just to finish that one off Mav, try
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...ld.iop.org
Funnily enough the relevant stats are 97.1% of the 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW.
In my world 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.6%.
But heck! We all know about stats!
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...ld.iop.org
Funnily enough the relevant stats are 97.1% of the 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW.
In my world 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.6%.
But heck! We all know about stats!
Quote: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.
Finals, then 4 in a row!