Skip to main content

View Diary: Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't find it surprising that the numbers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tool, Kimbeaux

    line up so perfectly?

    Just saying, in my discipline (something quite different), some researchers are MUCH more prolific than others.

    In climate research, I'd think that the deniers of change are a bunch of cranks who are basically publishing garbage - which should be more difficult to pass peer review.

    Therefore I'd think that if 3% of scientists fell into this category, they'd probably only publish 0.3% of the papers . .. . (the numbers are obviously made up, but they illustrate the point).

    •  not really (11+ / 0-)

      There was a previous survey from the National Academy of Sciences that produced the 97% number for views of scientists, so I'm reasonably confident in that number. But that number doesn't mean 3% disagree, there was 2% who felt the issue wasn't adequately proven yet, so it really was only 1% deniers. And given the size of the survey, that could probably be met by 2 well-known cranks.

      But you are right, the deniers don't publish as much, that's also an established metric. And the papers they do publish don't get as many citations.

      But, at the same time, this is a survey of paper abstracts, which are constrained in length. So many of the papers that agree with the consensus don't bother mentioning it. That means that a denier paper is more likely to make a contrary statement in the abstract, since that's what they are trying to prove.

      It looks like those two factors balanced out, at least roughly. And again, the metrics don't really match unless you round down to 2 digits.

    •  I think the green line is from the recent study (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan, JesseCW

      The Pew poll determined the public perception (in pink).

      Skeptical Science created this figure, not Pew.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Thu May 16, 2013 at 06:38:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They key phrase is... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity
      We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and "global climate change" between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers.
      ...I would think. Hard to see how it's possible to get quack science published in actual science journals these days, not on that subject at least.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's my point (0+ / 0-)

        I can easily believe that 3% of "scientists" out there aren't "believers" - but for them to publish as readily as those in the mainstream boggled me.

        Like you say (or at least I think you're saying), if peer review was working properly it should have been virtually impossible for them to publish.

        Perhaps a comparison are those who deny that HIV causes AIDS - there are a number of such people but are basically excluded from the peer reviewed literature (a notable exception is when Peter Duesberg was able to publish in PNAS because he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and could sneak his papers in under the radar . . . )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site