百分之九十九?重新审视人类活动对气候变化贡献的共识

IF 3 Q2 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Climate Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.3390/cli11110215
David Dentelski, Ran Damari, Yanir Marmor, Avner Niv, Mor Roses, Yonatan Dubi
{"title":"百分之九十九?重新审视人类活动对气候变化贡献的共识","authors":"David Dentelski, Ran Damari, Yanir Marmor, Avner Niv, Mor Roses, Yonatan Dubi","doi":"10.3390/cli11110215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.","PeriodicalId":37615,"journal":{"name":"Climate","volume":"6 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change\",\"authors\":\"David Dentelski, Ran Damari, Yanir Marmor, Avner Niv, Mor Roses, Yonatan Dubi\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cli11110215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Climate\",\"volume\":\"6 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Climate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类活动被认为是当前气候变化的主要驱动因素。最近的一篇论文研究了关于最近全球气温上升主要是由温室气体排放造成的假设的共识(见参考文本),认为同行评议的科学文献中关于这一假设的科学共识超过99%。这一结论是作者根据他们对上述假设的(摘要)陈述,扫描了大约3000篇论文的摘要和标题,并将其绘制成地图后得出的。在这里,我们指出了研究方法、分析和结论中的一些主要缺陷。利用本研究提供的数据,我们发现,作者定义的99%共识实际上是一个上限评价,因为大量“中立”的论文在论文中被视为支持共识,可能并不能反映真实情况。我们通过评估所谓的“怀疑”论文如何符合共识进一步分析这些结果,并发现文献中的偏差(在上述研究中未被考虑在内)可能使共识处于较低的水平。最后,我们表明研究中使用的评分方法存在主观偏差,这反映在不同评分者对同一篇论文的评分之间存在很大差异。所有这些都导致了研究结论与数据不符的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change
Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Climate
Climate Earth and Planetary Sciences-Atmospheric Science
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
5.40%
发文量
172
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Climate is an independent, international and multi-disciplinary open access journal focusing on climate processes of the earth, covering all scales and involving modelling and observation methods. The scope of Climate includes: Global climate Regional climate Urban climate Multiscale climate Polar climate Tropical climate Climate downscaling Climate process and sensitivity studies Climate dynamics Climate variability (Interseasonal, interannual to decadal) Feedbacks between local, regional, and global climate change Anthropogenic climate change Climate and monsoon Cloud and precipitation predictions Past, present, and projected climate change Hydroclimate.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Climate Risks, Vulnerability of Urban Health Systems, and Individual Adaptation Strategies in the City of N’Djaména (Chad) Characterisation of Morphological Patterns for Land Surface Temperature Distribution in Urban Environments: An Approach to Identify Priority Areas Climate Risks Resilience Development: A Bibliometric Analysis of Climate-Related Early Warning Systems in Southern Africa Analysis of Climate Variability and Its Implications on Rangelands in the Limpopo Province Equilibrium Climate after Spectral and Bolometric Irradiance Reduction in Grand Solar Minimum Simulations
×
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