Then later in the day I saw this on Facebook, specifically from the "I F***ing Love Science" page.
After seeing the claim twice in a short period I got curious and decided to check it out. I ended up on a website called "skepticalscience.com" that claimed:
If you click on the link in "a new survey" it takes you to a journal called "Environmental Research Levels" and, specifically, a paper called "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." And this is what it says:A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.Let me just highlight part of that for you:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.First of all, how is 11,944 papers "over 12,000"? But far more importantly: The Guardian's headline that "97% of climate science papers agree" and Skeptical Science's claim that they "found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made) are total bullshit.
In fact, the study they're citing found that 32.6%--not 97%--of the papers they reviewed claim global warming is man-made. Where did the 97% number come from? Well again, quoting from the abstract:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.So why did about 2 out of 3 papers reviewed fail to take a position on the anthropogenic question? I don't know, I haven't reviewed the nearly 12,000 papers myself. I'm sure there are many facets to climate science and these papers didn't all seek to answer the same questions. I also wouldn't be surprised if some experiments were unable to determine the relationship between human activity and climate change, and so could not state a position on it one way or another. Either way, to twist the results around to make a much, much stronger claim than the data shows only furthers my suspicion that the science is too politicized, and too at-risk of corruption.
If you're really just about objectivity and truth (science) over politics, you don't post a twisted stat to further an agenda. You post what people found. How much could the administrators at "I F***ing Love Science" really "love science" if they can't even be bothered to read a whole abstract before eagerly re-posting a misleading graphic? And likewise, why should I trust the people at Skeptical Science to give me useful, honest information if they can't handle correctly interpreting one study?
Ugh.
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing all of the grunt work on this, Laura. I'm trying to imagine the thought process of these ardent fans of science and human knowledge...
"Statistic with no reference, claims something I already agree with, I don't know where the number came from and they don't tell me but SCIENCE!!! MUTHAF**ING SCIENCE!!! YEAH!!! Gonna post me some PIE CHARTS!!!"
*eye roll*
Exactly.
DeleteAnd you know, it's like there used to be a time when saying you were a skeptic or a free-thinker or that you "believed in science" (whatever that means) actually meant something. It meant that you were aware of your own cognitive biases and attempted to subvert them to arrive at the truth, or that you only trusted authority when the authority could back up their claims demonstrably. It meant you enjoyed critical thought.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, it seems it means that you have an internet connection and like snarky memes.
You are misinterpreting the methodology of the study, although I will agree that the article could have been clearer. They looked at 11,994 papers, and of these, 66.4% did not state a position on whether climate change was manmade. Basic math then tells us that 4,030 of the 11,994 papers did give a position, and of these, 97% agree that climate change is anthropogenic. The only papers that matter in this study are the 4,030 that give a position. Not giving a position is very different from stating that we are uncertain about the causes of climate change, and as such, it is useless to consider those 66.4% of papers in the analysis. The 97% figure is not a lie as you say, but a robust scientific result.
ReplyDeleteShe acknowledged that 97% is in regards to the papers that gave a position. And that's *not* what is being claimed by the Guardian: "The Guardian's headline that "97% of climate science papers agree" and Skeptical Science's claim that they "found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made)" aren't referring only to the papers that stated a position. They are referring to all climate change papers, which is incredibly misleading.
DeleteI will agree that the Guardian headline does inflate the result by using the phrase "of climate science papers." The article itself is pretty explicit though, stating:
ReplyDelete"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming"
The title of the Skeptical Science article -- "Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming *in the Peer-Reviewed Literature*" -- isn't necessarily referring to all climate papers ever written, but it doesn't quantify the result either, so I suppose you could say it's misleading. The Skeptical Science does clarify in the first sentence, however"
"A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus *among papers taking a position* on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible."
After that, unfortunately, the paper waves the 12,000 figure around too much, as 4000 is the number that matters. The paper also has a pretty nasty pie diagram that I definitely agree is misleading.
Nevertheless, 97% out of 4,000 papers is still a irrefutable result. No one else has come up with any real research that proves otherwise, and I would hazard to say that the climate change naysayers have exaggerated their unquantified claims far more than this article has. So while criticisms of these articles exaggerating the result may be justified, it is still a mute point, for there is essentially no debate in the scientific community about this topic.
My purpose in the blog post was not to dispute the claim that there is consensus on the anthropogenic question among the papers that address the question. My purpose was to highlight how much so-called science lovers undermine their credibility by spreading misleading graphics and/or information. Speaking as a self-proclaimed science lover, I find it infuriating when people put agendas over accuracy.
DeleteAfterthoughts:
Delete"I would hazard to say that the climate change naysayers have exaggerated their unquantified claims far more than this article has."
I don't see the relevance of this statement. Are you suggesting that we, as scientists, are somewhat justified in a certain amount of deception as long as our political opponents are worse than us?
"So while criticisms of these articles exaggerating the result may be justified, it is still a mute point, for there is essentially no debate in the scientific community about this topic."
Are you saying as long as there is consensus on climate change, being misleading and deceptive about scientific truths is irrelevant? How is deception about science *ever* a moot point?
Neither of these statements is at all reassuring.