No, they did review 12,000 papers but eliminated 7930 for not having an opinion. Of that only 64 explicitly endorsed the quantitative hypothesis to the effect that humans are the primary cause of current warming.
Which leads to: "their stated conclusion is incorrect." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/24/quantifying-the-consensus-on-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/ Definition (1): The count confirmed the authors count that 3896 of the 11,944 abstracts (i.e., 32.6%) fell in their endorsement levels 1-3, indicating that fewer than one-third of all abstracts indicate implicit or explicit support even for the limited definition (1) hypothesis that humans cause some warming. It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 endorsement-level-4 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining the 40 level-4 abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook *et al. *were able to conclude that 97.1% endorsed consensus. Definition (2): The count, in line with an earlier result published by Friends of Science in Canada, showed only 64 papers, or just 0.5% of the sample, explicitly endorsing the quantitative hypothesis to the effect that humans are the primary cause of current warming. This value was independently verified by a separate inspection of the data file to identify occurrences of the search term ,1 at the end of each data record using the search facility in Microsoft Notepad, whereupon 64 such occurrences were indeed found. However, of the 64 abstracts to which Cook *et al. *assigned an endorsement level of 1 (explicit endorsement with quantification), 23 do not in fact endorse definition (2). Only 41 papers (0.3% of the sample) do so (see Annex 1). The conclusion of Cook *et al., *as expressed in their abstract, is as follows: Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. A 97% consensus is also asserted in the closing words of the paper: Among [4014] 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. In the introduction to Cook *et al.*, AGW is defined as the scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). However, the authors own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts, and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed AGW as they had defined it. However, taking into account that more than one-third of the 64 abstracts do not in fact endorse the quantitative hypothesis in Cook *et al., *the true percentages endorsing that hypothesis are 0.3% and 1.0% respectively. Accordingly, their stated conclusion is incorrect. Their paper was published May 15, 2013, but it was not until May 31 that corrections were made and the data file added. Without the data file, peer reviewers had no opportunity to verify the authors results before publication and thus to discover that the true consensus was not 97.1% but 0.3-1.0%. . On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > So what you are saying is that the authors lied, and did not review 12,000 > papers. They only reviewed 64. > Is that what you're saying? > > > On 10 July 2013 09:17, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What are you saying? You can't read or you refuse to? > > > > > > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/24/quantifying-the-consensus-on-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/ > > > > The authors own data file showed > > that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the > > sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their > > introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the > > sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of > > papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365424 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
