谁是3%经常引用“97%的气候科学家”吗?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 07 - 10 - t01:36:50z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/2155 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/2155 13 谁是3%经常引用“97%的气候科学家”吗? nbubis //www.hoelymoley.com/users/614 2014 - 06 - 22 - t22:27:54z 2017 - 02 - 12 - t19:31:32z < p >媒体纷纷报道说:< / p > < blockquote > < p >百分之九十七的气候科学家一致认为,让全球气候变暖的趋势在过去的一个世纪里很可能由于人类活动。< / p > < /引用> < p >基于< a href = " http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article " > < / >的一项研究。我的问题是,谁是3%,不同意人为全球变暖,推理的主线是什么?看来,这些科学家代表一小部分人只是一个“广告populum议论”,不是一个真正的驳斥,我想学习更多的知识。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2155/who——————3 - - -经常引用- 97 -气候- scientists/2157 # 2157 24 回答为谁是桥的3%经常引用“97%的气候科学家”吗? //www.hoelymoley.com/users/94 2014 - 06 - 23 - t09:49:23z 2014 - 06 - 23 - t18:29:09z < p >作为抽象表明,库克et al .(2013)发现的并不是真正的“97%的研究人员同意…”;相反,它是“97%的同行评议的出版物同意”。他们不只是经过一些目录的气候研究人员询问他们的想法。他们阅读所有11944出版物的抽象的主题,并分类根据抽象表示。(分类是失明和众包——详情看报纸。)二次检查,他们要求原始研究者自己评估自己的摘要,大概是为了控制任何偏见库克等人可能会把评估。摘要支持共识的比例分别为97.1%和97.2%的两种方法。< / p > < p >请注意,这并不是要求研究者对自己的信仰。想象一下,比如,简私下问:科学家认为,地球将酷5°C在下个世纪,但是她还没有找到任何确凿的数据来支持这一信念,所以还没有发布任何支持它。然而,在1998年,她发表了一篇论文为人为全球变暖提供了证据。也许她现在不相信这篇论文的结论,但仍然在保持在收视排名的文学,因为数据和推理是强大到足以经得起同行审查,无论现在的原作者是怎么想的。 In practice, of course, it's likely that scientists' personal beliefs will be similar to their published results, but I feel it's very important to stress that this study is not an opinion poll -- it's an evaluation of the research itself. (The media can be a little sloppy in their reporting of this distinction.)

Thus, your question is a little misconstrued: we can't answer "Who are the 3%?" because the 3% are research articles rather than people. However, we can ask "Which are the 3% of published research abstracts which do not support the scientific consensus?" And since Cook et al. (2013) is an open access paper with supporting data provided, you can easily answer this question for yourself: simply download the data file from the supplementary data page and look at the papers with an endorsement rating of 5, 6, or 7. (It's in CSV format, so is easy to load into a spreadsheet or text editor.) Further supplementary data is available from the project page at Skeptical Science, and replication of the research is actively encouraged. If you're interested in the actual people behind the 3% of "non-consensus" papers you can look at the author lists for those publications (though of course there's no guarantee that all those authors would still stand by all their conclusions).

I suggest that you start your investigations by reading the paper itself. It's clear and concise, and will give you much more thorough information about the methodology and supporting data than I've been able to fit into this answer.


  • Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., ... & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024.
Baidu
map