Monday, December 22, 2014
After showing how 97 articles thoroughly refuted the most prominent "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013), consensus proponents inevitably moved the goal posts and fell back on other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) (which is really a 100% consensus study). However, these have all been refuted in the scholarly literature and the following are the peer-reviewed refutations of them.
Oreskes (2004) - "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
- Benny Peiser
Abstract: On 3 December 2004, Science published an article entitled "The scientific consensus on climate change" by Naomi Oreskes (Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686). Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "global climate change". The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study. On 4 January 2005, I submitted these results in a letter to Science. On 18 February, editors from Science contacted me to suggest that they would consider publishing a shorter version of the letter. This shorter version was submitted on 23 February. On 13 April, Science responded, saying "After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter." No evidence was provided for this technically contrived excuse. As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis were cited anywhere. Journals such as Science have an obligation to correct errors, especially as activists, journalists and science organisations have endlessly repeated claims made in Oreskes (2004). The sad reality is that by refusing to publish corrections to a fatally flawed paper, they undermine their own credibility, that of their contributors, and the integrity of science.
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Abstract: Fear of anthropogenic "global warming" can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
Doran & Zimmerman (2009) - "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist
Abstract: In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is "how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers" and to the public. However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to "human activity."
Further Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- John Helsdon
Abstract: The feature article "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change," by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, "47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming…." They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase "major cause" in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase "significant contributing factor." There is a large difference between these two phrases.
Anderegg et al. (2010) - "Expert credibility in climate change"
Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 39, September 2010)
- Saffron J. O'Neilla, Max Boykoff
Abstract: Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct "convinced" and "unconvinced" camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms "climate deniers," "skeptics," and "contrarians" both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.
Expert credibility and truth
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 47, November 2010)
- Jarle Aarstad
Abstract: Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field "support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers" (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.
Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 52, December 2010)
- Lawrence Bodenstein
Abstract: The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more "politically correct" side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.
Cook et al. (2013) - "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming"
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
(Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)
- Richard S. J. Tol
Abstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook's validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder
(Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 709, October 2014)
- Richard S. J. Tol
Abstract: In my critique of Cook et al. (2013), I raised a number of issues (Tol, 2014). Cook et al. (2014) respond to a few only. They do not dispute (1) that their sample is not representative, (2) that data quality is low, (3) that their validation test is not passed, (4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement, (5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and (6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.
Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)
Abstract: Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate 'misinformation' was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Friday, December 19, 2014
The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
[ Journal Coverage ]
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)
[ Media Coverage ]
American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
[ Organization Coverage ]
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)
[ Weblog Coverage ]
Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Re: Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review vs. Michael E. Mann DC court case.
When Mark Steyn made his comment about Michael Mann at the National Review,
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graphIt was clear he was making a compliment of how skilled Mann is at making Hockey Sticks.
fraudulent - "using or inclined to use trickery" (Wordsmith)
trickery - "an act or instance of using a trick or tricks." (Wordsmith)
trick - "a particular craft or skill in doing something." (Wordsmith)
As the group that Michael Mann is a part of at RealClimate once said,
Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to "a good way to deal with a problem"