{"id":80,"date":"2004-12-16T11:42:36","date_gmt":"2004-12-16T15:42:36","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=80"},"modified":"2008-11-30T14:05:13","modified_gmt":"2008-11-30T19:05:13","slug":"a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2004\/12\/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus\/","title":{"rendered":"Statistical analysis of consensus Analyse statistique du consensus<\/lang_fr>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science<\/i><\/a>, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase “global climate change”) from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them<\/u>) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes’s survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn’t
\nPar Eric Steig (traduit par Pierre Allemand)<\/small><\/p>\n

Y a-t-il r\u00e9ellement “consensus” dans la communaut\u00e9 scientifique sur la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 du changement climatique anthropog\u00e9nique ? Comme N. Oreskes le fait remarquer dans un r\u00e9cent article de Science<\/a>, c\u2019est une question qui peut \u00eatre elle-m\u00eame trait\u00e9e scientifiquement. Oreskes a pris un \u00e9chantillon de 928 articles sur le changement climatique , objectivement choisis (utilisation de la phrase cl\u00e9 “changement climatique”) dans la litt\u00e9rature scientifique relue par des pairs. Oreskes en a conclu que parmi les articles (environ 75 % du total) qui traitent de la question 100 % (tous) partagent la vue consensuelle selon laquelle une part significative du changement climatique r\u00e9cent est due \u00e0 l\u2019activit\u00e9 humaine.<\/p>\n

(suite…)<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/lang_fr> find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.<\/p>\n

Update 26\/12\/2004:<\/strong> Naomi Oreskes has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post<\/em><\/a> discussing the topic further. -mike [Note: further discussion on this topic should go under the newer RealClimate post, Just what is this Consensus?<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Evidemment, il existe sans doute certains articles qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9s apr\u00e8s relecture par des pairs, qui donnent un avis diff\u00e9rent, et qui n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9compt\u00e9s dans l\u2019\u00e9tude d\u2019Oreskes, mais le fait que son mode d\u2019\u00e9chantillonnage ne les ait pas trouv\u00e9s indique que leur nombre est tr\u00e8s, tr\u00e8s petit. On pourrait d\u00e9battre pour savoir si l\u2019existence d\u2019un tr\u00e8s large consensus constitue une base pour une action sur le changement climatique ; en revanche il n\u2019existe pas de base de discussion sur le fait de savoir si ce consensus existe ou non. <\/p>\n

Mise \u00e0 jour du 26\/12\/2004<\/strong>: Naomi Oreskes a \u00e9crit un \u00e9ditorial qui prolonge le sujet dans le Washington Post <\/a>-mike <\/p>\n

[NB : il sera plus appropri\u00e9 de discuter du sujet dans le nouvel article de RealClimate En quoi consiste donc ce consensus?<\/a>]
\n<\/lang_fr><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase “global climate change”) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-80","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}