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/
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
As far as I known C14 analysis is still valid
It is not [and never was]. C14 data after 1945 is useless because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels]. The 10Be data does not have that problem and shows that the past 50 year activity was not exceptionally high. This has nothing to do with ‘logic’, but with data. I was just two weeks ago at a workshop where this problem was discussed and the 20th century was not exceptional. Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf shows the 10Be production the past 2000 years.
i just went to Skeptical Science and read what Cook-The-Books has posted. For some reason unknown to me i was unable to log-in to post this comment there. (Maybe Cook-The-Books came to WUWT and read my poem — “Lewd” Lewandowsky And John Cook-The-Books — I hope, I hope.) With so much wrong with that paper I pick on this more obscure piece of his failure to understand what he himself writes — since it might be overlooked.
John Cook-The-Books endorses the statement made by Oreskes 2007 — “that scientists” “generally focus their discussions on questions that are still in dispute or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees”.
Two thirds of the papers reviewed by his “Team” expressed no opinion on Global Warming and using Oreskes statement above John Cook-The-Books opinions that “every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There’s no longer a need to state something so obvious.For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?”
But one third of the papers that were rated find it necessary to state their opinion about global warming. Therefore using Oreskes statement (which Cook-The-Books endorses) that scientists “focus their discussions on questions that are still in dispute or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees” we can conclude that the question of whether or not humans are causing global warming is recognized as being in dispute by fully one third of scientists whose papers were used in the study. In other words using the things that Cook-The-Books himself writes he denies his own contention that “global warming” is settled science.
O’ What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.
Cook-The-Books is foremost an emotional thinker and not a logical one. He uses the “feminine left brain” primarily and not the “masculine right brain”. (Snicker, snicker! See my poem mentioned above. Saw the shot and had to take it.)
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Though i did the necessary things to sign in to comment at Skeptical Science I never actually posted anything. If I have been banned I guess I can claim the distinction of being the first person banned before ever actually posting there. If so Cook-The-Books has brought something new and creative to the internet — preemptive banning.
“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
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…”
LOL! “Climate Change” is a term coined a few years ago to replace “Global Warming”, at least in part so other discussions such as ocean acidification, sea level rise, and etc. could be discussed.
My experience in reading journals is “climate change” is an almost de rigour concept primarily inserted to influence future funding of research. From people studying anchovies to butterflies and everything in between, climate change has become a meme to keep the money flowing so we can get in front of changes to the object of the study that usually has nothing to do with climate.
Basing a survey on the writers of science papers that use the term “climate change” is a bit like taking an election poll at a national convention of a single political party. What happened to carefully selected representative sampling in statistics? Did any of these people ever take a course in statistics? Were they asleep or taking drugs?
The only reason to put “climate change” into a paper and be adverse to it would be to take a shot at folks overhyping climate change. But thats a political objective not a scientific objective. A non-political climate paper might only talk about climate sensitivity or something much better defined scientifically than “climate change” and by my reading of the selection methodology such a paper would not be included in this poll. But even if it were in this highly competive world, climate science in general would be hard pressed to justify its existance without the spectre of climate catastrophy so one can build an iron clad argument that the opinions of climate scientists as a group on climate are heavily biased in every sense of that word.
Actually it would be refreshing to actually read a good study establishing “climate change” scientifically. The only attempt I am aware of was the statistical analysis by Ben Santer relied upon by the IPCC in the 3rd report. It would be refreshing to see and update to that work now that 10 years of cooling has passed since the original paper.
Those are some pretty convoluted answers which make it sound even more like there is not a clear lie. What exactly is the lie?
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Further, I make a testable prediction that the planet is about to cool, due to the abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle.
Since you have never specified what ‘the abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle’ means, you have made no valid ‘prediction’. I have asked you many times what you mean and ask here again.
” A scientific hypothesis is not proven by the number of papers favouring it, a scientific hypothesis is disproved by the one paper that shows it cannot be true.”
Precisely; we here – most of us at least – understand the scientific principle: that scientific truths emerge not by consensus but via disproof and /or replication.
We are however a very small minority of the general public and an even smaller minority among opinion makers, law-makers and politicians. What we need to do is to destroy this false reliance on consensus. Whilst it still exists we continue to lose the propaganda war.
‘Scientists’ once ‘all’ believed that the earth was flat; that malaria was caused by foetid air known as ‘miasma’; and they believed in spontaneous generation, among many other now exploded hypotheses. The general public must somehow be brought to understand that consensus has no place in the conduct or practice of science.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions!
If the lie is epic proportions, what are the proportions of the consequences of that lie?
Sam the First says:
May 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm
” A scientific hypothesis is not proven by the number of papers favouring it, a scientific hypothesis is disproved by the one paper that shows it cannot be true.”
And then you link to http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
which states [among other things]
“MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.
CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper’s influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn’t a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.”
Do you see the problem?
The percentage of papers pro and con AGW is not a representative sample of opinion because of the widespread relentless censorship of skeptic opinion, and the other ibarriers keeping skeptics from getting papers pubolished. The obstructions skeptics face grossly skew any measure of opinion bnased on publication of papers.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:47 pm
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
As far as I known C14 analysis is still valid
It is not [and never was]. C14 data after 1945 is useless because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels].
I quoted a paper that was published in the Nature, 2004. You are stating that C14 data after 1995 is useless (no peer reviewed paper to support that assertion) because of contamination from atomic bombs [and also from burning fossil fuels].
I have not seen a paper that states that C14 analysis post 1945 is useless. There are instrument measurements, post 1945 so it is possible to directly determine the solar magnetic activity. Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
You appear to not understand the power of multiple logical points that all support an assertion. When there are multiple logical points that all support a particular assertion, it is less likely a claim that one of the logical points is in correct, is correct. You have made an unsubstantiated claim that the majority of the 20th century warming was not caused by the exceptionally high level of solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years. That statement is not correct.
The following is a recap of the logical points with links to supporting papers.
1) There is in the paleoclimatic record cyclic warming and cooling which occurs both in the interglacial period and in the glacial period. The paleo climatic specialists call the cyclic warming and cooling a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles through the interglacial period and into the glacial period. The D-O cycles have a variable periodicity of 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years. The late Gerald Bond and other scientists have found that the D-O cycle correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.
2) The specific regions of the planet that warm and cool the most during the D-O cycle is the Northern hemisphere and particularly high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF
3) The regions that warmed in the 20th century are the same regions that warmed during the past D-O cycles.
4) The greenhouse gas forcing mechanism predicted that the majority of the warming would occur in the tropics as this is the region of the planet where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space and there is a large amount of water in this region to amplify the CO2 forcing.
5) Lindzen and Choi found by analyzing top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean surface temperature changes that the planet resists temperature changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less radiation off into space. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s results and the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming (the extreme greenhouse forcing theory requires that greenhouse gas forcing – any greenhouse gas – will cause there to be an increase in water vapor in the tropical troposphere at around 8 km above the surface of the planet. This increase in water vapor will amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming in the last 15 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
6) As there is no observed tropical tropospheric and planetary cloud cover increases and decreases to resist warming, the majority of 20th century warming was caused by something
else besides the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
“We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle…
Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”
7) There has been 16 years in which atmospheric CO2 has risen and there is not increase in planetary temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
8) Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle.
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
9) Based on points 1 through 8 the planet will now cool.
Of the ten abstracts in my lot on the questionnaire , not even one mentioned the Anthropic in Global Warming. The ones that talked of warming, just said that there exists global warming. And of course it does, we are getting out of the Little Ice Age. 100% of scientists shown the data of the last 600 years would say “we are getting out of the Little Ice Age”.
I wonder if the IRS has paid a visit to ‘Organizing for Action’
One needs to remember that this has ALWAYS been about consensus. Just like a consensus meeting in which the outcome is already been predetermined. So what is the point of a consensus meeting? Hmm, none that I can think of except: :”This is how it is as we are the ones running this meeting and we are the authority figures not you, so either agree with us or get out of the room as any vote against our consensus is right wing and racist .”
To me John Cook is unAustralian, a true blue Aussie would use the figure 99.94%
I hereby dub this new field nonagintaseptimism (from the latin word for 97). A skilled nonagintaseptimist like Cook is expert at arriving at the answer 97% no matter what the question.
John Cook is one of those people who confuse an agenda with reality.
Poems Of Our Climate 12:08pm
It will never go over but, yes, I can appreciate the thinking. Liked it.
Eugene WR Gallun
Note: Cook’s category 2 in his survey (included in his 97%) is a long way short of “endorsing” the whole CAGW meme…. It is simply an obvious truth that most of us must agree with … extra emissions of GHG will contribute to warming …. But there is no indication whether that contribution is considered to be a fraction of a percent, or important in any way.
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
Example
‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
Re Cook’s 97 percent article:
Note the 14% response rate (hell, you would reckon saving the world would be a higher prority for these guys …. and I can’t fathom the maths below, but interesting he would reject some papers after going to the trouble of emailing them … why not just email the peer reviewed authors in the first place?
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf :
“our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today.
Solanki et al. combine radiocarbon (14C) data, visually observed sunspot numbers and models to extend the historical sunspot record
over the Holocene. They exclude the most recent 100 years of the 14C record, which are influenced by 14C-depleted fossil-fuel emissions and atomic-bomb tests conducted since AD 1950. …
irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780
and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today. …
our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years. …
Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
As I said the whole question has recently been re-examined by a panel of experts at a workshop dedicated to this problem: Leif Svalgaard, Mike Lockwood, Jürg Beer, Andre Balogh, Paul Charbonneau, Ed Cliver, Nancy Crooker, Marc DeRosa, Ken McCracken, Matt Owens, Pete Riley, George Siscoe, Sami Solanki, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Ilya Usoskin, and Yi-Ming Wang. The conclusion is that recent solar activity was not exceptionally high. Around 1780, activity seems to have been even higher than today.
Since the Sun has not behaved in a way compatible with your other references, they are now moot and irrelevant. I think I have pointed all this out several times, but you have a hard time coming to grips with reality.
William Astley says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Nature is a reputable publication. It seems reasonable that the author’s assertion is correct.
One more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf :
“The solar modulation maximum around 1780 AD indicated by the 14C and 10Be data was on the level of the second part of the 20th century or even higher. …
“The cosmogenic radio-nuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”
So, it is time to bury the wrong notion of recent exceptionally high solar activity. This is, of course, difficult to do because once people have locked on to ‘findings’ that confirm their agenda and beliefs, they get stuck on the wrong science and can’t give it up. You are a good example of someone afflicted with that syndrome.
The most appropriate comparisons and hence fractions are the following:
Quantified explicit endorsements / quantified explicit positions = 87%
Explicit endorsements / explicit positions = 97%
Explicit and implicit endorsements / explicit and implicit positions = 97%
Most other suggestions are apples-to-oranges comparisons. One would not estimate the level of consensus regarding evolution by dividing the number of papers with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolution by all biology papers. That would give a misleadingly low figure. Likewise, another 1000 papers on biofuels does not in any way weaken or strengthen the consensus om human causation.
See also http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/
Like all media here in Aus, especially on TV with the ABC and SBS, the SMH are whores to the man-made climate change meme. At every opportunity a “weather event” is a major, front page, news story, and the subtext is AGW driven climate change, after all it was KRudd747 who said “Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time.”. Here in Sydney, we’ve had a few days of “above average” temperatures for autumn. I guess people have forgotten how averages are calculated. The AGW subtext is there, loud and clear. In the build up to a general election, the ALP has vowed to drop the “proice ohn cahbon pohlooshon” to about AU$12.50/tonne of CO2…to “fall in line” with the EU ETS falls. Meanwhile in the EU, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece among other EU countries have been “bailed out” at the same time Britain, France and Germany are in “triple dip” recession. I guess that’s why they want to “supply materiel” to Syrian rebels.
The US disconnect over climate change
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/05/201351865032465413.html
25 minute video: Michael Mann, Dana Nuccitelli, and Rick Piltz on Al Jazeera
Dana misrepresenting his study saying more than 2,000 scientists attribute the MAIN cause of global warming to humans.
Tinfoil hat stuff oil companies, tobacco, deniers, bla bla bla
Strictly speaking, it’s 97% of papers (or abstracts) but only 96% of the scientists polled by Cook’s team:
Within experimental error of course.