Sentences with phrase «other consensus papers»

let us not forget, this was supposed to be a bigger, better version of other consensus papers, thus the 12,000 papers is important to the activists..

Cook's paper can not include other consensus papers — a consensus paper can not include consensus papers as evidence.

I found an analysis of it and other consensus papers.

After years of attacks on John Cook's 2013 paper finding a 97 percent consensus among climate change papers and experts, Cook pulled together a dream team of other consensus paper authors to reaffirm their collective findings.

Not exact matches

One has to wonder how many other papers with incorrect results have been published by scientists who go along with «consensus» views, and have never been corrected.

Re: # 46 The factcheck.org item strikes me as a good - faith attempt at balance that fell prey to the usual journalistic pitfall; that is, it poses on one side the IPCC consensus view and on the other individual detractors like Patrick Michaels (citing 3 blog entries by him, no less — not peer - reviewed papers).

If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human - made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus.

I love the concept in this paper, but it is really just more fun SF, like so many other ideas that the climate consensus is involved with promoitng.

Other papers on the consensus between climate scientists have been written by Oreskes, 2004; Heima; and Anderegg, 2010.

Revkin pointed to a study published in April by Dr. John Cook and other researchers, which claimed that 97 percent of scientific papers over the last decade «endorsed the consensus» of man - made warming.

So if we have a reality where there's a consensus in a field (or not even a consensus, just a popular idea or plurality) like climate, which has spillover effects for lots of other fields, and people in those fields take it up and insert it as a premise in some research or paper, we can see how the math would work.

Some interesting reading in those other articles and the papers citing the consensus study.

The people who claim that CS is lower than the «consensus» estimate have already had ample time to find flaws in the numerous other papers supporting the consensus position.

I suggest that it would be a useful counter to the OISM petition and paper for you to list the scientific claims made in the paper and provide links to the relevant science or other references as you did with the list of studies on consensus.

In other words, from 1991 - 2011, 99.5 % of paper abstracts using the search words explained in the paper did not explicitly endorse the quantified definition of the «consensus» statement.

Could it be possible that the scientific consensus you speak of, is a result of a lot of papers not seeing the light of publication due to factors other than scientific merit?

On the other hand if you think the IPCC is even handed and will respond to a non consensus paper as it does the consensus then I would suggest that we have a major difference of perception that needs to be resolved first.

The main result of this study, that the influence of urban areas on the global land temperature data set is very small, corroborates the consensus view among climate scientists, including, for example, the recent paper by Souleymane Fall and others.

Interestingly, this is the same strategy that Richard Tol once tried in arguing our 97 % was an outlier compared to other consensus studies, which led to my co-authoring the 2016 consensus - on - consensus study with other consensus researchers (which was the paper that Cass misrepresents, everything is coming full circle).

This has been discussed in IPCC and NRC which represent the «consensus view» much more broadly than Mann et al. or any other individual paper (whether Mann's conclusions are «correct» or not was not my focus).

The other is the «peer - reviewed» paper itself suggesting: «0.3 % climate consensus, not 97.1 %» and that John Cook of SkS is an incompetent climate scientist.

NPR ran with a story the other day, picking on a particularly miffed climatologist that his paper showing snowfall in the Sierras (I believe; haven't gone back to check the story on that yet) hasn't diminished despite what he claims are the consensus predictions, hinting at dark conspiracies — and the NPR reporter went with this in spite of his own reporting in the same story that the paper was merely cumulative of others that had already pointed out the «anomoly»!