[mistermann]

> The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.

This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of all publishing climate scientists.

> Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.

Here the story changes in two ways:

- the number is related to research papers, not individual scientists, as is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below. The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far less warm in my experience.

- the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of 11,944 total abstracts), not 97%

> A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.

Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, and the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques.

> At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.

Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph, that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') DO represent endorsement. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

> We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Indeed.

[tito]

Appreciate the opportunity to dive in and read this myself!

The story doesn't "change", that's the abstract where they're presenting the different pieces of research covered in the paper. It's like they're giving a tour of the house, here's the bedroom, here's the living room, here's the kitchen.

There's 3 main chunks across 8 pages, including 2 pages of tables of different studies:

- A survey of scientific publications

- A survey of expert scientists who published about climate science

- Other similar studies that attempted to estimate "consensus"

I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong."

Overall, I'm glad for the opportunity to read further, and agree with the conclusions of the 8 page paper. Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.

[mistermann]

> The story doesn't "change", they're presenting the different pieces of research covered in the paper.

Yes, it does change. Individual forums discussions like this are typically a popularity contest, and you will surely win that, but I suggest your concern should be winning the war, not meaningless battles like this.

> I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.

A typically bold and confident statement. But what if it isn't actually true that it "doesn't matter"?

Whether the fact I point out above (and this is just one, there are many others) is is a meaningful change in the broader perspective is an interesting question. From the purely scientific perspective, it is indeed meaningless, of course. But from the perspective of persuading the entire population of an entire planet of people to change their behavior, is it (and other things like this) still meaningless? I have no way of knowing that, but I very strongly suspect it's not meaningless, at all. If it was me, with the stakes this high, I'd probably want to at least do a little bit of investigation rather than take my chances, but then I seem to have a far more conservative personality than others with passion for this topic.

My intuition tells me that to ultimately crack this nut, we are going to have to beat the Big Boss: the human ego. But first, we have to realize this entity even exists. Based on our demonstrated intelligence, awareness, and progress thus far in this journey, I am not optimistic.

> Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.

Yes, let's. The scientists have indeed done a fine job within their specialized discipline, the rest is out of their hands. Are we up to doing as good of a job as they've done within their discipline? Are we willing to acknowledge and address that which is standing in the way to applying the same level of disciplined intellectual rigor that exists in the hard sciences? Personally, I don't think we are, at least those of us in Western cultures. My best hope at this point is that China progresses fast enough to solve this problem for all of humanity.

[tito]

Yea great point, we have to figure out what matters, meaningful change in the broader perspective!

[mistermann]

I agree and thanks for your support, but based on voting patterns whenever I raise this perspective, it seems to be a rather unpopular idea.