Roman Murieka has a great statistical analysis of the Cook ‘consensus’ paper over at Climate Audit. There’s a surprise result:
The number of papers endorsing AGW is falling, while the number of papers with no position is increasing. Looks like an increase in uncertainty to me. Read the whole post here
Monckton has a go at the trend also, at The Collapsing ‘Consensus’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The number of papers endorsing AGW is falling
And so is the number of papers rejecting AGW…
I’m still chuckling from this line:
The number of papers rejecting AGW is falling at a slower rate and it probably more a function of gatekeeping at the journals than an indication that skeptics are being persuaded.
The green “Endorse AGW” line looks like a ‘reverse’ hockey stick to me. : > )
Ron Cram says:
May 24, 2013 at 8:37 am
The number of papers rejecting AGW is falling at a slower rate
No, just the opposite. You should consider the rate as a proportion of the number of papers.
lsvalgaard says:
The number of papers endorsing AGW is falling
And so is the number of papers rejecting AGW…
—————
When AGW becomes a declining issue, its no longer necessary, and indeed a waste of resources, to write papers to reject it.
Suspect reduction in government funding would impact graph at steeper rate.
lsvalgaard says:
May 24, 2013 at 8:46 am
“No, just the opposite. You should consider the rate as a proportion of the number of papers.”
I haven’t looked at it closely, but I believe the rate of decline is still less than the AGW believers. Plus, the smaller sample size is subject to much greater uncertainty. And you have still have not considered the effects of known gatekeeping.
Well move over Bill McKibben and the 350org… Here comes the methane king of 1250!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/hate-the-increases-in-storms-and-heat_b_3304490.html
“Just as Hansen started the 350 movement, 1250’s approach comes from him as well — Hansen originally called it his “alternative scenario” for 21st century warming, and it has recently been updated in the work of Drew Shindell and others, embodied with at least the framework of an institution to enact it, initiated by Hillary Clinton.
I saw Hansen last September, on the very day that the lowest recorded sea ice extent was announced. He told me that he really wanted to get back to talking about his “alternative scenario,” but just needed to feel sure that something would get done about carbon dioxide. Until Hansen gets the chance to start talking about it again, you can in the meantime help him, and the 1250 goal, by signing and circulating this petition.”
Yet this composer does not mind premiering his symphony with the Simon Bolivar orchestra of Cahvez Venezuela, a nation that makes its living through selling oil!
Nathan Currier=oily hypocrite
I really don’t have a problem with the 97% number.
I don’t think there really is a much question about whether human-produced greenhouse gases will cause warming. The question is about how much and what will be the effects of it. That is where the uncertainty lies.
Looks like scientists lag temperatures. Thermal inertia.
Clearly global warming was strongest around 1996/97, from whence it fell and has since steadied out. The temperature record confirms this basic shape.
So if we want the Earth to stop warming we just need scientologists to release fewer endorsing papers.
Thank you Mr Cook for finding the answer, you are the winner.
roncram says:
May 24, 2013 at 8:54 am
I haven’t looked at it closely, but I believe the rate of decline is still less …
I’m glad to see “Reject AGW” has dropped, as it is unscientific to reject the evidence man has some effect on the global temperature, even though the evidence is saying it’s through land use changes and black carbon (soot) depositions, with regional effects summing up in the averages to a “global” effect.
Although I suspect most of the “AGW scare” is people wanting to believe humans are more important than a bacterium living on a skin mite on a hound dog’s backside, that not only can they make the tail wag, if they aren’t careful they could rise up and kill the poor suffering pooch. Indeed, humans are so powerful, they are the only thing that can cure that puppy’s fever and make it whole again!
roncram says:
May 24, 2013 at 8:54 am
I haven’t looked at it closely, but I believe the rate of decline is still less …
Doing the numbers, the rate of decline for the reject group is 10 times that for the endorse group.
“Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming …”
“Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming …”
Better read it twice.
Such goes nowadays through as “science” and published as such in a “scientific” paper,
peer-reviewed of course? And is used by newspapers and politicians? Seriously?
Never ever any scientist should even consider anymore to read, less publish in such a paper. Ignore them. Make them go away.
I am very surprised that serious people even try to show what bad science it is. Bad statistics etc. They are wasting time. It is not even close to science. It is cook-ed BS, as the title shows without any doubt.
James Cross says:
May 24, 2013 at 9:00 am
I really don’t have a problem with the 97% number.
I don’t think there really is a much question about whether human-produced greenhouse gases will cause warming. The question is about how much and what will be the effects of it. That is where the uncertainty lies.
######################
yes. if you deny the consensus you cant change it. If you accept the consensus ( GHGs cause warming) then you can change the debate How much warming and what if anything can you do about it.
As long as you stand outside “the consensus” you cant change it. Speak for the consensus, a different consensus, and you have a shot
The relative positive changes in the No Position data should almost mirror the negative changes in the Endorse data because they are each sub-sets of the same data set. If you add to one, you automatically subtract from the other.
I said “almost” because the Reject sub-set percentages changes very little, and there is some error in the digitization process. The take-away message, as Anthony suggests, is that the trend appears to be that the consensus is dwindling.
lsvalgaard says:
“Doing the numbers, the rate of decline for the reject group is 10 times that for the endorse group.
Considering they mischaracterized papers, the trends are meaningless.
So, would a paper that estimates climate sensitivity to 2XCO2 at less than 3 degrees Celsius be considered to reject or endorse AGW? Kinda depends on what one means by AGW doesn’t it?
AGW could simply mean Anthropogenic Global Warming strictly defined from the acronym without assignment of magnitude or proportion such that any acknowledgement of anthropogenic influence no matter how minute would be an endorsement in which case most here would have to be counted as endorsing AGW.
AGW could mean Anthropogenic Global Warming as summarized by the IPCC, in that case the 3 degree Celsius central estimate for climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 would be significant for determining whether a paper estimating less than 3 degree Celsius central estimate for climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 rejects or endorses AGW. Under this definition, IMO, the majority of WUWT’ers would reject AGW as there’s never been sufficient evidence to support it and what little evidence that has been conjured to construct it is rapidly evaporating.
AGW to some could mean the alarmist encouraged portrayal that anthropogenic global warming is without doubt catastrophic in short CAGW. I doubt much support within the papers that endorse AGW actually endorses CAGW and as far as WUWT’ers goes I’d say the grand majority rejects CAGW for lack of any evidentiary or rational basis.
Stephen Mosher says , “As long as you stand outside “the consensus” you cant change it.”
That reminds me of the time I entered a House of Ill-Repute to convince the ladies of the error of their ways.
My wife didn’t believe me, either.
The political coercion and cultural bias involved in the existing AGW isn’t addressed. People who go into “environmental studies” are predisposed to support AGW and anti-carbon positions. They are politically and more importantly culturally left-wing. Exceptions don’t change the rule.
It’s a black-hole of political incorrectness to point this out but there are reasons the silly “consensus” haunts the current and past debate. Dishonesty being the primary force involved. Skeptics wanting to ignore it and win on “science” without bringing up the ugly political meme are also counter productive. It’s like the media covering a race riot while not mentioning the race of combatants because they think that’s in “the public interest”.
The “consensus” has always been one of the most illogically foolish inventions of all time but skeptics have been cowed for a generation avoiding the real truth; it’s a political consensus not a science consensus. Duh!
{ lsvalgaard says:
May 24, 2013 at 9:25 am
Doing the numbers, the rate of decline for the reject group is 10 times that for the endorse group.}
I’ll endorse that.
I think more relevant than “what if anything can you do” is “is it even necessary TO do something about it”. My contention all along is the effect is so small as to render less than useless any attempts to mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere.
I am all for conservation, as I don’t like to pay any more for necessary energy than I need to, CO2 has been a green fantasy from the beginning, and by that I mean that there is an effect, but it is neither catastrophic or even dangerous, and possibly even beneficial.
How about we check back in 100 years and see if the alarmists are right? in the meantime be good citizen; don’t be wasteful and clean up after yourself.
[ Steven Mosher says:
May 24, 2013 at 9:55 am
yes. if you deny the consensus you cant change it. If you accept the consensus ( GHGs cause warming) then you can change the debate How much warming and what if anything can you do about it.]
Current data analysis suggests that solar changes, GHG’s, various chemical and particulate emissions, improper temperature reconstruction analysis, land-use changes, and multidecadal natural “climate” variations cause warming, in order from least effect to most. Data does not suggest the amount of warming will be a problem.
Am I part of the consensus?