Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Okay... so how do 6% of the scientists writing papers rejecting global warming translate to "majority of scientists""? I can count on my fingers, ad 94% is lots bigger than 6%.
Furthermore, those numbers don't actually add up and that he changes the definition so he can tweak his title.
He is forced to cover his fanny when he admits that 45% of the scientists give an "implied endorsement", leaving 48% are "neutral" and 6% are against. That totals up to 99%, not 100%.
And I'd like to know a bit about those who accepted global warming and those who rejected it. WOS is here but it's expensive to access: scientific.thomson.com...
So what does he count as "neutral"? I can access many of these same papers on scholar.google.com and I'm curious about how he labels some of these:
scholar.google.com... &as_ylo=1999&as_yhi=2007&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=
How does he classify articles such as this one: wbro.oxfordjournals.org...
Is that "neutral" or is it "pro"?
Even when I google for "global warming" and "no evidence" the articles are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of global warming. Look for yourself;
scholar.google.com...
I can do the same search in other databases (but you couldn't get to them to check them). It's pretty clear the writer had an agenda. Six percent isn't even a significant minority, and I'd like to see some of those papers and check out the authors (are they working for oil companies, for instance.
And finally, without asking the scientists, the fact that they don't write about global warming being caused by humans directly in a paper is simply a bogus bit of research. I believe humans are exacerbating it and that it's real... but I write about anthropology and the Internet, so you don't find my opinions in my papers.
This looks like a desperate attempt of a global warming denier and not good research. Did he contact the scientists to confirm their opinion? No. Is he lumping the "didn't say anything" bunch in with the "denies it happens" group? Yes.
Bad stats, bad research.
He needs to go back to school and take some courses in research design... AFTER he takes a course in stats.
