She found that 75 percent of
papers accepted the consensus view «either explicitly or implicitly,» while «25 percent dealt with methods or paleoclimate,» and took no position on AGW.
Not exact matches
Once a
paper is
accepted, editors work with the authors to improve the manuscript and make the suggested revisions — a task that requires patience, interpersonal skills, and the ability to achieve
consensus among opinionated scientists.
Here's part of the problem: Scientists are human, just like you and me, and they occasionally defend wrong ideas because they propagated in a time where some novel but wrong
papers / books were written, and seemed right at the time, and the
consensus accepted them, because it agreed with their biases.
A responsible skeptic will request that you remain open minded to opinions from both sides, and consider the uncertainties involved * without * prejudging them based on the demonstrable human predilection toward a «herd mentality» — by «herd mentality», I mean that once a
consensus is formed, a flock of «me too» science
papers become much more easily
accepted, by peer review journals, than the skeptics»
papers.
As we documented in our
paper, research has also shown that when people are aware of the expert
consensus on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to
accept the science and support climate policy to address the problem.
The Journal of the American Statistical Association still publishes good
papers supporting a skeptical / lukewarmist position (as does the AAAS's Science Magazine), but I expect that the board of the ASA has just raised the bar for
accepting studies not supportive of the
consensus.
Of all evolutionary biology
papers in the sample 75 % explicitly or implicitly
accept the
consensus view on evolution.
Of all the
papers, 75 % fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the
consensus view; 25 % dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.