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/
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