236,07 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|