You have to wonder how somebody can write (let alone read) the claims made here in the press release by Cook with a straight face. It gives a window into the sort of things we can expect from his borked survey he recently foisted on climate websites which seems destined to either fail, or get spun into even stranger claims. For example, compare these two passages of the press release:
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.”
And from that he gets a consensus? What is he smoking? Try getting a quorum or winning an election with those numbers. About that 0.7 percent, this might be a good time to remind everyone of this Climategate moment.
In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by “MM”, thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Phil Jones emailed his colleagues saying:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
This below comes from a pre-press release, published first by Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com. It isn’t on the IOP website yet, nor is Cook’s paper. It seems both are scheduled for May 16th. Since there is no embargo time listed that I’m aware of, and it is in the wild now, it is fair game.
===============================================================
Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.
The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)
Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters.
The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.
The findings are in stark contrast to the public’s position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.
John Cook said: “Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.
“There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception. It’s staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
“This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.”
In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: “global warming” and “global climate change”.
After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.
The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the “myth-busting” website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.
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.
Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: “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.”
Visitors to the skepticalscience.com website also raised the funds required to allow the study to be accessible to the public.
Daniel Kammen, editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental Research Letters, said: “”This paper demonstrates the power of the Environmental Research Letters open access model of operation in that authors working to advance our knowledge of climate science and to engage in a public discourse can guarantee all interested parties have the opportunity to review the same data and findings.”
###
* http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/
From Thursday 16 May, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
I think Cooks statement has caused some confusion about the 66% of paper that show no position on AGW. These are paper that aren’t about AGW. He looked at all paper on climate science not all of them are about AGW. So these 66% are the ones that have no opinion on AGW because the research was not about AGW, climate scientist do other research. From some of the comments and the title of the post I fear some people are confusing this 66% with the 0.3% of paper that are about AGW but do not conclude either way if there is man-made global warming.
You should just ignore the 66% if looking specifically at AGW.
pat says:
May 14, 2013 at 8:39 pm
“australians are good at “fuzzy math”. the federal budget announced yesterday is a case in point. well-known CAGW-advocate Tristan Edis tries his best to spin the CO2 elements, while hoping the EU “fixes” the carbon market, at precisely the moment the EU is raiding the oil majors for price-fixing! ”
EU rules forbid price fixing EVEN by the EU cleptocrats themselves; BUT the European court has ruled that the emergency of having to save the planet justifies a violation of the rules.
And that’s why EU cleptocrats are eternally in love with CAGW and will do everything to keep it alive.
Could invent a new game like Sudoku, called climate consensus where the numbers are inserted in the ranks and files and they must always work out to 97% ,both across and up and down. Fill in your own numbers. Climatologist badges could be awarded for successful grids and an annual Cook the Consensus jamboree could be held in San Diego. Cartoon spinoffs to follow.
In summary, of the vast majority of those who agree that AGW is the dominant cause of recent warming, there is a consensus of 97% that AGW is the dominant cause of recent warming.
No wonder Cook never changes his mind, he can’t think straight.
In the real world, “less-than-a-third” is not equal to “consensus”.
And since the AGW believer position prior to this has been to the effect that the vast majority of papers support AGW believers, Mr. Cook should have noticed something is amiss from his results.
In politics, it’s about messaging. Messaging is all about “headlines” and “sound bites” since most will listen to the headline then tune out as details are discussed especially if the person has no strong interest what’s being reported. Compare “the DOW is down 120” to “the Dow plunges 120” with the followup details stating “the drop, one-quarter of one percent, is a typical single day move in the industrials”.
Warming is politics. The tools to fight messaging are to found in that arena, not in science.
Silly stuff. Has it now become ‘science by consensus’?
Should perhaps do a survey on the opinions of atmospheric physicists (current, retired, and deceased) on the matter.
Then ask the rest of the ‘climate scientists’ (geologists, marine biologists, oceanographers, climatologists of all types and skills, geographers, solar physicists etc etc) how they arrived at their particular opinion on CO2 and CAGW.
Oh, and tabulate that vs who pays their salary.
“There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception. ”
Is the chasm as wide as the mismatch between temperature data and model outputs between 1997 and 2013?
When is all that lost heat hiding in the deep ocean gonna come back and bite us hard? Has that Day been put off for half a century, or more, or forever?
RT and Mark Campanale of carbontracker.org. 400 ppm OMG.
They know arguments from authority won’t hold any water, especially when everyone knows the game is rigged (climategate). This is merely another desperate attempt to prevent apostasy amongst the alarmist ranks.
“8 out of 10 cats who’s owners expressed a preference…”
Didnt realise that Whiskas did science :S
Evidently “consensus” has a new, secret definition.
Why o why o why o why o why o why o why……..do YOU still keep referring to these things as “papers”…..as though they are publications of scientific research?
WHY?
Why in olther words do you cut these jokers so much slack and reinforce that ones preposterous self-image as some kind of social scientist. We may snigger at “social scientist”. but he aint even that anyway!
Edohiguma says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:31 am
Those CAGW-believers even accept Mann’s non-statistics as science. They even lie about it. So the unfortunate answer is “No”. But then, consider the source and the supporting demographic–they match.
“The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the “myth-busting” website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming.”
So, 97% of the 24 SkS website volunteers agree there is man made global warming.
Well, how ’bout that. 24 huh? They must have had to hire extra volunteers.
“Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.”
That wouldn’t be ol John & Lew, would it?
“This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.”
Even if you make it all up?
“Our findings prove that there is a strong
scientificagreementabout the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.and our detailed survey results prove gate keeping and control of the purse stringsmay could can mightwill help prove our proven proof.”(fixed that one for ya)
Note to John from Jack: Proof? You can’t handle the proof.
(To misquote JN)
cn
Hello all, I am attempting to explain to someone why man made climate change is wildly exaggerated by the mainstream media. Can anyone recommend some good books which will sum up all the relevant material, preferably including recent climate gate shenanigans, if possible. Thank you.
Quoting from the post (my Capitals):
Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: “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.”
Mostly, significantly, somewhat or no qualifier at all, that is the 97%.
Most WUWT readers would probably agree with the “some contribution from CO2”, its just we see no cause for alarm yet.
In other words, this “fuzzy consensus” can’t be used as plattform for demanding action on CO2 released to the atmospehere, just for requesting more research.
Obvious for all but Cook & Co?
Simply reviewing abstracts and stating some kind of “proof” that a phenomenon exists and that it is “fact” is a VERY large leap. And completely unsupportable. Bad science gets published all the time. Let me say that again: ALL THE TIME! Anyone doing a meta-analysis of published peer-reviewed research faces that startling conclusion. The pickins are slim indeed to find a set of decent papers dealing with your particular meta-analysis focus that you can use and then attach any kind of statistical validity and reliability to your results. All researchers know this and many avoid meta-analysis because of this issue.
This current bit of COUGH-COUGH research methodology (abstract review to support a scientific theory) is simply garbage. Garbage. And I believe Cook knows that it is. It completely ignores the above condition of published research. Reviewing an abstract is simply a horrible way to say anything at all at the meta-analysis level. It is troubling to me that this kind of stuff gets past journal review. Very troubling. Cook seems willing to, even purposefully to, use garbage science technique to support his “belief” and journal publishers are willing to let it get through. Shame on you Cook. You are using low hanging fruit to shove policy down our throats. How can you look at yourself in the mirror and call yourself a scientist? Un-freakin believable.
Here is a check you can do on yourself. Go back in time with your current published research articles and interview for a position on the team that developed atomic weapons. If the level of your research is tight enough to get on that team you may have a leg to stand on. Cook, you wouldn’t even get inside the state with your portfolio.
If all the scientists agree that AGW is true, then why do we need to fund any further studies? Shouldn’t we cut all the funding for AGW studies and instead use the money to fund adaptation?
Number 1 on the list – shouldn’t we improve infrastructure to deal with extreme weather? The scientists tell us there are hundreds of years of warming already built up in the pipe, so even if we cut CO2 today we still need the infrastructure. However, we don’t need any further studies to simply tell us what scientists have already agreed. That would be a waste of money.
Tell your politicians. Time to stop studying warming and fix the roads, bridges, dikes, electrical grid and seawalls to better deal with extreme weather because the scientists all tell us that even if we stopped all CO2 today, we still need to prepare for hundreds of years of warming. Nothing we can do will prevent it, according to the scientists, so we need to stop spending money on talking and studying and instead spend our money on building things that deliver value.
Rather than spend money of politicians and scientists, it is time to start spending money on engineers and construction. Build something of value rather than throwing money at conferences and publications.
‘Con census’ may be the appropriate term to describe the work of Cook.
John says:
May 15, 2013 at 2:42 am
I think Cooks statement has caused some confusion about the 66% of paper that show no position on AGW. These are paper that aren’t about AGW. He looked at all paper on climate science not all of them are about AGW. So these 66% are the ones that have no opinion on AGW because the research was not about AGW, climate scientist do other research. From some of the comments and the title of the post I fear some people are confusing this 66% with the 0.3% of paper that are about AGW but do not conclude either way if there is man-made global warming.
You should just ignore the 66% if looking specifically at AGW.
===========
Correct … but this is WUWT, so what do you expect? It’s actually closer to 98%.
I would like to see the 32.7% of papers rated as ‘pro’ along with their abstracts and the comments of the 2 ‘independent’ reviewers.
Is there any chance this will be released with the paper?
Some further categorization would be of interest:
– Papers written with the pre-assumption of Catastrophic AGW
– Papers written with assumed forcing value of x degrees
John Cook: the question is not about how many papers are BASED ON AGW theory, the question is how many of the papers that examined the causes of post 1965 warming support AGW.
Every day I read MSM reports of this and that being “caused” by global warming. But the reverse is actually true: this and that are ATTRIBUTED to global warming.
There are not 3000 papers in that 12000 that examine the arguments for and against AGW.
Richard
“Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
May 14, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Note that the published paper does not use the much-criticized survey. It is probably the same set of papers and the same questionnaire, but the paper is based on 24 respondents. I guess that, after they completed that survey, they decided to open it up to everyone — and there is a second paper coming that compares the answers of the 24 to the answers of the likes of me.”
Most likely. I’ve been trying to explain that to folks for some time.
The public survey will allow the researchers to compare how other audiences read/misread
the abstracts relative to the first readers. Look for confirmation bias, etc..
Consensus is a political term. Science is not determined by a show of hands.
History confirms that the consensus opinion in science is almost always shown to be wrong as new facts are discovered. History also shows that peer review without independent replication is meaningless. No paper is worthy of any headlines until it has been replicated, as is clearly shown by the epidemic of false positives in scientific research.
Time after time, when someone does try and replicate the work of a climate scientist the data is either “not available” or after a lengthy FOIA process is found to be “missing”. Work that has been paid for by the public has been systematically witheld from the public. Why? Because these so called scientists know their work will not hold up under scrutiny. They know full well they have selectively published the positive findings and hidden the negative findings, to falsely inflate the significance of their work.
Why? Because fame and funding is most often tied to positive results. Discovering a cure for cancer is worth something. Discovering 100,000 things that don’t cure cancer is likely to be seen by your backers as wasting money and result in an end to your funding. Thus, negatives don’t get published, even when they show that the latest cure for cancer has already been shown repeatedly to not cure cancer.