How I make most of my decisions on what to believe - a legitimate study.
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Is that the narrative they're selling to you guys now? Peer reviewed scientific studies are cherry picked? They don't even include things that aren't peer reviewed so literally everything has been verified by a panel of experts. I've seen y'all claim absolute truth our of sketchier pre-prints without peer review and this is leaps and bounds above that in terms of validity.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
How I make most of my decisions on what to believe - a legitimate study.
Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Downvote disinformation, then laugh at the contagious boomer spreading it. 💉🦠⚰️🪦☠️
Next, show the funding sources for the sub 12K studies.
Cherry picking data is dishonest.
You are dishonest.
You're a fucking clown. It's not cherry picking data, it's literally just all the data we have for the time period
Point and laugh at the vaccinated diabetic landwhale 😂
💉💉💉🪦
Soon to get suddenly’d boomer 💉💉🪦
😂🤣
No dumbass. Your "concensus" is cherry picked data.
Is that the narrative they're selling to you guys now? Peer reviewed scientific studies are cherry picked? They don't even include things that aren't peer reviewed so literally everything has been verified by a panel of experts. I've seen y'all claim absolute truth our of sketchier pre-prints without peer review and this is leaps and bounds above that in terms of validity.