I received this request from Skeptical Science's John Cook:
As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web, I’m seeking your assistance in conducting a crowd-sourced online survey of peer-reviewed climate research. I have compiled a database of around 12,000 papers listed in the 'Web Of Science' between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic 'global warming' or 'global climate change'. I am now inviting readers from a diverse range of climate blogs to peruse the abstracts of these climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. If you’re interested in having your readers participate in this survey, please post the following link to the survey:
http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=QQ5LENROSHQM
The survey involves rating 10 randomly selected abstracts and is expected to take 15 minutes. Participants may sign up to receive the final results of the survey (de-individuated so no individual's data will be published). No other personal information is required (and email is optional). Participants may elect to discontinue the survey at any point and results are only recorded if the survey is completed. Participant ratings are confidential and all data will be de-individuated in the final results so no individual ratings will be published.
The analysis is being conducted by the University of Queensland in collaboration with contributing authors of the website Skeptical Science. The research project is headed by John Cook, research fellow in climate communication for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
As Cook explains on SkS:
The Skeptical Science team has a paper coming out within a few weeks in the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) (many thanks to all who donated money to help make the paper freely available to the public). In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the 'Web Of Science' between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic 'global warming' or 'global climate change'.
Reading so many papers was an eye-opening experience as it hit home just how diverse and rich the research into climate change is. So before the paper comes out, we're inviting readers to in a small way repeat the experience we went through. Not just Skeptical Science readers - I'm emailing an invitation to 58 50 of the most highly trafficked climate blogs (half of them skeptic), asking them to post a link to the survey. In this way we hope to obtain ratings from a diverse range of participants.
It was fun. Unsurprisingly there were no papers doubting AGW in my bunch. However there were 2 papers that were refuting half-baked alternatives and one examining the disconnect between science and policy, so AGW deniers can look on the bright side: their efforts are occupying a lot of time and space in the top journals!
Posted by: Dan P. | May 03, 2013 at 23:00
PIOMAS has updated.
Posted by: Nightvid Cole | May 03, 2013 at 23:33
So have I: PIOMAS May 2013.
Posted by: Neven | May 03, 2013 at 23:39
please accept java. took part on one earlier project from SkS and then the java was ok, though there are places where it's not ok.
Posted by: Erimaassa.blogspot.com | May 04, 2013 at 04:13
my batch was almost totally neutral wrt AGW, but I'd like to point out that it's easier to just click on some value than to read the abstract. some people may find this sort of activity amusing.
Posted by: Erimaassa.blogspot.com | May 04, 2013 at 04:26
Speaking of consensus, it looks like Springer is providing a useful service in issuing open-access summaries of the state of the science within each Earth Science specialty (many, but not all, will pertain to climate science).
The new polar science one is further organized by sub-specialty, each containing a brief discussion of the science and (most valuable IMO) links to a number of papers comprising the state of the science. It's short enough so that someone unfamiliar with the field can acquire an overview in short order. Apparently the plan is to update annually.
It seems worth highlighting here, Neven.
I should add that IMO this is more or less what the IPCC should be doing, noting that after seven years of waiting the forthcoming WG1 report section on Arctic sea ice looks likely to be a virtual dead letter upon issuance as a consequence of publication lags, scheduled as it is to be made public within days of the likely 2013 minimum. (Check out the IPCC front page just now, BTW; someone there at least has a sense of humor.)
Posted by: Steve Bloom | May 04, 2013 at 20:49
Erimaassa, I expect that part of the point is to study the spread of responses in regard to such things.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | May 04, 2013 at 20:51
Indeed, will do. In a couple of days.
And congratulations on getting two comments in a row published directly.
He said sarcastically...
Posted by: Neven | May 04, 2013 at 20:57
:-D
Very funny.
Posted by: Neven | May 04, 2013 at 20:59
This survey is completely flawed. One cannot determine the attribution of global warming to human impacts that a paper has if the abstract is simply about the rate of CO2 sequestration using bio-char. It probably mentions AGW in the body of the paper but doesn't want to bring that part out in the abstract.
Posted by: Jai Mitchell | May 04, 2013 at 21:57
Thanks for bringing this up, Neven. I filled 20 abstracts. Average rating 3,1.
BTW it is an unreparable pitty we still need such studies - by this time we should have been ALL massively involved in decarbonisation of our society - forever. But we are doing opposite, of course - and "discussing" irrelevant details.
On my own blog I am explaining to fake septics that Beck "analysis" of 400 ppm CO2 in 1940 is not correct. I did not succeed - WTF?
Alex
Posted by: Ac A | May 04, 2013 at 21:59
Most of mine were neutral too, but science is not a popularity ranking.
Alexander,
I did that one with some jerks on a message board once, IIRC the samples they were saying were the correct ones were all from locations typically downwind of, or in the middle of, major industrial centres, and had been rejected by real researchers.
Steve,
Camel racing? More like Elephant mating: Starts with a lot of stamping and trumpeting, and takes 18 months to produces results.
;)
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | May 04, 2013 at 22:54
Ac A: Decarbonisation has already started. The process is picking up speed and may be happening a lot faster than you'd like. Ask the Greek and the Spaniards.
If you want to stay informed on the decarbonisation check the Post Carbon Institute-website and Gail Tverberg's weblog Our Finite World.
Posted by: Hans Verbeek | May 05, 2013 at 08:52
Mine were nearly all neutral too.
Now, I know this might seem like a whole lot of "conspiracy ideation", but I suspect Cook and his peeps are not really trying to quantify the consensus on climate change via crowdsourcing. Other authors have done these studies and Cook says that they've already done the work: "we analysed over 12,000 papers..."
My money is on data mining for the next round of papers with Lewandowsky et al, perhaps a parthian shot before Lew heads off to his new chair in Bristol. A strongly bimodal result on a subset of papers will make some nice grist to the psychological mill.
Did I just reveal to the Milgram "teachers" that they were actually the subjects of the experiment? If so, my bad. I trust the select readership here to do this survey faithfully. I have less confidence in the residents of other highly-trafficked blogs. I can't imagine why Cook et al would feel otherwise...
Posted by: FrankD | May 05, 2013 at 17:22
That was a surprise, I had the feeling I was rating on the low (numerically) side.
Posted by: Wipneus | May 07, 2013 at 08:59
Great post. I am writing a paper on online surveys and this will be a great article to site. I found a website that has been a great resource for the paper as well. http://www.upsurveys.com
Posted by: Kat Brennan | January 03, 2014 at 17:42