Tuesday, May 21, 2013

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Update 1: Dr. Tol also found problems with the classifications
Update 2: Dr. Morner, Soon and Carlin also falsely classified

Craig D. Idso
Ph.D. Geography
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Nicola Scafetta
Ph.D. Physics
Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

Nir J. Shaviv
Ph.D. Astrophysics
Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

Update 1:

Dr. Tol also found problems with the classifications,

Richard S.J. Tol
Ph.D. Economics
Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit

Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,
Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"

On Twitter Dr. Tol had a heated exchange with one of the "Skeptical Science" authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli,
Tol: "@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so."

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?"

Update 2:

Dr. Morner, Dr. Soon and Dr. Carlin were also falsely classified,

Nils-Axel Morner
Ph.D. Quaternary Geology
Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Willie Soon
Ph.D. Rocket Science
Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."

Alan Carlin
Ph.D. Economics, MIT
Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired)

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers.

One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions. Obviously, whether this was actually done is known only to the authors, but I offer it as a hypothesis that might explain the apparently widespread and one-directional misclassifications of skeptic papers. Mere sloppy analysis should have resulted in a random pattern of misclassifications."

Update 3:

Further analysis reveals that Cook et al. (2013) was created as a propaganda campaign not a scientific study and is shown to be statistically worthless by Dr. Tol,

Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (PopularTechnology.net, June 4, 2013)

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (PopularTechnology.net, June 1, 2013)

Update 4:

Dr. Tol has published a scathing editorial in the Guardian and a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Energy Policy completely discrediting the shoddy methodology employed by Cook et al. (2013) and showed their findings to be worthless,

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (The Guardian, June 6, 2014)

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


Alarmists continue to try and quote mine Dr. Scafetta's comments when he is clearly saying things that AGW "consensus" proponents do not support:

1. The sun can account for 40-70% of the observed warming.
2. The part of the warming not caused by the sun can be due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and not CO2.
3. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low at 1.5 C or less.
4. Climate models poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.)
5. IPCC 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more.

Not to mention his paper was roundly attacked in Alarmist blogs, such as RealClimate and listed as an "Anti-AGW paper" by one of the most prolific abstract raters of Cook et al. (2013), Ari Jokimäki.

Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.

CVs of Scientists:

Alan Carlin, B.S. Physics, California Institute of Technology (1959); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: "An evaluation of U.S. government aid to India"), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1964); Foreign Area Fellow, Ford Foundation (1960-1963); Economist, The RAND Corporation (1963-1971); Director, Implementation Research Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1971-1974); Editorial Board, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (2 years); Founding Member, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (1979); Senior Operations Research Analyst, Office of Research and Development and Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1974-2010)

Craig D. Idso, B.S. Geography, Arizona State University (1994); M.S. Agronomy, University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1996); Ph.D. Geography (Thesis: "Amplitude and phase changes in the seasonal atmospheric CO₂ cycle in the Northern Hemisphere"), Arizona State University (1998); President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (1998-2001); Climatology Researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1999-2001); Director of Environmental Science, Peabody Energy (2001-2002); Lectured in Meteorology, Arizona State University; Lectured in Physical Geography, Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges; Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Member, American Meteorological Society (AMS); Member, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences (ANAS); Member, Association of American Geographers (AAG); Member, Ecological Society of America (ECA); Member, The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi; Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2002-Present); Lead Author, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (2009-Present)

Nicola Scafetta, Laurea in Physics, Università di Pisa, Italy (1997); Ph.D. Physics (Thesis: "An entropic approach to the analysis of time series"), University of North Texas (2001); Research Associate, Physics Department, Duke University (2002-2004); Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University (2005-2009); Visiting Lecturer, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (2008, 2010); Visiting Lecturer, University of North Carolina Greensboro (2008-2009); Adjunct Professor, Elon University (2010); Assistant Adjunct Professor, Duke University (2010-2012); Member, Editorial Board, Dataset Papers in Geosciences Journal; Member, American Physical Society (APS); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team (2010-Present)

Nils-Axel Morner, Fil. Kand. [B.A.], Stockholm University, Sweden (1962); Fil. Lic. [M.A.] Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1965); Fil. Dr. [Ph.D.] Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1969); Associate Professor of Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1969-1971); Associate Professor of General and Historical Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1971-1980); Secretary, Neotectonics Commission, INQUA (1977-1981); Editor, Bulletin of the INQUA Neotectonics Commission (1978-1996); Professor of General and Historical Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1981-1991); President, Neotectonics Commission, INQUA (1981-1991); Chairman, Nordic Historical Climatology Group (1989); Professor and Head, Department of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); Co-ordinator, INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1999-2003); President, Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, INQUA (1999–2003); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden (2005-Present); Golden Chondrite of Merit Award, University of the Algarve, Portugal (2008)

Nir J. Shaviv, B.A Physics Summa Cum Laude, Israel Institute of Technology (1990); M.S Physics, Israel Institute of Technology (1994); Ph.D. Astrophysics (Thesis: "The Origin of Gamma Ray Bursts"), Israel Institute of Technology (1996); The Wolf Award for excellence in PhD studies (1996); Lee DuBridge Prize Fellow, Theoretical Astrophysics Group, California Institute of Technology (1996-1999); Post Doctoral Fellow, Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto (1999-2001); The Beatrice Tremaine Award, Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics (2000); Senior Lecturer, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2001-2006); The Siegfried Samuel Wolf Lectureship in nuclear physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2004); Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2006-2012); Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2012-Present)

Richard S.J. Tol, M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: "A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect"), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)

Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, B.Sc. Aerospace Engineering Cum Laude, University of Southern California (1985); M.Sc. Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California (1987); Ph.D. Rocket Science with distinction (Thesis: "Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases"); Graduate Scholastic Award, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (1989); Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award, University of Southern California (1991); Member, Tau Beta Phi (National Engineering Honor Society); Member, Sigma Gamma Tau (National Aerospace Engineering Honor Society); Post-Doctoral Fellow, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1991-1996); Astronomer, Mount Wilson Observatory (1992-2009); Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1997-Present); Visiting Professor, Department of Science and Environmental Studies, University of Putra, Malaysia (1999-2000); Annual Reviewer, Progress in Physical Geography Journal (2001-2002); Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute (2001-2003); Former Member, American Astrophysical Society (AAS); Former Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Former Member, International Astronomical Union (IAU); Receiving Editor, New Astronomy Journal (2002-Present); Member, CANSTAT Advisory Board, Fraser Institute (2002-Present); Member, Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research (2002); Smithsonian Institution Award for "Official Recognition of Work Performance Reflecting a High Standard of Accomplishment" (2003); Science Director, Center for Science and Public Policy (2003-2006); Petr Beckmann Award for "Courage and Achievement in Defense of Scientific Truth and Freedom" (2004); Chief Scientist, Science and Public Policy Institute (2007-2010); Senior Visiting Fellow, State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University, China (2013-2014); Courage in Defense of Science Award (2014)


Unknown said...

Excellent work Andrew .. Blows the Cook paper into outer space -- where it belongs.

richardtol said...

Ten of my papers are in the sample. Can you tell me how I find out how they were rated?

Andrew said...

Search for the titles here:


There is no way to search by author.

Michael Greenspan said...

Very interesting. Dr. Shaviv's observation that "even if the majority of scientists think one thing ... they aren't necessarily correct" is especially welcome. Were these three the only authors you asked? If not, did you receive any other responses?

Andrew said...

Michael, these are not the only scientists I asked but they are the only responses I have received so far.

Andrew said...

Very interesting, Skeptical Science "Crusher Crew" founders are already trying to spam this post. They must be confused as to what website they are trying to spam.

Anonymous said...

Andrew, I hope you will add to the post if and when more responses come in. Thanks for your efforts so far.

Christoph Dollis said...

I replied to your comment at the Guardian, and later noticed it had been deleted.

Andrew said...

The Guardian moderators have been extensively censoring my comments, this way it can appear I cannot reply to certain arguments.

Richard Evans said...

Absolutely fantastic stuff my friend

UK, Skönhet & Sanning said...

I consider my self somewhat skeptic to some aspects of AGW and 97% consensus seems unreasonable. Not that consensus matter in the matter of Science. Niether Wegener nor Einstein had "consensus" on their side, yet we consider their theories as very good today. Science is not about consensus, it's about methods and proof.

However, it's a pity you did not get answers from the other scientists. All the scientist you have presented on the list is well-known "skeptics" of AGW. Cook probably knew that too, so I can't imagine why he would publice their papers as "endorsing AGW". That seems to me quite strange.

BunBun4life said...

Man, what a bunch of sleazy, biased,sacks of sh*t. People like that should be run out of the scientific community and have no business presenting themselves as 'true researchers' dedicated to the pursuit of truth and science. Because that is a clear FAIL.

This is politically & financially motivated, helping set an iron grip onto citizens, nations and the entire planet with their carbon demands, laws and taxes and helps those fascists in power create new ways to control the population and suck money out of the coffers like it is an infinite supply.

These types of false studies help individual governments, EU, UN and world govt entities stifle the populations, the government budgets for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN. Along with the MANGY scientists who support them blindly and ferociously so they can keep the grant money flowing - and they have no problem destroying the careers or reputations of those who disagree.

This is a fine piece of investigative work, and a testament to the 'don't believe most of what you're told' ideology, which is the BEST way to view what we've been told by 'govt officials'. Maybe don't believe ANY of it. But most people just suck it up and treat people like they are insane if they are sceptical. It requires dedication, time, and hard work to do the proper types of investigations that authorities WILL NOT do, because it against their own best interests.

THANKS and Cheers.

ilma630 said...

A summary of this should be sent to every politician, whether UK MP or equivalent in other countries, with the clear message that continuing to use 'consensus' as an argunent for AGW polices is tantamount to lying.

Unknown said...

I too am being subjected to pre-moderation at the Guardian,presumably to slow down response times and make me look a tad stupid.
Very annoying ,I am just more selective with my targets and ignore the warmista ballerinas.

Unknown said...

thank you thank you thank you for your meticulous , professional presentation of the facts. to declare you deserving of the thanks of the world is in no way an exaggeration.

James said...

Wow -- The Guardian comments section is vile. Not just to you, but to supporters of the article as well.

It's a trollfest.

D3F1ANT said...

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Rabbit said...

The Guardian is getting a lot of stick here I see. I can confirm that rag is one of the most vile publications around when it comes to sleazy lying propaganda. One of the reasons I always doubted the reality of the Snowden Snowjob which in fact has always just been a limited hangout Psyop. Snowden is earning his pay now, whether or not he knows it.

The Guardian has banned me years ago for speaking truth about Palestine and Rothschildlandia and now I've managed to get on with another profile for a couple of years now with my other computer (They blocked my IP address the first time) they have had me on Pre-mod for a while too. They remove any comment I make which mentions some of the whistleblower names they never reported over the years, names like Sybil Edmonds for example who told of some of the revelations they feigned surprise over when Snowden told of them and much worse besides. They are not interested in truth and never will be. The Guardian is part of the Corpse Media.

On the other hand it is gratifying to see over time that the majority are often commenting similar things which once got me banned and placed on pre-mod. If I'd have said what I did then at this time, they'd not be putting me on pre-mod because I am just speaking the consensus they tried so hard to hold back. Bad luck scumbags, you lost.

Naturally they will fight for the AGW hoax since it is all the same people they serve on every issue.

Unknown said...

An aspect that articles such as this (those that attack the 97% consensus) seem to miss, is the question of why is it being made in the first place?

Dr Shaviv is 100% correct when he states - "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct".

So why is the '97% consensus' pushed so strongly? The fact that it exists answers that question - it exists because the issue is no longer one of science, put one of politics. In my opinion it's analogous to a lawyer describing a court case, and saying - "it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's what I can prove to a jury". It doesn't really matter to those pushing the consensus if it's true or not, because it's a political issue, it only matters what they can get voters to believe.

Dave said...

Thanks for the truth. How sweet it is. Dave

Dave said...

Thanks for the Truth. Especially the direct quotes from the miss-labeled scientists. How sweet it is. Dave

Chris524 said...

I downloaded Cook's data from his 2013 study and ran some statistics on the data set. His data set is available here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Position As % of all abstracts

Explicitly endorse AGW 50+% = 0.54%
Explicitly endorse – does not quantify = 7.72%
Explicitly endorse AGW without minimizing it = 24.36%
No Position = 66.73%
Implicit minimizes/rejects AGW = 0.45%
Explicit minimizes/rejects AGW = 0.13%
Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as <50% = .08%

The above table shows the percent of occurrence for each category. In his paper he consolidates the 7 categories into 4 categories.

Thus you have:

Endorse AGW 32.6%
No AGW Position 66.4%
Reject AGW .7%
Uncertain on AGW .3%

So how do we arrive at 97% affirming AGW? Throw away the 66% who have no position on AGW! Then of the remaining 33% who were classified as having an opinion, 97% endorse some level of AGW.

This would be like taking a survey of 100 Democrats and getting their opinion on how H. Clinton's conducted her race for president. Suppose sixty-six (66%) of the Democrats expressed no opinion so we drop them out of the analysis. Of the remaining 34 Democrats, 32 expressed varying degrees of support for Hillary. Divide 32 by 34 and we get 94%. We then publish our results and state that 94% of Democrats who expressed an opinion supporting Hilary. After the media pick up the statistic, the headlines read that “94% of the nation’s Democrats support Hillary” showing that she had overwhelming support from Democrats for the way she campaigned for the presidency. This is a misleading and egregious strategy to sway public opinion.

If you focus only on the first 3 categories in the first table, only 64 abstracts were rated as endorsing AGW greater than 50%.

In the final analysis, this is a “tempest in a tea pot.” Even if the 97% consensus that “humans contribute to GW” were valid and based on sound research, it would be irrelevant to the real debate on GW. There are not many skeptics who would deny that humans are having some effect on the climate. The real debate centers around 1) The degree to which human activity contributes to GW; 2) The mechanisms that might be responsible for AGW; 3) Whether or not AGW will be catastrophic; and 4) Can we do anything to reverse the climate forecast of the models. Cook's 97% statistic has absolutely nothing to do with these concerns.

Klaus Schlagmann said...

Not too many comments since 2013 to this important contribution!!! Thank you for your work! The truth seems to be of no greater interest. People seem to prefer to listen to the mass media. Obviously they follow the herd. Very few people are able to rely on their own thoughts. But we need more people going their own ways, which (wordly) means (in greek): idiots.

High Treason said...

I reckon it is time to "validate" Cook et al by reproducing it. Add some extra criteria, such as a category for papers that come to a quantified conclusion that global warming/ "climate change" is catastrophic.
If you think about it, radical measures are ONLY justified if human CO2 is actually causing catastrophic global warming/ "climate change." While we are at it, "action" is only justified if can reverse proven climate catastrophe.
ONLY those papers that come to a quantified conclusion that HUMAN CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming / catastrophic "climate change" can be regarded as supporting radical changes to "combat" the "problem." This would be the Category one pile. Putting the "broad consensus" type papers in to the Category one pile is of course fraud.
The verification study could add some extra search words to broaden the sample size, but the essential thing is that category one is just Category one.
Ideally, the actual papers in Category one )for both studies) would be identified, perhaps with the names of the lead authors and identities of the peer reviewers. If identifying the identities of peer reviewers is not allowed to be published, perhaps do a bit of statistical analysis of who is reviewing who's papers to come up with a percentage likelihood of collusion between authors and reviewers.
Perhaps get reviewers from WUWT readership to do some hard yards of reviewing the thousands of papers.
I suspect the conclusion might be radically different to the John Cook et al conclusion. The improved methodology (not lumping the broad agreement categories in to the proof positive category) and the addition of the statistical analysis of peer review process to investigate potential of collusion could make for a very interesting paper and hopefully get some media attention.