To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines over that tweet, such as this one from the Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet:
Umm, no, as of this writing. WaPo reporter FAIL.
Source: http://twitter.com/skepticscience
But hey, they’re saving the planet with lies, that shouldn’t matter, right? 6535 is the new 31541507 in the world Cook lives in.
Yesterday, in an interview about the Tweet in the Sydney Morning Herald, Cook said:
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.
No, it isn’t hate, it’s about facts John. This whole story is predicated on lies, and they just seem to get bigger and bigger, there doesn’t seem to be any limit to the gullibility of those involved and those pushing it.
Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.
From the original press release about the paper:
Exhibit 1:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Exhibit 2:
“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”
I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies like this without even bothering to ask a single critical question.
Of course try to find a single mention of that 32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports, or on Cook’s announcement on his own website.
Though, some people are asking questions, while at the same time laughing about this farce, such as Dan Kahan at Yale:
Now, Cook has upped the ante, allowing the average person to help participate in the lie and make it their own, as Brandon Schollenberger observes, Cook has launched a new “Consensus project” to make even more certain the public gets his message:
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
(Update: some folks aren’t getting the significance of Schollenberger’s findings, using Cook’s own data and code, which have been shown to be replicable at Lucia’s comment thread, Schollenberger finds 65 that say AGW/human caused, but there’s 78 that reject AGW. Cook never reported that finding in the paper, thus becoming a lie of omission, because it blows the conclusion. Combine that with the lack of reporting of the 32.6%/66.1% ratio in Cook’s own blog post and media reports, and we have further lies of omission.)
It’s gobsmacking. But, I see this as a good thing, because like the lies of presidential politics, eventually this will all come tumbling down.
Read Scholleberger’s essay at Lucia’s.
UPDATE: Marcel Crok has an interesting analysis as well here: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/
I pity those gullible enough to fall for this nonsense hook, line and sinker.
Actually, if you consider recent statements from President Obama, that tweet has nothing to do with him.
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
“Consensus” is the new “fraud”.
The Hope and Change guy has time to pay attention to John Cook? We have entered a state of ridiculous, silly, and pathetic. The former has had to admit he doesn’t know what is going on in major branches of HIS administration as those underlings attack the very foundations of the Nation. It is hard to believe someone in the big white house still hasn’t recognized that Cook is a kook.
“6535 is the new 31541507”?
That’s like saying 70 cm is the new 20 feet:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/05/scientists-warn-of-up-to-70-cm-of-sea-level-rise-by-2100,-but-is-this-better-or-worse-than-we-thought
At 8:03 AM on 17 May, Bob Tisdale had posted:
Pity is entirely the wrong sentiment. Bear always in mind that the people credulous enough to get suckered by this preposterous buncombe are taking political action to violate their neighbors’ unalienable individual rights – to life, to liberty, and to property – by way of government thuggery.
The proper way to regard both the gullible and the fraudsters is hatred.
If these bleating sheep aren’t as worthy of your revulsion and despite as are the schemers who’ve been perpetrating these criminal climatological connivances, then there’s no code of morality to be applied to human affairs in any way at all.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
“From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW”
Lief, the 66% that took no position count here. They didn’t accept CAGW. It isn’t because they don’t know about it.
Perhaps Dr. Lewd ought to do a study on pathological lying in activist “scientists” .
Well whadyaknow? At the same time that John Cook and President Obama are or are not tweeting about 97% of scientists, the very same zombie lie stalks in the UK Guardian, thanks to Dana. Must the full moon!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 .
Hooray for COOK ! ! !
The Milly Vanilly, lip-syncing, poser-in-charge is now reading a ‘dog-ate my-homework’ teleprompter message on the Benghazi massacre….the IRS intimidation of the Tea Parties and the AP spy operation….what’s a BHO Twitter worth ? ? ?
Half of BHO Twitter followers are phantom….
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UZZK8VF0W_E
Just like the phantom SCIENTISTS that “support” this AGW fraud.
Gary Pearse says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:28 am
Lief, the 66% that took no position count here. They didn’t accept CAGW. It isn’t because they don’t know about it.
They didn’t reject AGW. That is what counts. What is missing in the statistics is if those papers even mentioned or discussed AGW and explicitly said ‘we have no position’. I can point you to thousands of papers from the Journal Cell, New England Journal of Medicine, and the like that have no position on AGW [you claim that they count too?]
Jack says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:04 am
Exactly!
I want to know who has hijacked Obama’s Twitter account so he can use pausible deniability later when it’s shown the 97% were completely ignorant about the political consequences of their fuzzy assertions.
Do you think Jay Carney or Valerie Jarrett would tell us?
” 0.7 per cent rejected AGW”
That was NOT the question asked in the survey. Ask one thing, report another.
The survey asked whether the abstracts “minimised” AGW. Minimise means to play down. It implies bias.
Clearly no abstract will suggest it is “minimising” anything.
An author asked whether his paper minimises is almost obliged to say no.
A reviewer, without seeing the whole paper cannot assess whether this abstract minimised the evidence.
Like all surveys, it’s a case of asking the questions in the right way so as to get the response that the funder requires.
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
————————————————————————————————————————–
So, of the less than 4,000 papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW wheras over 8,000 papers show 100% of no concern.
As someone once said: “Lies, damned lies and statistics”
I don’t think my post at the Guardian will last long.
“Actually of the 11,944 papers reviewed.
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW
32.6% endorsed AGW
0.7% rejected AGW
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
I think the consensus is no position to write anything about AGW at all.
or 67.1% do not agree with AGW.
I can John “Cook” the numbers too.”
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:36 am
Gary Pearse says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:28 am
Lief, the 66% that took no position count here. They didn’t accept CAGW. It isn’t because they don’t know about it.
“They didn’t reject AGW. That is what counts. What is missing in the statistics is if those papers even mentioned or discussed AGW and explicitly said ‘we have no position’. I can point you to thousands of papers from the Journal Cell, New England Journal of Medicine, and the like that have no position on AGW [you claim that they count too?]”
What is surprising is that 66% of a “scientific” community which is now, and has historically always been, prone to adopt the the most popular, politically correct theory of the times has opted for “no position” on AGW, in spite of all of the grant money out there and peer pressure to accept it. But at least they will not be subjected to physical burning at the stake, only professional punishments. “Settled science” is religous fervor, not real science.
John F. Hultquist says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:21 am
… It is hard to believe someone in the big white house still hasn’t recognized that Cook is a kook.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Heck, they *still* haven’t figured that out about Biden, yet!
Also “Lies, damned lies and statistics” is attributed to PM Ben Disraeli
The ‘Barack Obama’ twitter account isn’t used by Barack Obama – it’s used by his 501(c)(4) ‘Organizing for Action’ tax-exempt lobbying organization.
The problem is we don’t know if the 66% didn’t address it, accepted it unquestioningly, or what? The possible composition of that 66% is a major question to be asked of this result.
Gobsmaking! Really!!
“This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.”
How exactly does the study find that there are more publications that reject AGW then accept it? It clearly states their findings as 32.6% accepting AGW and 0.7% that reject AGW. It is “Fuzzy Math” to think that 0.7 is greater then 32.6. The 66.4% that hold no position do exactly that, THEY HOLD NO POSITION. They are removed from the equation because they do not hold a position.
Also,
“Of course try to find a single mention of that 32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports, or on Cook’s announcement on his own website.”
Your own example shows that the 32.6% is in news reports.
Leif, all the papers that they examined were choosen on the words “global warming” or “global climate change”. That makes that all papers were GW related. But even so 66% didn’t explicitely endorse AGW, which is quite remarkable. The non-endorsing may be because the writers of the paper take that as a given, or don’t have and opinion or do think that it isn’t true, but don’t like to express that opinion in their paper (that could prevent publication). We don’t know, but assuming that there is a 97% consensus, based on not counting papers with an absence of opinion is not really honest…
Further, the whole work was done by reading the abstracts (as was which Oreskes did in a similar test). I have read several works where the researchers show that natural influences were far more important than the models take into account (thus in fact saying that CO2 has far less importance), but in the abstract, the AGW “consensus” was explicitely endorsed (probably because of fear that the paper wouldn’t be published otherwise). Thus in the Oreskes count as good as in this excersize, these are all part of the “consensus”…
I’ve always believed that arguing about whether or not there’s a consensus is basically pointless. I mean, so what? So what if there is, so what if there isn’t? It’s completely independent of the truth of the matter anyway. It’s a beauty contest, basically.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:36 am
“They didn’t reject AGW. That is what counts. What is missing in the statistics is if those papers even mentioned or discussed AGW and explicitly said ‘we have no position’. I can point you to thousands of papers from the Journal Cell, New England Journal of Medicine, and the like that have no position on AGW [you claim that they count too?]”
The 12,000 papers were specifically selected for their mention of AGW by Cook. And why should we exclude the New England J of M? Psychologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists, ichthyologists, astronomers, railway engineers and cartoonists like Cook are all writing papers on AGW. The 66% has just as much right in there as the others. Indeed, if a survey is responded to on AGW, they do count. My surprise is that any scientists would trust a cartoonist to select the papers and to design a survey – I don’t imagine this happens in solar science.
In Obama’s tweet, he linked to a Reuter’s article on this study which states: “Experts in Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada studied 4,000 summaries of peer-reviewed papers in journals giving a view about climate change since the early 1990s and found that 97 percent said it was mainly caused by humans.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
“mainly caused”?? That is clearly a false statement. I have no idea what to do about but it pisses me off.
The POTUS approves it?? What could possibly be wrong about it then?
So, Lief, you’re suggesting that it is OK for Cook to just focus on a 97% number and throw that out there as though it represented a good sampling of all papers? Or do you think he should have carefully highlighted the fact that only a minority of papers mention AGW in their abstract and that fully 2/3 didn’t mention AGW in the abstract and so, based on the methodology, it is unclear whether or what those papers say about AGW?
That same hungry hound that ate the BHO homework on the Benghazi massacre….
the IRS-Tea Party and the AP spy ring stories….
also ATE the BHO homework on statistics, science and history….
can’t help the pride of Punahou Prep School on the difficult subjects of….
math and science….but….here’s some HISTORY to help the poser-in-chief….
posted in archive at Canada Free Press:
“The Vacuum Under the Soetoro Umbrella”
“Housebreaking Your New Euro-snob”
Science LIES are nothing….compared to CREATIVE HISTORY lies.
Did anyone expect a different outcome from this?
Do you ‘believe’ this is an end to what has been Cooked up out of this?
Do you ‘hope’ we have heard the end of this?
Do you wish you hadn’t participated in this?
We.
Told.
You.
So.
lsvalgaard says: May 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
How many of the ‘endorsements’ consisted of the almost standard one paragraph hat tip saying “…. and (topic of research) will be affected by the predicted warming”…?
Actually, it is quite astonishing that 66% of climate papers would not even venture an opinion on something so central to the existence of most of the researchers involved.
And, on the other hand, I am not surprised at the apparent lack of negative statements on something so politically charged, so politically entrenched, and so critically important to future research grants and employment.
No comment perhaps says a lot in this context.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And 66.4 percent were not about to jepardise their jobs/tenure by bucking the Politically Correct stance but were too honest to ourtright lie….
The interesting study would be to see how many of those 66.4 percent were in a bomb proof jobs and therefore would suffer not adverse affects from honesty and how many were not.
Gary Pearse says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:04 am
The 12,000 papers were specifically selected for their mention of AGW by Cook.
No, for their mention of “global warming” and “global climate change”, not AGW nor CAGW. If a paper did not even mention AGW or discuss it [and explicitly stated that the authors took no position] it should not be included in the statistics. But, hey, I realize that sound arguments play no role in this debate. Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]”. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.
Opps….make that “The Vacuum Under the Soetoro Sombrero”
[i’m going to punish my “Post Comment” finger presently]
And taking a position might incur IRS audits also
Eric Anderson says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:11 am
Or do you think he should have carefully highlighted the fact that only a minority of papers mention AGW in their abstract and that fully 2/3 didn’t mention AGW in the abstract and so, based on the methodology, it is unclear whether or what those papers say about AGW?
He should have said: “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“.
RIP critical thinking, consensus science is much more helpful to those in charge because it’s easier to tax.
Circular logic based on selection bias at best. 97% of the expert researchers in the field of Dianteics, believes that Dianteics is true, thus Dianteics is true based on the consensus of researchers who are considered experts in the field of Dianteics. Everybody better go to the Church of Scientology.
@lsvalgaard
Its important to remember that most skeptics position is not that man has no effect but rather than mans effect has been greatly overstated. As wuwt points out if you actually break it down into papers that suggest man is primarily responsible you end up having more papers that flat out reject it. The other papers, for all you know could state the effect (while there) is so low that its negligable (as some do), cooke knows this which only proves his lack of scientific integrity as he is using falsely applied numbers to his advantage.
The other 66 percent of papers count, they are not random papers on unrelated topics, they are specific climate papers selected to be part of the study. Many of these papers while neither rejecting nor accepting agw, attribute changes in climate to other reasons. For example to a paper that shows solar cycles affect and cause changes in climate doesnt prove or dispove agw, it is however proving natural variation exists (something warmists are loathe to admit)
The lazy man’s route to fame. Jump a bandwagon, shout louder than all concerned, rake in the plaudits, speaking engagements and remuneration. Rinse and repeat.
He took a leaf out of Gore’s book.
All papers dealing with cancer always clearly state that it’s a bad thing in the abstract or title.
What a bizarre study in the first place. How trite. And meaningless.
Just to add my 5 cents, 31,541,507 is the number of followers of Obama, not Cook. That’s made obvious on the original article (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html) which Watts didn’t care to link to. Of course is a journalism fail, but one that has nothing to do with climate science of John Cook.
That, IMHO, it a really low blow from Watts and misleading to his readers.
REPLY: Are you purposely mendacious, or just stupid? The WaPo made a false claim, saying:
That’s a false claim, proven by the numbers. And I’m right in calling out WaPo on it. Those people have NOT followed John Cook, they have not “decided” to take action.
Also, I explicitly linked to that SMH article, see:
It’s hard to imagine a more inaccurate comment. then again after looking at your Facebook page (linked in your comment), it suggests that maybe you aren’t capable of factual accuracy. – Anthony
Scooter saw it coming before they named his deplorable adjunct to the Guardian.
Dammit. I nearly looked…
Time-scales? Was her (lol) blog ripped kicking and screaming from the ether before, or after the survey was started?
Yup! “They” say that: “the cream always floats to the top” when “they” always knew (know) B.S. floats too! The rules for telling the difference? . . . . .
Still not getting why the skeptic community doesn’t fight back more directly on this 97 percent nonsense. Seems like a obvious strategy to hire a neutral polling company and commission it to take a valid sampling. TRicky poll to design perhaps, and not cheap, but so what? Why not fight back?
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:35 am
Please polish your reading comprehension skills before sticking your feet in your mouth.
Anthony is reporting a report. The report is what is wrong – take it up with the original ‘reporter’ here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/17/obama-tweet-gets-australian-researcher-31-5-million-followers-on-twitter/
P.S. Cook doesn’t ‘do’ climate science.
If you paid 5 cents for that opinion you were ripped right off.
pokerguy says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:39 am
Would we get Obama to tweet the results?
The WaPo to hold the front page?
The BBC to mention it?
The damage is done. We will be mopping up this spew for a long while.
A more sensical breakdown would be
Of the 1200 papers
0.6 percent attribute man as the primary contributor to gw
32 percent state that man has an affect on climate (but was not the main contributing factor)
66 percent showed affects on climate that had nothing to do with agw
0.7 percent entirely disproved agw
And 0.3 percent were papers that could not be certain
Warren says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:59 am
The problem is we don’t know if the 66% didn’t address it, accepted it unquestioningly, or what? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Correct because all that was looked at was the ABSTRACT and not the actual paper. Heck you have no idea what the actual scientist(s) thinks of CAGW or AGW without doing a very well designed unbiased BLIND study.
This study shows how the wording of the questions can make a big change in the study results.
Cook’s survey doesn’t say a darn thing about what scientists are really thinking about CAGW especially given the power of group think, peer pressure, political correctness and the almighty $$$$.
What I said in the previous thread on this topic bears repeating:
Were those attribution studies that examined the cause, or mostly merely impact or mitigation studies that merely endorsed (parroted) the man-made / consensus conclusion? If the latter, which is likely, then So What?
Other questions re the attribution studies:
1. How significant did they rate the manmade contribution?
2. In recent years, as warming has stalled, has this man-has-done-it rating declined (and by how much), and/or do fewer papers make this attribution?
3. How many papers are alarmist—i.e., foresee the warming continuing or accelerating in the future from the manmade contribution?
4. Has the alarmism of recent attribution papers increased or decreased? (We know that major recent papers have dialed back the climate sensitivity number.)
Colour me furious. I will shut up now.
(although I would like to know if dana made the blog before the books were cooked)
PS: The debate is not about “the cause of recent global warming,”–that’s a warmist misdirection, and one that Obama has been misdirected by. Most contrarians accept the basic AGW idea and the attribution of much or most GW to it. We’re part of the 97%, IOW.
Rather, the debate is about how much more AGW can be anticipated. Contrarians point to the diminishing effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere and to the likely dominance of negative feedbacks over positive ones. This is the message we need to get across. (The media seems willfully obtuse in its failure to communicate our POV.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
“Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.”
But are papers that take a political position really scientific papers?
Marcel Crok: “Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading”
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/
Only in politics does a “no comment” mean a “hell yes”.
pochas says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:51 am
But are papers that take a political position really scientific papers?
Some people might say that a paper that disagrees with their pet view cannot be true science. Are you one of them? The ordinary view is that a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal is ‘science’. One number from the survey that I trouble with is that it claims to examine 12,000 papers from 1800 journals. There are, perhaps, only a few dozen journals in climate science that are worth even looking at, not 1800…
It was all going so well for Cook until Obama interfered, doh.
SkS: We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers.
Why exclude 2012 ? Worried that the control of peer-reviewed journals is beginning to slip?
Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Steve Schneider
“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
The public may not understand all the technical details but that does not mean most people are too stupid to see what is going on.
Watts said:
“Are you purposely mendacious, or just stupid? The WaPo made a false claim, saying:
That tweet, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, led 31,541,507 people to decide to follow Australian climate change researcher John Cook on Twitter.”
And since I clearly stated that “Of course is a journalism fail, but one that has nothing to do with climate science of John Cook.”, I then have to aks myself a similar question about Watts. I do accept my mistake in stating that Watts didn’t link to the original (correct) article.
The thing is, Watts also wrote:
“But hey, they’re saving the planet with lies, that shouldn’t matter, right? 6535 is the new 31541507 in the world Cook lives in.”
Again, one has to ask himself why did Watts think that relating this obvious journalism fail to John Cook. Was this a “journalism fails” form his part? Is he “just stupid”? Or maybe he’s just looking for every excuse he can to discredit Cook and, by guild by association, this current study?
REPLY: Thanks for answering, it clears it up. You are purposely mendacious. – Anthony
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
“Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.”
Not surprised, this supports the accepted theory of the times. Consensus science at its best. Like agreement upon how to count sun spots. Or how radioactive decay is unchanging. Or the existence of “dark matter” based upon existing ACCEPTED theory and indirect gravitational evidence with no physical samples. “This cannot be argued with”, says it all. Closed minded settled science, professionally convenient to those who accept it.
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:07 am
…
——————-
Shush R. Daneel, the humans are talking right now.
“But even so 66% didn’t explicitely endorse AGW, which is quite remarkable.”
It would be remarkable if AGW was controversial. Don’t forget that climate scientists are writing for climate scientists, in these journal articles, and not to wattsupwiththat readers.
What was that line from Vietnam? “50% of the bombs hit 100% of their targets?”
Is Obama really that thick, or does he have an ulterior motive?
From SkS search results:
Endorsement Level: 3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
Endorsement Level: 3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
yet the in search categories and the press coverage they have changes this to “minimises/rejects”
The results are presented as having been classified according to “minimises/rejects” qualifiers whereas when the question was asked of the authors in self evaluation and of reviewers it simply said “minimise”.
The results and the whole survey is a lie.
They have realised there was a wording problem and reworded the categories AFTER survey was completed.
Can you imagine a serious pollster reporting a survey having reworded the questions that were asked. Incredible (in every sense of the term).
Daneel Olivaw,
John Cook is a serial liar who censors scientific skeptics wholesale. Honesty is not in him, even though he parades his churchgoing in public. [There are a few New Testament parables about that, and they refer to hypocrites].
I note once again that John Cook runs and hides out from any formal, moderated debate with a well known scientific skeptic. The reason is clear: Cook’s narrative is based on false information. He knows that he cannot win a debate held in a neutral venue with a mutually agreed moderator and a randomly selected audience. So he contrives his bogus polls. They are nothing but pseudo-scientific propaganda, and they have been thoroughly discredited here and elsewhere.
You are being an apologist for a liar, a prevaricator, and a censor, who will not publicly defend what he claims are his beliefs. Why would you put yourself in that position? If you yourself were honest, you would be demanding that Cook must immediately cease his practice of censoring comments he does not agree with. Readers can decide for themselves, if they are permitted to hesr both sides of a debate. But Cook does not want an honest debate. And neither do you.
pokerguy says: (Let’s commission a survey of our own” words to that effect
May 17, 2013 at 9:39 am
Henry Galt responds:
Would we get Obama to tweet the results?
The WaPo to hold the front page?
The BBC to mention it?
The damage is done. We will be mopping up this spew for a long while.
Would we get Obama to tweet the results?
The WaPo to hold the front page?
The BBC to mention it?
The damage is done. We will be mopping up this spew for a long while.
*********
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what’s amiss with some of you. Much easer to cry and moan and wring your hands than to actually do something proactive. This 97 percent lie has been circulating to sinister effect for years now. We’re winning wrt to the science as well as the real world data. So why haven’t we won the war? Think about it…
The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions
A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.
————————-
obama is a liar of epic proportions.
John (no relation to me) Cook’s Consensus Project web site was registered in June 2012 ( http://www.whois.com/whois/theconsensusproject.com ) and presumably put together in a reasonable amount of time right before that, so does it not follow that John finalized his consensus conclusion in the spring of 2012? Hence the name of the web site? If so, why wasn’t this giant current news event a sensational item almost one year ago?
What were the numbers for eventual fail WRT peer-reviewed papers, regardless of field?
I just tried to find a link but couldn’t. The time passed was small and the failure rate was large IIRC.
I would appreciate the ability to bookmark the study, so TIA 🙂
coeruleus says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:33 am
“All papers dealing with cancer always clearly state that it’s a bad thing in the abstract or title.”
This is a good point but I am not sure what you intended.
Everyone knows cancer is bad so we do not need to be consantly reminded about any consesus on the subject. The point about AGW is that there is no consensus so we need to be reminded at every opportunity that there is. That includes, titles, abstracts and misleading surveys (think, Anderegg, Doran and Cook).
Obama looks across to Europe and sees Carbon Taxes galore and he wants a big slice too to help pay down the debt.but as Winston said “A country that trys to tax its self into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handle”
dbstealey, I would appreciate if you didn’t made unwarranted suppositions about my positions. I ask you, where in my previous comments did I defended Cook about anything you now accuse him of? What I said, and Watts didn’t deny, is that Cook has nothing to do with the journalism fail of the WaPO and that trying to equate both is a case of poisoning the well.
Do you have any problem with that statement? Knowing what we all know about lazy journalism, don’t you think is not fair to blame Cook with the WaPO writer for misreading the SMH article and stating, without even doing basic factchecking, that Cook received 3M followers?
Pfffffftttt…. ROFLMAO
Mr. Watts:
This post makes no sense, and is–ironically–rather dishonest itself.
First, regarding the Twitter claim, why is Cook being faulted for a factual error made by a reporter for the Washington Post? Not only was the 31 million new followers claim not Cook’s, but in the link *that you include*, to the Sydney Morning Herald, Cook makes clear that the 31 million figure refers to Obama’s followers, not his own(1).
Second, you argue that Cook et al. are purposely hiding the fact that they only studied the subset of papers that took an explicit position on global warming: “I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention.” If this is true, a) why does the press release (again, which you link to) explicitly report the ratio of used papers(2), and b) why do the authors in their opinion piece in the Guardian–which you also link to, but highlight as somehow dishonest–also *explicitly give the size of both the main sample and sub-sample* of papers? Note: The relevant text from the Guardian, which I include below, is exactly the same as that which you link to from Skeptical Science, which you also claim dishonestly fails to report their sub-sampling; both explicitly report the main (ca. 12,000) and sub-sample (ca. 4,000) numbers.
Your whole post is self-defeating, since the answers to all of your accusations are contained in the very links you include. I think this goes beyond careless or uncharitable. I hope that people take the time to follow your links themselves to fact-check your assertions.
Jason Loxton
Dept. of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University
P.s. In a post last year (http://tinyurl.com/bxt4al2) you argued that Cook was inconsistently including non-peer-reviewed papers in this study, since the survey gave the option of choosing ‘not peer-reviewed’. Specifically, you said: “Though the fact that Cook included “not peer-reviewed” as an option for paper author that he would accept means that he’s now bereft of any rational argument when it comes to peer reviewed -vs- non peer reviewed findings.”
Seeing the option, my immediate thought as an academic researcher was, “Good for him. He’s clearly putting a layer of redundancy in there in case his ISI search retrieved non-peer-reviewed papers–this way he can exclude them.”
Sure enough, this is in fact the case. Cook’s paper makes this very responsible protocol explicit: “We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After *excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed*, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.” (Section 3.2) [Emphasis mine.]
Given that the post with your accusations still stands uncorrected, I suggest that you may want to update it with a clarification.
(1) “A cue from Obama is a big step,” [Cook] said. “The fact it goes to more than 31 million followers, it just raises the awareness of consensus.” http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2TZTLIthQ
(2) “From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.” http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
(3) “Our team agreed upon definitions of categories to put the papers in: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no opinion, and implicit or explicit rejection or minimization of the human influence, and began the long process of rating over 12,000 abstracts…Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
REPLY: What you describe is nothing more than cherry picking, excluding the adverse results. This study done by John Cook and his “team” found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it. Further, the “team” broke their own definitions, and talked amongst themselves to figure out how to rate papers, basically adding yet another level of bias. See here. If the situation were reversed, it was a study skeptics had done, showing an opposite result, the press (and Cook) would be all over it to discredit it as being sloppy, as it stands it gets a pass, because it fits the meme. And like Mr. Olivaw I think you have a reading comprehension problem since in no way did I blame Cook for the WaPo fiasco, I simply include it as another example of numeric inflation for the purpose of bolstering the premise.
What you seem not to understand (or don’t want to) is that Mr. Cook is an activist, and he’s specializing in creating made to order science. I have no doubt he and others think they are doing an honorable thing, but at the same time, it clearly is nothing more than a fabricated means to an end. Advocacy disguised as science. – Anthony
If that number was true, 97% of scientists have not done their homework and need to be sent to bed without dinner.
Regarding the assertion that 97.7% of scientists believe in AGW, I refer readers to the following quote:
If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
~ Robert A. Heinlein
I am still waiting for someone to produce a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW. I am perfectly willing to accept whatever AGW measurement can be testably verified and accepted by all concerned.
But so far, there is no measurement of AGW, which remains only an assertion; an opinion. AGW may well exist. But if so, it is too small to measure, and thus it should be completely disregarded when setting policy.
pokerguy says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:31 am
“We’re winning wrt to the science as well as the real world data. So why haven’t we won the war? Think about it…”
…and my answer to you counts as “… demonstrating exactly what’s amiss with some of you.” ?
If you have an inside line to WaPo, the BBC and Obama, or any equally massive global propaganda outlets, do a survey and pull some strings.
Reality bites. This creature Cook will gain a degree, work in his field and eventual tenure on the back of this type of crap. This is the state of the modern world.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
Let’s get this in proportion, lot of papers give a ‘support’ to the AGW, but that could be because it is expected from them, and even if they do, to what extent; the UHI is definitely anthropogenic factor . Those who lived in East Europe, Chine, North Korea or Cuba know what is meant by 97,9% support for anything. I would be more concerned if it was 60% to 40% ratio and based on a physical proof, not on some computer models.
Here is graphic reminder what we are talking about.
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:07 am
Cook explicitly states that he is not a climate scientist on his web page. In fact, he further states that the information he presents comes from “peer reviewed” work only. That, given the unhappy documentation from the Climate Gate emails, shows precisely how (un)trustworthy such an approach is. He reportedly has a degree in physics, and a specialty in solar physics, which, apparently, he no longer practices. Apparently database programming pays better. You might want to see what Lubos Motl, who is a practicing physicist has to say about Cook’s points.
“Everyone knows cancer is bad so we do not need to be consantly reminded about any consesus on the subject. The point about AGW is that there is no consensus so we need to be reminded at every opportunity that there is. ”
This is not true at all. Just like with every other pseudoscience, the view from the outside is quite different than the view from within. Climate scientists don’t put statements like that in their abstracts because it’s not the point of the overwhelming majority of their papers. Does every research paper about atherosclerosis start with “Oh by the way, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.”? No, because nobody is researching that question. They may be researching the specifics, just like with AGW, but they’re not actually looking at that base question very often.
Jim G says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:15 am
Closed minded settled science
Better to have a mind so open that your brain has fallen out?
Meanwhile the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) enters the climate theatre:
Michael E. Mann and Sanal Edamaruku join TAM 2013 Speakers Lineup – Latest JREF News
We are happy to announce that distinguished climate scientist Michael E. Mann and renowned miracle buster Sanal Edamaruku will both be joining the The Amaz!ng Meeting 2013 program.
“You alluded to the word “skeptic.” Well, many of those who simply deny that climate change exists, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue.” — Michael E. Mann
The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) is the world’s leading conference focused on scientific skepticism. People from all over the world come to TAM each year to share learning, laughs, and the skeptical perspective with their friends and a host of distinguished guest speakers, panelists, and workshop presenters.
This annual gathering of critical thinkers is an unparalleled opportunity to make like-minded friends, enjoy some of the brightest minds on issues important to skeptics, and leave with tools for spreading a helpful and skeptical message to those who might be hurt by charlatans and unfounded belief. TAM is like a vacation from the nonsense we confront every day, and a time to celebrate skepticism.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/2124-michael-e-mann-and-sanal-edamaruku-join-tam-2013-speakers-lineup.html
vukcevic
Re: lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
“Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.”
Don’t waste your time trying to change a closed mind. Surveys are much more than just the numbers. One must consider the entire methodology: the questions asked, how they are phrased, the juxtaposition and relationship of those questions, the sample composition, the representativeness of the sample to the issue, any potential bias to the introductory comments, statistical methods used, etc. How one uses and reports the stats is also very important to the conclusions one reaches. But I guess it is always easier to take a simplistic, dare I say simple minded, point of view, particularly if one has not actually done a great number of surveys.
Daneel Olivaw,
John Cook has a long history here. Numerous commenters here have have reported that their posts were either deleted, or the wording was changed without any notice that that had been done. That has been done to my posts, too.
My apologies if I misconstrued your defense of Cook. But IMHO he is a reprehensible character who would be more comfortable publishing in Cuba, or North Korea. Because in the West, it is frowned upon to change someone’s words to mean something different than what they intended, without ever acknowledging that their words had been altered.
When you comment about the “climate science of John Cook”, and then equate that with Anthony Watts, you discredit yourself. Anthony is exceptionally honest. He is a straight shooter, while Cook is mendacious. When making your comparisons, keep that in mind.
The whole premise of “consensus of scientists” is anti-scientific bullshit. Were it not, the methods used here would still be wrong.
Papers are not scientists. Rating papers is not polling scientists.
Quote from Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2TYt7DOGr)
“A survey of scientific papers by a team led by Mr Cook and published by Fairfax Media this week found more than 97 per cent of researchers endorsed the view that humans are to blame for global warming.”
This is an outright lie. Only 32.6% of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that global warming was primarily due to humans. This story not only implies that humans are primarily responsible but that they are totally responsible.
66% of the papers surveyed took no position (at least in the abstract).
It is not surprising when billions of dollars are spent trying to prove the existence of AGW/CAGW and relatively nothing being spent investigating natural causes, that most of the papers published support the AGW/CAGW view. Afterall, that is exactly what they are being PAID to do, and their jobs depend on it.
I read this at The Blackboard. It’s a comment Brandon Schollenberger.
“The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
dbstealey, you should read pro-AGW blogs then since they often cite cases of censorship in this blog you’re reading. 🙂
I’m with Lief on the 66.4 papers that stated no position. Why should papers on say Snow Ball Earth, Massive Volcanic Eruptions, Meteor/Comet Strikes, Plate Tectonics, etc. be included in the total. They have nothing to do with AGW. Why would the authors even bring up AGW? Papers on such topics could easily be caught up the search parameters, but they would have nothing to do with AGW. So why should they be used in the study. To insist they be included would just be padding the numbers with irrelevant data which would lead to false results.
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.
ClimateGate emails show some hate from scientists.
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:23 am
“dbstealey, you should read pro-AGW blogs then since they often cite cases of censorship in this blog you’re reading.”
———————-
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that your posts aren’t being censored here then?
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he (Cook) said.
Truth! History shows us the worst of the liars, cheats, murderers, and thieves are justifiably reviled for their amoral, treacherous actions. And so it should always be.
MtK
Ummm, that 31 million followers figure is what @BarackObama has and I think someone misread how that figure was used. It was supposed to be something like, 31million is good exposure, meaning BO brought the info to that many people.
REPLY: No doubt, but what does it say about professional journalism when the WaPo reporter can’t get that basic fact right and makes story headlining that? Worse, I’ve made them aware of it and it still isn’t corrected. -Anthony
PS> Just for the Record . . . . http://www.barackobama.com/about/about-ofa?source=footer-nav
Make your own conclusions . . . . but, I certainly wonder if this tweet even eminated from the hand of the man himself. So much on the internet is a grand illusion. Sad but true.
If facts and analysis supports your theory pound the facts, if the facts do not support your theory, be vague and pound the table. Papers that include information that threats the logic of the extreme AGW theory must by protocol include a vague comment that that the paper’s findings do not threaten the extreme AGW theory to get the paper published.
There is a reason why the warmists will not participate in a debate of the climate change issues. Analysis and observations do not support the extreme AGW theory. Clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist warming (negative feedback) by reflecting more or less short wave radiation off into space. The extreme AGW theory requires tropic tropospheric warming by water vapor to amplify the forcing (positive feedback) due to CO2. If there is negative feedback rather than positive feedback the warming due to doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif
There has been 16 years without warming. That should be a hint there is something fundamentally incorrect with the extreme AGW theory and with IPCC general circulation models that assume amplification of the CO2 forcing.
There is now the first indication of planetary cooling, caused by the solar cycle 24 slowdown.
The timbre, tone, of the climate change discussion will completely change when there is unequivocal evidence the planet is cooling. There will be three issues: 1) How to explain the physical reason for the sudden unexplained cooling and 2) How to explain why billions of dollars were spent during a period of massive deficits on green scams which have resulted in no significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the countries where the scams schemes were installed and scam schemes have made absolutely no change in total world CO2 emissions as the developing countries are installing coal power generation, and 3) Carbon dioxide emissions are positive for biosphere and the environment as the CO2 increases will and are causing increased yield, healthy, more productive plants (greenhouse inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times, there is for example a 40% increase in yields of cereal crops for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) and the slight warming due the CO2 increase helps to mitigate a cooling planet.
There is in the paleo climatic record cyclic warming and cooling (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles). The D-O cyclic warming occurs in the specific regions that warmed in the 20th century, primarily in the Northern hemisphere and at higher latitudes. Warming of the high Arctic is not predicted by the AGW forcing mechanism. The extreme AGW forcing theory predicted warming is in the tropics where the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space. As noted tropical cloud cover resists forcing in that region of the planet.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years. This is a graph from Richard Alley’s paper that shows temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The D-O cycle is clearly evident. As noted there is no correlation with the changes in the Greenland ice sheet temperatures to atmospheric CO2 levels in the past. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing the planet is gradually cooling as with the D-O cycle imposed on the cooling trend. The majority of the warming of the Greenland Ice sheet observed in the 20th century was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. The majority of the warming was caused by the solar magnetic cycle change and is the same mechanism that caused the past D-O cycles.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
There was a physical reason, a forcing function that caused the D-O cycle. The D-O cyclic climate change correlates with cyclic solar magnetic cycle changes. Solar magnetic cycle changes caused the D-O cyclic warming and cooling.
The following is a paper that notes there is cyclic variation of North Atlantic temperatures that correlates with solar magnetic cycle length. As the paper notes is a delay in the cooling of 10 to 12 years. Solar magnetic cycle 24 is the special solar change that causes the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
As most are aware the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is for some unexplained reason, is decaying linearly. Due to this change the magnetic ropes that form at the solar tachocline (the solar tachocline is the name for the narrow region in the sun that separates the radiative zone from the convection zone) and then float up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are becoming weaker (less magnetic field strength) and are now starting to be torn to pieces by turbulence as they pass through the solar convection zone. Extrapolating the linear reduction to the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots and the sun is predicted to be spotless in 2017.
The Arctic region cooling is predicted to be the most severe in the winter and the spring. There is now observational evidence that temperatures in the high Arctic have started to cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. …. ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. … …These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
William: The authors of the above paper only considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulates planetary temperature in Northern Atlantic regions. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds.
I challenge Mr. Olivaw to find a case where WUWT has done post facto editing of reader comments such as SkS has done to their readership to change the meaning of their comments. For example, I’m not allowed to comment there, yet even persona non gratas like Peter Gleick have comments that passed moderation here, and they have not been modified. You’ d do well to open your eyes to the serial dishonesty in Mr. Cook’s web environment.
See: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
You for example, get to comment here. I’m not allowed the same luxury at SkS or at the Guardian SkS mouthpiece run by Nuccitelli, where comments that mention me or WUWT are regularly deleted. Go have a look to see what I mean.
Comments that don’t make it here at WUWT (and there are a few out of the 1,032,323 comments made here as of this comment) don’t make it because they violate site policy: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
That’s our right. Tough noogies if that upsets a few people, but I challenge any blog pro/con for AGW to match our track record for allowing adverse comments and comment volume.
Daneel Olivaw says: @ May 17, 2013 at 9:35 am
Just to add my 5 cents, 31,541,507 is the number of followers of Obama, not Cook. That’s made obvious on the original article …which Watts didn’t care to link to….
That, IMHO, it a really low blow from Watts and misleading to his readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you just PROVED you can not be bothered to read what was written because you are so interested in scoring off Anthony.
It is Valerie Strauss who had the headline “Obama Tweet gets Australian Researcher 31.5 million followers on Twitter” It is Watts who POINTS OUT it is only 6535 followers at the time he wrote his essay.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:54 am
“Jim G says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:15 am
Closed minded settled science
Better to have a mind so open that your brain has fallen out?”
The good old Carl Sagan quote.
About Carl Sagan and the computer model with which he proved nuclear winter:
http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt
Laurie Bowen says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:36 am
“Make your own conclusions . . . . but, I certainly wonder if this tweet even eminated from the hand of the man himself. So much on the internet is a grand illusion. Sad but true.”
One of the TOTUS twins showed it to him so he typed it into his twitter account.
One of the TOTUS twins showed it to him so he typed it into his twitter account.
As what, a follower or owner? A link for your evidence would be nice. Like to say required . . . but, I know how that works.
Laurie Bowen says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:36 am
Yup! “They” say that: “the cream always floats to the top” when “they” always knew (know) B.S. floats too! The rules for telling the difference?…..
>>>>>>>>>>
Are you in a creamery or a cesspool? Lately science has been starting to more resemble the cesspool instead of the creamery it was.
There is BS floating in the milk bucket! Happens alot . . . . that’s why pasterization was invented.
Pity is not right. A visceral contempt and revulsion is. And a determination to see these people hanged by their lies. No one can possibly pretend there is any integrity sincerity or honesty in these things. They are the – literal – mortal enemy of humanity.
“I challenge Mr. Olivaw to find a case where WUWT has done post facto editing ….”
Of course Mr. Watts himselft would never admit to censoring or any other flaw. Of course every deleted of edited comment is, in his mind, justified. The same, I’m sure, can be said for Cook or any other moderator on SkS and for myself on my own blog.
You’ll have to read what the others are saying in order to learn about what you (and your cultural camp) are doing wrong. Anything else is just taking what someone says at face value and not showing any real skepticism.
REPLY: And we are back to the first question I posed to you, which you answered by actions. Look, we aren’t ever going to agree, so its probably time to end this dance, since there’s nothing your closed mind accepts from anyone here. – Anthony
Most people “believe in God” yet, we do not consider that proof that God exists.
I have yet to see any proof of the Man Made Climate change
. . . BUT, if humans could completely flattened out the Continental divide (say to 100ft above sea level) I would postulate that as proof that it ,(Man Made Climate change), could be done.
Stick that (scenario) in your computer models and see what happens. Just make sure you can stop the run in case of “unintended consequences”.
But, I’m willing to “bet” the consensus would be, “YOU/WE CAN’T DO THAT!!!!”
[snip – over the top and off topic. Policy violation. BHO’s birth certificate, calling Olivaw names, etc -mod]
Latest combined total readership & Internet audience figures for the following two UK newspapers:
Pro CAGW: Guardian 2,370,000
Anti CAGW: Telegraph 2,374,000
Let’s hope the Christopher Booker and James Delingpole (not Geoffrey Lean please) pick up on this and – in full support of Anthony’s stance – counter-argue against the Guardian’s latest spin.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:38 am
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.
You keep regurgitating the same stuff again and again. This claim is not supported by recent data, so perhaps you heed that.
Jason Miller says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:26 am
To insist they be included would just be padding the numbers with irrelevant data which would lead to false results.
Obviously, but the interpretation of the same numbers just shows people’s bias (32.6+66.4 is 97% for AGW, while 100-32.6 = 67.4% against AGW).
I did a little survey my self using the ADS system:
http://adswww.harvard.edu/
climate change 67425 papers
anthropogenic climate change 5252 = 8%
global warming 17340
anthropogenic global warming 1663 = 10%
so only about 9% of all such papers [covering all times; AGW started in the 19th century, Arhenius] even mention AGW. That leaves 91% that do not. Those should not be included or taken as tacit [implied] endorsement.
32.6 % Believers.
66.4 % Agnostics.
.7 % Atheists.
= 97 % consensus. O. Kay. Sure.
“Agnostic” is a better term than “skeptic” because Climate Disaster Certainty is more religion than science.
Laurie Bowen says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm
“One of the TOTUS twins showed it to him so he typed it into his twitter account.
As what, a follower or owner? A link for your evidence would be nice.”
See
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke?s=t
Obama is to political biasing of climate science assessment as John Cook is to the climate science cult that looks like it is similar to the cult based on John Frum.
John
Ok…ok…ok…
I want a pony,
a red Ferrari (not a cheesy yellow one),
3-day weekends for everybody,
chocolate ice cream for lunch,
air-conditioning (I live in Florida).
Now if I can only get 97.whatever of you to agree, IT’LL ALL COME TRUE! Crap – if I’d known it was this easy, I’d of never gone to college (let alone work).
Like I keep saying..if you (sceptics) think FACTS will ever change anything..you aren’t living on the same planet that I see around me.
How did the Big Lies of the NAZIS fall? It took a war!
Does anyone think that without losing WW2 the Third Reich would have crumpled under the weight of reason alone?
Thats basically the standpoint I see everyday on this site.
No I DO NOT want a war. I want to see people engage in the same cultural conflict that the Left, the PC and the CAGW gang are so good at and which sceptics so signally have failed to challenge them at.
I repeat, facts count for squat. Perceptions are everything.
When J. Harlan Bretz declared that the topography of eastern Washington state was formed by a gigantic flood, he did not face face 97% opposition. He faced 100% opposition, and he was ridiculed and called things a lot worse than denier. Most inconveniently for his detractors, he turned out to be right. You won’t find a single naysayer now. Same thing with plate tectonics. That is the real problem with this type of study…not only are facts not determined by consensus, they are not even influenced by them!
…and BTW, Marquess of Queensbury rules are for losers.
Jolan says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:23 am
Is Obama really that thick, or does he have an ulterior motive?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The end goal of a Carbon Tax is three fold.
1. New Tax Money that is keyed to the entire economy. This is a tax on EVERYONE.
2. It makes USA manufacturing even more uncompetitive compared to that of China and forces more people onto the government dole where they will be more inclined to vote democratic. (At least that is the thought.)
3. It cripples the USA even more and brings us a step closer to ‘Global Governance’
4. It makes owning a home or small business too expensive for most people. This falls in line with Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty where over 1/2 of the USA is turned into a nature preserve administered by the United Nations. The goal is to herd Americans into cities and “micro-unit” mini-apartments where they become a captive labor force and market for large corporations.
In the mean time keeping the CAGW scam alive keeps the $$$$ flowing from the general public into the financiers wallets via windmills, solar panels and the resulting need for smart meters.
A whole new industry has been manufactured out of thin air. ( Broken Window Fallacy anyone?)
This new industry is completely useless without CAGW as a political ‘Cause’. Also the biggest $$$$ are made when you get into a brand new market and not when you are dealing with a mature market. If that new market is mandated and subsidized by government all the better. Just ask Archer Daniels Midland Co.
It doesn’t matter how many papers endorse AGW. It only matters whether papers provide evidence for or against AGW, not that they take it as their starting assumption. A scientific hypothesis is not proven by the number of papers favouring it, a scientific hypothesis is disproved by the one paper that shows it cannot be true.
The real take away from this study is 66% of the scientists who wrote papers on AGW or CAGW refused to endorse CAGW despite all the political presure to do so.
Many studies “endorse AGW” by simply assuming AGW as presented by the IPCC is correct and building upon. What gives you zero information about the issue if the AGW assumption is correct or wrong.
If I understand Cook’s process correctly…if I am of the opinion that there is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow; and if I can show that 97% of people who believe in myths also agree with me, then, for sure, there must be tons of gold at the end of rainbows.
“Does anyone think that without losing WW2 the Third Reich would have crumpled under the weight of reason alone?”
Nope, just another repeat of a cycle in human behavior . . . kinda like winter happens on a regular basis.
It reminds me of the old Trident gum commercial: four out of five dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum. What does that really mean?
Then there was the tagline: For families who care about their teeth.
My little sister at the time looked at me pointing to the family in the commercial: “They care about their teeth”.
John Cook is only missing a tagline…for people who care about their climate
JohnB
Jolan says:May 17, 2013 at 10:23 am
“…they will be more inclined to vote democratic.”
No, Jolan, they are not being more “democratic”. They are being Democrat. Helluva difference.
Crap has to fly. How else can it hit the fan?
The headline could just as easily read:
“A survey of 11,994 scientific papers by a team led by Mr Cook and published by Fairfax Media this week found nearly two-thirds of researchers did not endorse the idea that humans were the cause for global warming in their papers.”
So 32% of respondents responded “no” to “Are You Still Beating Your Wife?”, while only 0.7% answered “yes”. 66% punched the questioner in the face.
The result is clear. An overwhelming majority of married men beat their wives, and 97% of them are liars, too.
Matt Skaggs says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm
You won’t find a single naysayer now. Same thing with plate tectonics
Same thing with Evolution, Big Bang, Dark Matter, etc…
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:22 pm
The real take away from this study is 66% of the scientists who wrote papers on AGW or CAGW refused to endorse CAGW despite all the political presure to do so.
No, not at all. The selection criteria was not AGW, but GW.
If we were to examine 11944 papers on breakfast food, and the results were as follows: 32.6 % said eggs were good, 66.4% didn’t mention eggs, .7% said eggs were bad, .3% said the value of eggs was uncertain. One could correctly say that OF THE PAPERS THAT MENTIONED EGGS, 97% agreed that they were good. That’s all that Leif is saying.
Tom in Florida says:
May 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm
If we were to examine 11944 papers on breakfast food, and the results were as follows: 32.6 % said eggs were good, 66.4% didn’t mention eggs, .7% said eggs were bad, .3% said the value of eggs was uncertain. One could correctly say that OF THE PAPERS THAT MENTIONED EGGS, 97% agreed that they were good. That’s all that Leif is saying.
——————————————————
No 32.6% of the papers said someone else said eggs were good, but most of them did not test the eggs themselves.
General Relativity is the new Special…
OK Warm-mongers – or luke warmers – did you get that? There is no doubt about it: There is no such thing as “CAGW”. (OK – in theory if you add more ‘greenhouse gases ‘to the atmosphere it should warm up..But it hasn’t. For 17 years…) So what’s going on? Maybe your theory is wrong? Ever think about that? It’s maybe just a bit more complicated than that.
OK Now we’ve got that sorted…
Can we get our money back please?
Bloody common sense to most of us I must say.
Sorry Jimmy . . . . Can’t have your money back because “they” stole it fair and square!!!! Besides, the statute of limitation has run out!
Manfred says:
May 17, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“No 32.6% of the papers said someone else said eggs were good, but most of them did not test the eggs themselves.”
True but that doesn’t change the point being made about the percentages.
Oh! Just wait until buyers remorse sets in!
Re: lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
“Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.”
I don’t always agree with Lief Svalgaard. But he’s right. Come on people, what part of [those] “that took a position” don’t you get?
JP
Doesn’t really matter agree with the position John Patsons, the whole issue was a Marketing campaign in order to justify yet another tax that was regressive and would have been laundered to “the haves” by the cap n trade scheme . . . . and sometimes I wonder what this blog is about . . . . addressing the issue as long as the marketing ploy exists . . . . while “the haves” are trying to keep the dying horse alive until they can find a new one.
And it looks like that will be a revival of the “flatter” tax scheme . . . . as the unemployed, poor just aren’t paying their “fair” share.
.
I see now that EVERYBODY has been ‘taken in’ by these tweets as if they were made by Barack Obama, which they ARE NOT.
I know a GREAT majority of you are non-discerning technical-only ‘bumpkins’ when it comes to politics and the trickery and deceit of politicians and the people and organizations with which they surround themselves … so let’s GET EDUCATED about this particular Twitter account by Barack Hussein Obama shall we?
“You’re Not Really Following @BarackObama on Twitter”
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/youre-not-following-barackobama-twitter/63930/
Oops – missed a </blockquote> sorry mods.
Bingo!
Another one who ‘gets it’.
.
Tom in Florida says:
May 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm
If we were to examine 11944 papers on breakfast food, and the results were as follows: 32.6 % said eggs were good, 66.4% didn’t mention eggs, .7% said eggs were bad, .3% said the value of eggs was uncertain.
The point is that in the case of the search for “breakfast food”, there is no problem in throwing out the 66.4% which didn’t mention eggs, because the search is general and the thrown out papers probably have no opinion on eggs at all. If you search was for “eggs in breakfast food”, then you can’t throw out 66.4% of the papers, only because the abstracts don’t mention eggs. The opinion on eggs then is in the whole text.
In the case of “global warming” and “global climate change”, the search is not even neutral, as writers as well as readers imply that as AGW, with a few exceptions.
That means that you can’t throw out these papers in your classification, but you must read the whole paper to know the point of view of the paper on AGW.
“A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.”
That’s the title of the paper and like everything having to do with SKS is misleading. It implies that 11,640 of 12,000 agree that humans are causing global warming.
Who cares what it actually says in the small print? Most low information voters are only going to read the headline.
As a diversion here is some proper science from NASA
Using the search function in Cook’s “Consensus project”:
If you type in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) into the search box, you get 62 matches.
If you type in Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) into the search box, you get 89 matches.
Out of 12,280 papers!
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:01 pm
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:38 am
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.
You keep regurgitating the same stuff again and again. This claim is not supported by recent data, so perhaps you heed that.
William:
I provided a quote and a link to a paper that states “According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode”, Nature 2004 using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations that analyzed C14 changes.
As far as I known C14 analysis is still valid
In addition I provided quotes and links to other papers which support the assertion that the past Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming and cooling coincided with solar magnetic cycle changes. I provided papers that explain most of the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate.
You keep ‘repeating’ (You used the word ‘regurgitating. You are confusing the consumption of food and the word repeating a logic argument. I keep repeating a logic argument and include supporting peer reviewed observations and analysis as the logic point is germane to this thread and to this forum’s purpose) the comment that the solar activity was not the highest in 8000 years in the later part of the 20th century. You are mistaken.
Do you understand the concept of a debate? You must provide logic to support your position as opposed to name calling and general unsubstantiated statements.
I note the Northern hemisphere has cyclically warmed in the past with the majority of the warming occurring at high Northern latitudes. That is exactly what was observed in the 20th century. That observation supports the assertion that solar activity was high in the 20th century.
I provided a link to a paper by Svensmark that discusses the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and the polar see-saw. (Greenland ice sheet warms when the Antarctic ice cools and vice verse. Svensmark’s paper provides direct ice core temperature measurement for the last 6000 years that shows the cycle. Svensmark explains the cycle base on solar modulation of planetary cloud cover.)
Do you understand supporting logic? i.e. An assertion that is supported by multiple logical points is stronger – more likely to be correct – than a single logic point? The 20th century warming pattern, high altitude northern hemisphere is not in agreement with the greenhouse gas mechanism.
Further, I make a testable prediction that the planet is about to cool, due to the abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle. There is now the start of the first observational evidence the planet is cooling.
I believe I have provided six separate logical points that each supports the assertion that the majority to the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and I have made a testable prediction. I can provide additional logical points however that would appear to be over kill.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years. This is a graph from Richard Alley’s paper that shows temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The D-O cycle is clearly evident. As noted there is no correlation in Greenland ice sheet temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels in the past. The majority of the warming of the Greenland Ice sheet observed in the 20th century was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. The majority of the warming was caused by the solar magnetic cycle change and is the same mechanism that caused the past D-O cycles.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
William: The authors of the above paper only considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulates planetary temperature in Northern Atlantic regions. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds.
Sorry, but what is the lie? I looked up the paper, and it says over and over that 97% refers to papers that took a position in their abstract. And also, to 97% of the papers whose authors said that they took a position in their paper. If the study is trying to hide something, why repeat it so many times?
Only 0.7% of scientific papers on climate change reject anthropocentric global warming
fredd says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm
The numbers are 97.1 and 97.2
Nice meme if you can get it 😉
It saves having to round up to 98% because that would be unbelievable 😉
A marketing survey found that any number ending in seven doesn’t just trump nine but, postulated, beats it to a pulp persuasion-wise on-line – hence the $97, $47 and $27 price tags on Internet marketing products and the incredible popularity of the “$7 script” for re-selling, via affiliation, your digital goods.
“Hide in plain sight” is Google-able.
“A big Lie, repeated often” ditto.
“Sorry, but what is the lie? I looked up the paper, and it says over and over that 97% refers to papers that took a position in their abstract”
Because if you don’t take a position on man-made climate change, that’s still “a position” And those positions were excluded.
“Because if you don’t take a position on man-made climate change, that’s still “a position” And those positions were excluded.”
Not as I read it. Let’s say you have a paper by experts on salmon fishing in Yemen, who say that global warming will be bad for their fish. They could say that based on their knowledge of Yemen’s fine salmon rivers, without claiming to know whether humans cause global warming. Wouldn’t many abstracts be like that? They have no basis to take a position on causes, so they don’t.
When dealing with these particular “lies…and statistics,” we should keep in mind a point made by Dr. Lindzen at the 2009 ICCC, speaking of those scientists who try to assess what “impacts” climate change will have:
“The specialties of the scientists involved lie well outside of climate physics, but
they can find funding and recognition by attempting to relate their specialty to global warming.
Their ‘results’ are to be found in the newspapers every day. Cockroaches and malaria spreading,
sex drive of butterflies diminishing, polar bears in potential danger, etc. From the point of view
of serious science, this group is mostly a nuisance, but they play a major role in the maintenance
of alarm. They also artificially swell the numbers of scientists who endorse the alarmist view.”
Note, Lindzen quote is from the third confernece in June. The second confernece was also in 2009 in March.
Wamron says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“Does anyone think that without losing WW2 the Third Reich would have crumpled under the weight of reason alone?”
Of course. The Nazis were economic numpties. They would have gone the way of the Chavez regime which just ran out of toilet paper, and with the exact same reason.
I’m actually begin to feel contempt for lukewarmers as well as it is by bleeding obvious that there is no significant global warming whatsoever. From what I can tell most of so called NASA solar experts comments regarding the sun have been falsified SSN, Ice, Arctic temps solar magnetism etc so on and on. and I would not rate them even close to Svensmark, LIndzen, Singer, Dyson ect as Scientists. However they does make the odd contribution in the form of useful links to stories.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
As far as I known C14 analysis is still valid
It is not [and never was]. C14 data after 1945 is useless because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels]. The 10Be data does not have that problem and shows that the past 50 year activity was not exceptionally high. This has nothing to do with ‘logic’, but with data. I was just two weeks ago at a workshop where this problem was discussed and the 20th century was not exceptional. Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf shows the 10Be production the past 2000 years.
i just went to Skeptical Science and read what Cook-The-Books has posted. For some reason unknown to me i was unable to log-in to post this comment there. (Maybe Cook-The-Books came to WUWT and read my poem — “Lewd” Lewandowsky And John Cook-The-Books — I hope, I hope.) With so much wrong with that paper I pick on this more obscure piece of his failure to understand what he himself writes — since it might be overlooked.
John Cook-The-Books endorses the statement made by Oreskes 2007 — “that scientists” “generally focus their discussions on questions that are still in dispute or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees”.
Two thirds of the papers reviewed by his “Team” expressed no opinion on Global Warming and using Oreskes statement above John Cook-The-Books opinions that “every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There’s no longer a need to state something so obvious.For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?”
But one third of the papers that were rated find it necessary to state their opinion about global warming. Therefore using Oreskes statement (which Cook-The-Books endorses) that scientists “focus their discussions on questions that are still in dispute or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees” we can conclude that the question of whether or not humans are causing global warming is recognized as being in dispute by fully one third of scientists whose papers were used in the study. In other words using the things that Cook-The-Books himself writes he denies his own contention that “global warming” is settled science.
O’ What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.
Cook-The-Books is foremost an emotional thinker and not a logical one. He uses the “feminine left brain” primarily and not the “masculine right brain”. (Snicker, snicker! See my poem mentioned above. Saw the shot and had to take it.)
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Though i did the necessary things to sign in to comment at Skeptical Science I never actually posted anything. If I have been banned I guess I can claim the distinction of being the first person banned before ever actually posting there. If so Cook-The-Books has brought something new and creative to the internet — preemptive banning.
“From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…”
LOL! “Climate Change” is a term coined a few years ago to replace “Global Warming”, at least in part so other discussions such as ocean acidification, sea level rise, and etc. could be discussed.
My experience in reading journals is “climate change” is an almost de rigour concept primarily inserted to influence future funding of research. From people studying anchovies to butterflies and everything in between, climate change has become a meme to keep the money flowing so we can get in front of changes to the object of the study that usually has nothing to do with climate.
Basing a survey on the writers of science papers that use the term “climate change” is a bit like taking an election poll at a national convention of a single political party. What happened to carefully selected representative sampling in statistics? Did any of these people ever take a course in statistics? Were they asleep or taking drugs?
The only reason to put “climate change” into a paper and be adverse to it would be to take a shot at folks overhyping climate change. But thats a political objective not a scientific objective. A non-political climate paper might only talk about climate sensitivity or something much better defined scientifically than “climate change” and by my reading of the selection methodology such a paper would not be included in this poll. But even if it were in this highly competive world, climate science in general would be hard pressed to justify its existance without the spectre of climate catastrophy so one can build an iron clad argument that the opinions of climate scientists as a group on climate are heavily biased in every sense of that word.
Actually it would be refreshing to actually read a good study establishing “climate change” scientifically. The only attempt I am aware of was the statistical analysis by Ben Santer relied upon by the IPCC in the 3rd report. It would be refreshing to see and update to that work now that 10 years of cooling has passed since the original paper.
Those are some pretty convoluted answers which make it sound even more like there is not a clear lie. What exactly is the lie?
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Further, I make a testable prediction that the planet is about to cool, due to the abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle.
Since you have never specified what ‘the abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle’ means, you have made no valid ‘prediction’. I have asked you many times what you mean and ask here again.
” A scientific hypothesis is not proven by the number of papers favouring it, a scientific hypothesis is disproved by the one paper that shows it cannot be true.”
Precisely; we here – most of us at least – understand the scientific principle: that scientific truths emerge not by consensus but via disproof and /or replication.
We are however a very small minority of the general public and an even smaller minority among opinion makers, law-makers and politicians. What we need to do is to destroy this false reliance on consensus. Whilst it still exists we continue to lose the propaganda war.
‘Scientists’ once ‘all’ believed that the earth was flat; that malaria was caused by foetid air known as ‘miasma’; and they believed in spontaneous generation, among many other now exploded hypotheses. The general public must somehow be brought to understand that consensus has no place in the conduct or practice of science.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions!
If the lie is epic proportions, what are the proportions of the consequences of that lie?
Sam the First says:
May 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm
” A scientific hypothesis is not proven by the number of papers favouring it, a scientific hypothesis is disproved by the one paper that shows it cannot be true.”
And then you link to http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
which states [among other things]
“MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.
CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper’s influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn’t a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.”
Do you see the problem?
The percentage of papers pro and con AGW is not a representative sample of opinion because of the widespread relentless censorship of skeptic opinion, and the other ibarriers keeping skeptics from getting papers pubolished. The obstructions skeptics face grossly skew any measure of opinion bnased on publication of papers.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:47 pm
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
As far as I known C14 analysis is still valid
It is not [and never was]. C14 data after 1945 is useless because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels].
I quoted a paper that was published in the Nature, 2004. You are stating that C14 data after 1995 is useless (no peer reviewed paper to support that assertion) because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels].
I have not seen a paper that states that C14 analysis post 1945 is useless. There are instrument measurements, post 1945 so it is possible to directly determine the solar magnetic activity. Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
You appear to not understand the power of multiple logical points that all support an assertion. When there are multiple logical points that all support a particular assertion, it is less likely a claim that one of the logical points is in correct, is correct. You have made an unsubstantiated claim that the majority of the 20th century warming was not caused by the exceptionally high level of solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years. That statement is not correct.
The following is a recap of the logical points with links to supporting papers.
1) There is in the paleoclimatic record cyclic warming and cooling which occurs both in the interglacial period and in the glacial period. The paleo climatic specialists call the cyclic warming and cooling a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles through the interglacial period and into the glacial period. The D-O cycles have a variable periodicity of 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years. The late Gerald Bond and other scientists have found that the D-O cycle correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.
2) The specific regions of the planet that warm and cool the most during the D-O cycle is the Northern hemisphere and particularly high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF
3) The regions that warmed in the 20th century are the same regions that warmed during the past D-O cycles.
4) The greenhouse gas forcing mechanism predicted that the majority of the warming would occur in the tropics as this is the region of the planet where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space and there is a large amount of water in this region to amplify the CO2 forcing.
5) Lindzen and Choi found by analyzing top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean surface temperature changes that the planet resists temperature changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less radiation off into space. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s results and the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming (the extreme greenhouse forcing theory requires that greenhouse gas forcing – any greenhouse gas – will cause there to be an increase in water vapor in the tropical troposphere at around 8 km above the surface of the planet. This increase in water vapor will amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming in the last 15 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
6) As there is no observed tropical tropospheric and planetary cloud cover increases and decreases to resist warming, the majority of 20th century warming was caused by something
else besides the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
“We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle…
Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”
7) There has been 16 years in which atmospheric CO2 has risen and there is not increase in planetary temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
8) Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle.
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
9) Based on points 1 through 8 the planet will now cool.
Of the ten abstracts in my lot on the questionnaire , not even one mentioned the Anthropic in Global Warming. The ones that talked of warming, just said that there exists global warming. And of course it does, we are getting out of the Little Ice Age. 100% of scientists shown the data of the last 600 years would say “we are getting out of the Little Ice Age”.
I wonder if the IRS has paid a visit to ‘Organizing for Action’
One needs to remember that this has ALWAYS been about consensus. Just like a consensus meeting in which the outcome is already been predetermined. So what is the point of a consensus meeting? Hmm, none that I can think of except: :”This is how it is as we are the ones running this meeting and we are the authority figures not you, so either agree with us or get out of the room as any vote against our consensus is right wing and racist .”
To me John Cook is unAustralian, a true blue Aussie would use the figure 99.94%
I hereby dub this new field nonagintaseptimism (from the latin word for 97). A skilled nonagintaseptimist like Cook is expert at arriving at the answer 97% no matter what the question.
John Cook is one of those people who confuse an agenda with reality.
Poems Of Our Climate 12:08pm
It will never go over but, yes, I can appreciate the thinking. Liked it.
Eugene WR Gallun
Note: Cook’s category 2 in his survey (included in his 97%) is a long way short of “endorsing” the whole CAGW meme…. It is simply an obvious truth that most of us must agree with … extra emissions of GHG will contribute to warming …. But there is no indication whether that contribution is considered to be a fraction of a percent, or important in any way.
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
Example
‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
Re Cook’s 97 percent article:
Note the 14% response rate (hell, you would reckon saving the world would be a higher prority for these guys …. and I can’t fathom the maths below, but interesting he would reject some papers after going to the trouble of emailing them … why not just email the peer reviewed authors in the first place?
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf :
“our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today.
Solanki et al. combine radiocarbon (14C) data, visually observed sunspot numbers and models to extend the historical sunspot record
over the Holocene. They exclude the most recent 100 years of the 14C record, which are influenced by 14C-depleted fossil-fuel emissions and atomic-bomb tests conducted since AD 1950. …
irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780
and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today. …
our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years. …
Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
As I said the whole question has recently been re-examined by a panel of experts at a workshop dedicated to this problem: Leif Svalgaard, Mike Lockwood, Jürg Beer, Andre Balogh, Paul Charbonneau, Ed Cliver, Nancy Crooker, Marc DeRosa, Ken McCracken, Matt Owens, Pete Riley, George Siscoe, Sami Solanki, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Ilya Usoskin, and Yi-Ming Wang. The conclusion is that recent solar activity was not exceptionally high. Around 1780, activity seems to have been even higher than today.
Since the Sun has not behaved in a way compatible with your other references, they are now moot and irrelevant. I think I have pointed all this out several times, but you have a hard time coming to grips with reality.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
One more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf :
“The solar modulation maximum around 1780 AD indicated by the 14C and 10Be data was on the level of the second part of the 20th century or even higher. …
“The cosmogenic radio-nuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”
So, it is time to bury the wrong notion of recent exceptionally high solar activity. This is, of course, difficult to do because once people have locked on to ‘findings’ that confirm their agenda and beliefs, they get stuck on the wrong science and can’t give it up. You are a good example of someone afflicted with that syndrome.
The most appropriate comparisons and hence fractions are the following:
Quantified explicit endorsements / quantified explicit positions = 87%
Explicit endorsements / explicit positions = 97%
Explicit and implicit endorsements / explicit and implicit positions = 97%
Most other suggestions are apples-to-oranges comparisons. One would not estimate the level of consensus regarding evolution by dividing the number of papers with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolution by all biology papers. That would give a misleadingly low figure. Likewise, another 1000 papers on biofuels does not in any way weaken or strengthen the consensus om human causation.
See also http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/
Like all media here in Aus, especially on TV with the ABC and SBS, the SMH are whores to the man-made climate change meme. At every opportunity a “weather event” is a major, front page, news story, and the subtext is AGW driven climate change, after all it was KRudd747 who said “Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time.”. Here in Sydney, we’ve had a few days of “above average” temperatures for autumn. I guess people have forgotten how averages are calculated. The AGW subtext is there, loud and clear. In the build up to a general election, the ALP has vowed to drop the “proice ohn cahbon pohlooshon” to about AU$12.50/tonne of CO2…to “fall in line” with the EU ETS falls. Meanwhile in the EU, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece among other EU countries have been “bailed out” at the same time Britain, France and Germany are in “triple dip” recession. I guess that’s why they want to “supply materiel” to Syrian rebels.
The US disconnect over climate change
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/05/201351865032465413.html
25 minute video: Michael Mann, Dana Nuccitelli, and Rick Piltz on Al Jazeera
Dana misrepresenting his study saying more than 2,000 scientists attribute the MAIN cause of global warming to humans.
Tinfoil hat stuff oil companies, tobacco, deniers, bla bla bla
Strictly speaking, it’s 97% of papers (or abstracts) but only 96% of the scientists polled by Cook’s team:
Within experimental error of course.
“DirkH says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Wamron says:
May 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“Does anyone think that without losing WW2 the Third Reich would have crumpled under the weight of reason alone?”
Of course. The Nazis were economic numpties. They would have gone the way of the Chavez regime which just ran out of toilet paper, and with the exact same reason.”
The Chavez regime has collapsed BECAUSE CHAVEZ DIED. Doh!
And it was still a democracy.
Until Winston Churchill refused peace with Germany and Operation Barabarossa went tits up the Third Reich was doing swell, and it would have continued to do so had it been allowedto do so
The dominant ideology of today will continue to oppress us unless it is taken down by aggressive cultural subversion. Facts and reason will never do it. .
Of course, complete economic disintegration of Western European states is still far more likely to be what eventually changes things. I would rather it could be averted, but I’ll probably be dead by then anyway, as will most of the readers here.
“Wamron says:
May 18, 2013 at 5:51 am”
Winston Churchill was a keen supporter of the 1912 “feeble minded persons” act of 1912. Fortunately the act was not passed into law.
Patrick..what in Hell is the point you are trying to make?
Unless you can indicate some relevance to your comment I will assume you are one of the people he might legitimately have wanted so categorised.
The papers chosen have global warming keywords in the abstracts. 66.4% were excluded because
1. They did not say it was AGW.
2. They did not say it wasn’t AGW.
So what’s the default reason.? Natural Variability is the reason. Therefore NOT AGW.
Different colour -Different issue- Same Sentiment
Part of the 3 percent and proud
Sceptics need to grow some balls.
indigo says:
“Only 0.7% of scientific papers on climate change reject anthropocentric global warming”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you mean “anthropogenic”, then that is a false statement.
• • • • •
Daneel Olivaw says:
“dbstealey, you should read pro-AGW blogs then since they often cite cases of censorship in this blog you’re reading.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have read my fill of ‘pro-AGW’ blogs. I have also attempted to comment numerous times on RealClimate, SkS, Open Mind, etc., only to be routinely censored. So what you’re doing is called “psychological projection”: imputing your own faults, or the faults of your cohorts, onto WUWT.
WUWT keeps control of comments per its Policy page. What you wrongly label “censorship” is simply policing comments that violate site Policy, and very, very few comments are ever snipped; far less than 1%. That is very different from altering the wording of a comment, or deleting a key sentence, in order to change the meaning. SkS does that.
Since you cannot find an example of WUWT ever doing likewise, you are projecting SkS’s wrongdoing/censorship onto this site in a failed attempt to equate WUWT with Cook’s censoring, dishonest and unreliable SkS.
Alarmist blogs have made the deliberate decision to delete comments based on the fact that they cannot be credibly answered. They feel that they are forced into that position, because if they allowed comments from both sides of the debate to be posted, then the actual science would destroy their catastrophic AGW narrative. And the catastrophic AGW narrative is the sole raison d’etre for the existence of RC, SkS, tamino, etc.
So the choice is theirs, and they have chosen to censor, rather than allow both sides of the debate to be posted. Censoring the comments of scientific skeptics costs them plenty of traffic, but apparently they believe the tradeoff is worth it, in order to promote their alarmist agenda. But it is certainly not honest.
<>
In other news, Mitt Romney won the election with 250 million endorsements over Obama’s 60 million.
What should become clear to all in the aftermath of John Cook’s risible attempt to shore up the failing climate scam, is this; When it comes to climate change, any lie will do.
The lie doesn’t need legs, wings or even an element of truth, no matter how childish and concocted it will do the media circuit and the will get traction before it dies.
Any lie will do.
This Cook survey should never be allowed to die until everyone understands it for the deception that it is.
“Wamron says:
May 18, 2013 at 7:07 am”
You mentioned something about someone you, clearly, know nothing about.
Obama is an expert at percentages; after all, he got more than 100% of the votes of the eligible population in some ridings. Like to like.
The figures for the authors who don’t give a position in the abstract of their paper, but give their opinion in the second round is very interesting. From Cook’s survey:
Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.
That gives a complete different view on the 60% papers which don’t give an opinion in their abstracts. If we may use that figure for all of the 60%, then we have complete different ratio’s of endorsement for AGW:
Within the margins of error of the search (which still are huge):
97% of 3894 papers (with position in the abstract) + 53.8% of 7931 papers (without position) = 67.4% of 11944 papers which endorse the AGW position. The rest of the papers doesn’t have a position (the bulk), are neutral or oppose AGW.
That is the figure that Cook should have published. That would have him spared a lot of criticism.
FerdiEgb says:
May 19, 2013 at 2:19 am
That is the figure that Cook should have published. That would have him spared a lot of criticism.
Obviously the problem with that is: it would not have saved the 97% consensus number, but be very far away from it.
To keep things in perspective: In my opinion, most reasonable people (and scientists!) could not argue directly with any of Cook’s categories 2 through to 6 (below) (and noting my edited comments marked).
Only Categories 1 and 7 (in my opinion) represent unjustifiable positions.
Note his grouping of categories 1, 2 and 3 implies all are solidly endorsing a CAGW position.
From the paper: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Cook et al
To simplify the analysis, ratings (below) were consolidated into three groups:
1. Endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3
2. No position (category 4)
3. Rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
Original categories:
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification: Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming eg ‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification: Explicitly states humans are causing i>(‘some’ my edit) global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact: eg ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming: E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause ‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’ (lack of quantification, my edit)
(4a) No position. Does not address or mention the cause of global warming.
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined: eg ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive. . . ’
(5) Implicit rejection. Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g. proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming: eg ‘. . . anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results’
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification. Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming: eg ‘. . . the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect’.
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification: Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming: eg ‘The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission’.
The paper is hopelessly broad and actually vague in conclusion.
I myself would give a “yes” to a statement like ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’ as in Cook’s category 2 …(Endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3)
And … he’d take that as a “Yes” and a strong endorsement of … um … climate science? … or of a looming catastrophe? …or as agreement on a call to immediate, world wide emergency action?