By Paul Homewood
John Cook’s little paper, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” has attracted much attention in recent weeks.
Yesterday an essay by Brandon Shollenberger , which accused the authors of “laundering lies”, made me realise that an important issue seems to have escaped our attention.
[As I say, much has been written on the subject, so bear with me if this particular issue has already been flagged up]
Brandon writes:-
It’s nothing but laundering lies. The authors don’t come out and directly say anything untrue, but they intentionally create and promote misunderstandings to inflate the importance of their work.
It’s rampant dishonesty hiding behind a fig leaf of deniability. This is how I recently described Cook et al’s PR campaign for their recent paper.
I didn’t intend to follow up on this comment, but this morning I saw a quote from Dana Nuccitelli that was impossible to resist:
We were always careful to say that while the survey involved 12,000 abstracts, the 97 percent consensus was among the ~4,000 abstracts that took a position on the cause of global warming (plus the roughly 1,400 of 2,100 self-rated papers taking a position). And we were careful to point out that the consensus was that ‘humans are causing global warming.
Nuccitelli says he and his co-authors always used a particular phrasing when describing their results. I must admit, that is true. They’ve always managed to say “humans cause global warming” with the implicit qualifier of “some” (that they knew nobody would pay attention to). It’s obvious they knew the limitations of their results and didn’t want to be accused of lying.
Brandon is making the point that the 97% figure is calculated from the papers which acknowledge that “humans are causing global warming”, which could mean anything from a little to a lot. Indeed, this is exactly what Cook’s abstract says:-
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
This is a very wide definition that even most sceptical scientists would have little difficulty agreeing with. It is also an pretty meaningless statement.
But does Cook really have this in mind when he talks of “endorsing the consensus”? The answer lies in the paper’s introduction, which states.
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global Climate Change, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
So it now becomes totally clear what “consensus” Cook has in mind. It is essentially the IPCC one. Cook’s co-author, Mark Richardson, makes it even clearer, in this quote from the Institute of Physics:-
“We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.”
The problem, of course, is that many of the papers analysed do not support this interpretation. Indeed, arguably the vast majority do not do so, as Cook’s own definitions of endorsement levels make clear.
All three of these categories are included in Cook’s claimed “endorsing of the consensus”. Of the 3896 papers that fall into these categories, 2934 are in the third one, and 934 in the second. I have gone into more detail on this issue here. But take a look at these three papers, which are included in category 3, because they give a good idea of how Cook’s claims are not backed up by the evidence.
[Cook provides a useful tool, which lists all the papers graded here. Have a play with it and you will see that there are very many other examples of such misrepresentation]
1) Buying Greenhouse Insurance
There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem. We examine how the optimal hedging strategy might vary with: a) the damage potential associated with the continued buildup of greenhouse gases; b) the accuracy and timing of climate research; and, c) the prospects for new supply and conservation technologies.
2) CO2 emissions reduction by price deregulation and fossil fuel taxation: A case study of Indonesia
As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environmental problems and simultaneously address a number of more pressing developmental imperatives? This paper tries to answer that question on a limited scale using Indonesia as a case study. The study indicates that by deregulating energy prices and imposing different levels of taxation on fossil fuels, Indonesia could reduce its CO2 emissions without considerably suppressing the growth of its economy. In the long run, however, these policies cannot cope with the inevitable rise in coal-use in Indonesia, due to constraints on domestic natural gas and oil resources. Limiting the growth of coal consumption in the future will require direct technological intervention in the supply and demand of energy and a shift in current energy export and import policies.
The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flooded rice. In a greenhouse study, the nitrification inhibitor encapsulated calcium carbide (a slow-release source of acetylene) was added with 75, 150, and 225 mg of 75 atom % 15N urea-N to flooded pots containing 18-day-old rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants. Urea treatments without calcium carbide were included as controls. After the application of encapsulated calcium carbide, 3.6 μg N2, 12.4 μg N2O-N, and 3.6 mg CH4 were emitted per pot in 30 days. Without calcium carbide, 3.0 mg N2, 22.8 μg N2O-N, and 39.0 mg CH4 per pot were emitted during the same period. The rate of N added had a positive effect on N2 and N2O emissions, but the effect on CH4 emissions varied with time. Carbon dioxide emissions were lower with encapsulated calcium carbide than without. The use of encapsulated calcium carbide appears effective in eliminating N2 losses, and in minimizing emissions of the “greenhouse gases” N2O and CH4 in flooded rice.
None of these papers remotely suggest that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).” (Nor for that matter are the authors qualified to give an opinion, and neither is any evidence provided).
Misrepresentation
So what are we left with? Cook makes assumptions about thousands of papers, that cannot be remotely justified on what their abstracts say. Worse still, his co-author goes on to make public statements that simply are not true.
This appears to be wilful misrepresentation on a large scale.
As many people has pointed out before me 🙂 This global warming ( by any other name ) has become a religion , you cannot fight the believe systems of humans.
The church of the warming earth will only diminish when a new ice age is knocking on the church door and spits -20 in their face.
If we can agree that for the last 15 years or so there has been no measurable global warming, I can agree that humans are causing “most” of the recent global warming, ie “most” of zero is…. zero.
And other than going on about it here & on other skeptic blogs, what is there to do about it?
Does anyone have ANY ideas of any ACTION that can be taken to shut down such blatant deception? Anything with even half a chance of happening?
Cook was not looking at where the data was going, he already knew that. He forced it to become the 97%. That magic number
Cook got the headlines he wanted, and that’s all it was for. He, along with so many others, are doing anything to keep it in the public eye that “oh no, it’s true and worse than we thought.”
I could tell you what I think about all this, but my keyboard might melt.
There is only one place where the rules of evidence prevail. Until we band together and choose some carefully vetted cases and sue for fraud; we are pissing into the wind.
I made this comment at sceptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96775
I would like to thank Nottingham University’s Making science Public project for running some very interesting articles, the comments there are I think worth a read. But perhaps this is the best place to raise this question?
Lets look at the media coverage that Skeptical Science is so proud of: http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmedia
especially this one:
Barack Obama
@BarackObama Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp
Now whatever the paper did, it made zero reference to impact, or any consensus on impacts and there is no justification at all – based on this paper – for a 97% consensus of ‘dangerous’ to be declared a finding of it, did the authors seek to correct this in anyway, no they celebrated it by listing it on their blog, with a link to President Barack Obama.
Professor Richard Betts (Head of Climate Impacts, Met Office and IPCC lead author AR4 & AR5) sought to correct it, by tweeting back:
Richardabetts
@BarackObama Actually that paper didn’t say ‘dangerous’. NB I *do* think #climate change poses risks – I just care about accurate reporting!
Maybe John Cook was not aware of President Barack Obama misrepresenting and overstating this paper, when he said (or his official account did) 97% of scientists agree climate change is real man made and dangerous?
Sadly no. It appear that John Cook was surprised at all the attention and made no effort (nor the other authors) to correct this Barack Obama tweet (to 30 million people, or how it was widely reported else where in the media
Sydney Morning Herald: Obama gives Aussie researcher 31,541,507 reasons to celebrate
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2aRpr8JPX
“Australian researcher John Cook, an expert in climate change communication, was inundated with requests for interviews by US media outlets after Obama took to Twitter to endorse his project’s final report.
“It was pretty cool news,” said Mr Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com. “It was out of our expectations.”
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. The peer-reviewed outcome flies in the face of public perception in countries such as the US or Australia that scientists are divided on the issue.
“One of the highest predictors of how important people think climate change is, is cues from political leaders,” Mr Cook said. “So if the leaders don’t seem to care, people don’t care either.
“A cue from Obama is a big step,” he said. “The fact it goes to more than 31 million followers, it just raises the awareness of consensus.”
———————-
Awareness, a false awareness (courtsey of Obama) of a 97% consensus on ‘dangerous’, misinformation that is now in the public domain about this paper by the President of the United States of America , not corrected by the authors of the paper. An irony is that Prof Lewandowsky and John Cook have a paper published on how hard it is to correct misinformation.. !!! http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi
President Obama is now going after Deniers in Congress…. (thus this ishighly political, v dangerous for the public perception of scientists if ‘misinformation’ is uncorrected by scientists)
www. BarackObama.com
“Call out a climate denier
Check out our list of known climate deniers in Congress-elected officials who refuse to even acknowledge the science behind climate change—and call them out on Twitter.” http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers
So Dana, will you or any of your co-authors, tell the President, that your paper says nothing about a consensus on ‘dangerous’?
——————- ————————————
2 must read articles at Making science Public – Nottingham University
The post by Ben Pile (climate Resistance -look out for Mike Hulme comment (spot on Ben) here:
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/
and Dana Nuccitelli’s (skeptical science) response to Prof Mike Hulme (and Ben Pile) are well worth a read (especially the comments, comments are moderated for politeness, so be nice – Brigitte and Warren are good people, at Making science Public )
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/29/an-accurately-informed-public-is-necessary-for-climate-policy/
Cook’s whole deal was one fallacy of equivocation after another.
For that matter, so is the bulk of the ‘global warming’ propaganda effort. Typical politics. Has absolutely nothing to do with science.
You mean Dana and Cook are deliberately deceiving us?
*goes for a lie down*
Interesting post.
When these dinks stop buying beachfront homes, I’ll start paying attention.
I suppose the only thing to do is to keep posting links to this kind of debunking as comments on MSM climate pieces, to keep sending links to environmental correspondents, to precis the facts and put them in letters to our various national presses and so forth. Most importantly, ensure those in charge at your children’s schools are made aware, and inform your Representative or MP.
Sadly most people get their ideas on this topic from the tv news or from eg National Geographic, which push this mindless propaganda non-stop
wilful misrepresentation on a large scale
Isn’t that the climate scientist’s job description?
(snark)
The 97% number is itself a reliable refutation of the hypothesis. In the present moment you could not survey a random cross section of humanity and garner a 97% “consensus” that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Personally I think that previous survey which started with thousands of surveys sent out and ended with a 97% “consensus” of 75 out of 77 got it about right. I suspect that about half a gross of rent seeking grant applicants probably comes fairly close to the extent of the actual “consensus” for CAGW as posited by the alarmist community.
For each of its annual soirees about CAGW, the IPCC issues a summary document, sort of a mini AR. If you go back and review the author lists for those documents, you will find the total number of names that appear is fairly small and the percent of names which also appear on the roster of Climategate email recipients is somewhere between 40% – 50%
They cooked the books:-)
Tony G writes: “And other than going on about it here & on other skeptic blogs, what is there to do about it?
Does anyone have ANY ideas of any ACTION that can be taken to shut down such blatant deception? Anything with even half a chance of happening?”
I’ve been beating the drum for a long time to conduct a survey of our own, perhaps commission a reputable polling company to design something statistically valid. All I get is defeatist excuses and ridicule. Easier to cry victim than actually go out and do something constructive.
Would it be expensive? Sure, but I personally would reach deep. If such an thing were to be undertaken, I’m all but certain the funds could be raised…But again, mostly ridicule and excuses…
I know this is a dispute over the methodology, but if there weren’t a scientific consensus on humans as the primary driver of climate change, then why would almost every major scientific organization in the world explicitly endorse that position?i
This global warming thought complex does not represent all religious type thinking or faith; it represents bad religion: it is not based on reasoning but on believism: believing something based primarily on a desire it be true.
That’s the irony. They could have done this properly and would probably have obtained more or less the result they were shooting for. That’s my opinion anyway. But it’s as if they can’t overcome their native fascination with scatology even when it’s counter-productive for them not to.
Well. One could ask the known IPCC consensus climate scientists about whether they endorse Cook & Nuccitelly’s paper or not.
That gives them the choice of
a) endorsing a fraudulent piece of dreck
b) contradicting their beloved socialist progressive president.
c) crickets.
Collect the reactions; write a paper giving the percentages.
Ask all the lead authors of the IPCC AR5.
From Barry Woods, Nottingham link.
Dana says; ““Skeptics” are Not Included in the 97% Consensus”
He admitted to omitting “Skeptic” participants in his paper (sic). They did so poorly that even with a stacked deck of all believers they still couldn’t get 100%. It’s the cherry of all picks.
They cherry picked 228 from 2000 which they cherry picked from 4000 which were cherry picked from 12000. To top it off Dana says it’s only about opinions. I see why he quit responding to he comments on that blog. I can’t stop laughing. He just keeps digging deed into the abyss.
Yep. It’s a bad paper based on a study with a methodology so awful it cannot be decently called a methodology. And all of it has no other objective than to support the authors’ bias. They want something to be so desperately true that they see what’s not there. The literature of every field I’ve read is packed with this kind of manuscripts.
Even wikipedia authors (guilty as sin of this due to pervasive misunderstand of their task) understand it:
——-
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.(Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association)
——-
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.(Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet)
——-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
I am amazed that intelligent, mature adults (Cook and co.) would waste so much time to conjure up a “study” in order to justify their own biased views. This is truly an example of religious fervor, not of scientific inquiry. If the three excerpts are indicative of the foundations of their findings, then their study is total garbage. There is nothing in those excerpts that is a definite indicator of a “belief” in AGW by the various authors, but it does indicate such a belief on the part of Cook.
Please let us know who paid them to produce such tripe.
“AGW is dead, Jim”
Joseph says:
July 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm
I know this is a dispute over the methodology, but if there weren’t a scientific consensus on humans as the primary driver of climate change, then why would almost every major scientific organization in the world explicitly endorse that position?
———-
Answer: $$$$ and politics.
You could sort of say those papers are category 3- Category 3 is totally meaningless- why not include the entire publications of Green Peace. Assume it- therefore it is true.