In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show that Cook et al. 2013 was little more than a marketing ploy under the guise of peer reviewed science.
At least one commenter on the SkS forum thought this “cart before the horse” marketing discussion was strange:
“I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).” – Ari Jokimäki
read the whole story here: Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed
Meanwhile, Richard Tol continues to find errors in the paper data and methodology. Probably time to place your bets for retraction by the journal.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d have bet that the paper would have been retracted weeks ago. That’s it’s been allowed to stand this long is a strong indictment of the sorry state of climate science.
So Cook plans on doing this every year? :> What a hoot. I’ll mark my calendars.
Good science doesn’t leave a bad taste in your mouth… Post normal quiche, anyone? We made it from the tears of warmists…
I’m sure that someone must have already said something about “Cook-ing the books”, but just in case they haven’t ……
Wonder how long before Ari finds himself banned.
Love this quote from Cook himself: “To achieve this goal, we mustn’t fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion.”
By dictating the results beforehand, it seems pretty clear that Cook managed to avoid “wasting” any time on analysis whatsoever.
The SKS site claims to be scientific but clearly their consensus project is purely political. Science is not a democracy. They might as well have printed out the papers and weighed them. The actual content does not seem to matter much.
Cook says
‘
.
Seems to me that a lot of this is about ‘strengthening’ SkS, not about the consensus at all.
I wonder what Gav and Mikey think about this blatant power grab by a cartoonist? And as they watch Real Climate sink deeper into torpor and irrelevance….they thought they were the future once…now just yesterday’s men…..
Gunga Din said:
June 4, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I’m sure that someone must have already said something about “Cook-ing the books”, but just in case they haven’t ……
—————————–
Glad someone said it! 🙂
By the livin’ gawd that made you, you’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Gunga Din says (June 4, 2013 at 1:27 pm): “I’m sure that someone must have already said something about “Cook-ing the books”, but just in case they haven’t ……”
Ari: “John, this whole idea sounds pretty half-baked.”
Cook: “No, it’s not. It’s completely baked.”
The people rating the climate papers were always in danger of being biased. But by telling these assessors what he hopes the results to be and the political purposes the results will be put to, Cook thoroughly contaminates the test tube. He basically told them “go find almost all papers to favour the consensus.”
What a travesty. Now ERL must seriously consider retracting the paper, knowing that doing so will provide ammunition to viewpoints they oppose. Well, they did it to themselves, I suppose.
Global Warming is a dying ‘brand’. You could liken it to the Australian Surf Clothing Brand, Billabong. Twenty years ago it was small and hip, to be seen wearing the label was a badge of coolness. Then it got big and held onto it’s popularity…until it got too big and today – to be seen wearing the very same label means that you’d just been to your local mall! The company is in dire straits it was once valued in the billions today its stock price has collapsed.
The public was sold Global Warming like ice-cream on a sunny day, the summer is over now!
Reminds me a lot of “Baghdad Bob” in Iraq declaring victory with Abrams Tanks cruising in the background. ” We have beaten down the Infidels”.
I think they had a good idea of the results beforehand because everyone who isn’t drinking the Koolaid knows that the consensus about global warming is very real. No real mystery, except in the land of CO2-rise-might-be-natural.
Scientific papers are often complicated and abstruse beasts, many bordering on the unfathomable. I know — I write and review them myself. So how does a single person accurately gauge the viewpoints of 2000 papers?
Answer: One doesn’t.
That we sit and comment on this at all is an indicator of how deeply flawed Cook et al are. They can actually get something like this in print…a wan, half-witted attempt to prop up a consensus where none exists, nor SHOULD exist. Whassamatta, goodfellas? Didn’t you get the memo? It must be getting hot inside that bubble.
“To achieve this goal, we mustn’t fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion.”
==============================================
That’s some science for you, right there.
It sounds like soon we will be able to reply to anyone talking about a 97% concensus …
That paper has been withdrawn.
So if SkS is to be the home of the CAGW consensus, how’s it doing on the site hits statistics compared to WUWT?
Is their consensus as internet solid as that of WUWT?
Ryan:
“I think they had a good idea of the results beforehand because everyone who isn’t drinking the Koolaid knows that the consensus about global warming is very real.”
If the conclusions were foregone, why do the research at all?
It was Cook’s duty to do everything in his power to ensure that results were accurate and impartial, no matter what he suspected the final conclusions would be. From the email postings, he clearly he failed in that duty.
How Hilarious – Cooked Books & Co discussing marketing before the fraudulent scientific research was started. How embarrassing it must be for other CAGW followers to have these guys batting for you.
Jarrett Jones says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:46 pm
It sounds like soon we will be able to reply to anyone talking about a 97% concensus …
That paper has been withdrawn.
====================
Link please.
Cook definitely is part of the consensus, which never falls into the trap of too much analysis and too little promotion.
In reply to John Cook
John Cook says:
“There needs to be a concerted effort (spearheaded by me) to get climate communicators using these results in their messaging. I’ve been hooking up with a lot of climate communicators over the last month and will be hooking up with more over the next few months so will be discussing these results with every climate communicator I can get hold of, including heavyweights like Susan Hassol and Richard Somerville, to discuss ways of amplifying this message.”
William,
John, honesty and integrity are a fundamental part of the scientific process. Propaganda does not change scientific facts. (See peer reviewed papers below that disprove the extreme AGW hypothesis.)
1) The planet resists warming by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space – negative feedback – as opposed to positive feedback.
2) There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot. The observational fact that there is no tropic tropospheric warming is consistent with and supportive of the fact that planetary cloud cover in tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes
3) An analysis of the 20th century warming shows the observed latitude of warming does not match the predicted by the extreme CO2 hypothesis (the extreme AGW hypothesis predicts that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space), therefore a significant portion of the 20th century warming has caused by something besides CO2. (Hint changes to the solar magnetic cycle.)
As observations and analysis does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis there has been a pathetic attempt to hide the data and analysis that disproves the extreme AGW hypothesis. That pathetic attempt will fail, as there is now observational evidence that the planet has started to cool in response to abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle. As the cooling becomes evident to all, the tone of the discussions concerning climate ‘change’ will change.
As a result of the extreme AGW propaganda billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on green scams that have resulted in no significant reduction in world CO2 emissions. Western governments are deeply in debt. The money spent on scams has reduced the amount of money available for education, health care, school construction, bridge repair, has increased the level of Western debit, and so on. Citizens have a limited amount of money to tax.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is unequivocally beneficial to biosphere.
The CO2 crisis is the spending of billions upon billions dollars on scams.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“If the conclusions were foregone, why do the research at all?”
Because there are a lot of people motivated to lie about it, forestalling progress addressing one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.