Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?

Q2 Arts and Humanities Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI:10.1177/0270467617702781
A. Skuce, J. Cook, M. Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, K. Rice, S. Green, P. Jacobs, D. Nuccitelli
{"title":"Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?","authors":"A. Skuce, J. Cook, M. Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, K. Rice, S. Green, P. Jacobs, D. Nuccitelli","doi":"10.1177/0270467617702781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public.","PeriodicalId":38848,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","volume":"36 1","pages":"150 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0270467617702781","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617702781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于人为全球变暖的共识是97%还是99.99%重要吗?
Cook等人基于对同行评议的科学期刊上11944篇摘要的研究,报告了关于人为全球变暖(AGW)的97%的科学共识。Powell声称Cook等人的方法是有缺陷的,真正的共识实际上是99.99%的一致。鲍威尔的方法低估了分歧的程度,因为它依赖于寻找明确的拒绝声明,以及假设没有明确立场的摘要支持共识。Cook等人对论文作者的调查显示,尽管在摘要中没有拒绝声明,但论文可能会表达对AGW的不同意。调查显示,公众对AGW的科学共识程度的认知与现实之间存在很大差距。我们认为,在向公众传达科学观点的真实状态时,重要的是这一差距的大小,而不是97%和99.99%之间的微小差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
The Cultural Production of Everyday Ethics in Two University STEM Labs Intellectual Virtues and Scientific Endeavor: A Reflection on the Commitments Inherent in Generating and Possessing Knowledge How do Researchers Use Social Media for Science Communication? Designing a Mobile-Messaging App-Based Teachers’ Community of Practice in India Ethics in Science and Technology Policy-Making: A Proposed Normative Framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1