Ask HN: John Cook et al., 2013 a climate propaganda piece?
The study never states that 97% of climate scientists have a particular opinion on the matter. It doesn’t come remotely close to
saying that. Wherever you and popular opinion are getting that “97% of climate scientists” idea, it isn’t from this paper.<p>What it DOES say is that ~97% of papers whose abstract states a clear opinion on Anthropogenic Global Warming agree with the idea that Anthropogenic (literally “human-caused”) Global Warming is, in fact, human-caused.<p>Shocking, I know, that the majority of climate scientists who state an opinion about human-caused global warming believe that such global warming is, in fact, human-caused. Just shocking.<p>That 97% consensus amongst papers that state an opinion doesn’t represent the majority of climate scientists who published during the period of the meta-study… the paper clearly states that the majority of climate-related papers didn’t state an opinion at all.<p>Shocking, again, I know, that less than half of climate related papers expressed an opinion on the subject at all… but there you have it.<p>Basically they’ve told you up front what the number show… the vast majority of papers that care enough to state an opinion support the mainstream consensus.<p>Which… again… is shocking, to someone looking for a nit to pick. What it isn’t is particularly misleading, or anything like an example of scientific misconduct.<p>&gt; The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.<p>Or, in other words, few papers whose authors have the requisite expertise to successfully navigate peer review disagree with those who have the expertise required to review their work.<p>&gt; Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.<p>Or, in other words, the experts who state an opinion overwhelmingly share their opinion, and both methods of confirming their consensus tally to roughly the same result.<p>What you haven’t done here is poke holes in the science, or their conclusion… what you’ve done is poked holes in the inferences you’ve made from bad reporting on the science.<p>Which is, again, shocking.<p>Nevertheless, it’s much greater than non-zero… those who know enough to state an opinion state that opinion.