Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

planetcare wrote:Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

The admission that some papers skeptical of the topic were excluded on the basis that they used words which the authors of this study found indicative of bias is of some concern to the statistical accuracy of the study.
Climate change has assumed a highly political and emotional status in today’s society and we should recognise that bias can be shown for both points of view - for or against.
To exclude only those which appear to show bias against the consensus whilst not excluding those showing bias for the consensus is statistically unacceptable.
A further issue with this study (of studies) is that there is a well known bias against funding for studies that do not show consensus with the for case. It is true that many big emitters have funded studies for the against case but these “big” business are outnumbered compared to the multitude of universities, foundations, conservation organizations etc willing to put money into studies to show the opposite.
Personally I accept anthropological global warming although not in its entirety because there are also natural climatic and astronomical cycles involved in our weather. It is nevertheless prudent to take steps to reduce our CO2 emissions and progress to zero emissions. Zero emissions does not preclude the use of fossil fuels where required so long as sequestration (both natural and artificial) can keep pace with it and certainly we don’t need to destroy our economy and society and risk takeover by ruthless agents as recent events have shown is possible.
So the question is action and it amazes me that activists seem ready to call us to action but seem to have no ability to take action themselves. It is always somebody else that needs to take the action or invent something like artificial sequestration or how to bridge the 24 hr difficulty with renewable sources or invent something hitherto uninvented to achieve a return of the world to its Eden like state.
Using studies like this which in essence only says that “this is what most people think” only adds another “study” in inverted comments that these activists can trot out to support unreasonable demands on society.

hawkear wrote:

planetcare wrote:Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

The admission that some papers skeptical of the topic were excluded on the basis that they used words which the authors of this study found indicative of bias is of some concern to the statistical accuracy of the study.
Climate change has assumed a highly political and emotional status in today’s society and we should recognise that bias can be shown for both points of view - for or against.
To exclude only those which appear to show bias against the consensus whilst not excluding those showing bias for the consensus is statistically unacceptable.
A further issue with this study (of studies) is that there is a well known bias against funding for studies that do not show consensus with the for case. It is true that many big emitters have funded studies for the against case but these “big” business are outnumbered compared to the multitude of universities, foundations, conservation organizations etc willing to put money into studies to show the opposite.
Personally I accept anthropological global warming although not in its entirety because there are also natural climatic and astronomical cycles involved in our weather. It is nevertheless prudent to take steps to reduce our CO2 emissions and progress to zero emissions. Zero emissions does not preclude the use of fossil fuels where required so long as sequestration (both natural and artificial) can keep pace with it and certainly we don’t need to destroy our economy and society and risk takeover by ruthless agents as recent events have shown is possible.
So the question is action and it amazes me that activists seem ready to call us to action but seem to have no ability to take action themselves. It is always somebody else that needs to take the action or invent something like artificial sequestration or how to bridge the 24 hr difficulty with renewable sources or invent something hitherto uninvented to achieve a return of the world to its Eden like state.
Using studies like this which in essence only says that “this is what most people think” only adds another “study” in inverted comments that these activists can trot out to support unreasonable demands on society.

"also natural climatic and astronomical cycles involved in our weather"
True but its accepted now that the main driver of climate is mans; activities.
"To exclude only those which appear to show bias against the consensus whilst not excluding those showing bias for the consensus is statistically unacceptable.
A further issue with this study (of studies) is that there is a well known bias against funding for studies that do not show consensus with the for case. It is true that many big emitters have funded studies for the against case but these “big” business are outnumbered compared to the multitude of universities, foundations, conservation organizations etc willing to put money into studies to show the opposite"
Many other studies have  come up with the same result. It is also impossible to find ANY papers in the peer reviewed literature that  challenge (and provide  evidence) that  humans are not causing  climate change.
You can count on one hand the number of  climate scientists who  deny AGW.  The biggest area of  disagreement is in the area of climate sensitivity ie what will be global mean temperature if the atmospheric level of  CO2 was  to be doubled over the pre industrial levels.