UPDATE: More inconsistency:
Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 22, 2013
===========================================
When asked about the categorizations of Cook et al, – “It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming”
Guest essay by Andrew of Popular Technology
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature‘ searched the Web of Science for the phrases “global warming” and “global climate change” then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW”, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
Dr. Idso, your paper ‘Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it“.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
Dr. Scafetta, your paper ‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%“
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The “less” claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called “skeptical works” including some of mine are included in their 97%.”
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Scafetta: “Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.
They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.
Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the “+”) of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.
And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006.”
Dr. Shaviv, your paper ‘On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise“
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).
I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.”
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Shaviv: “Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”
The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.
CVs of Scientists:
Craig D. Idso, B.S. Geography, Arizona State University (1994); M.S. Agronomy, University of Nebraska – Lincoln (1996); Ph.D. Geography (Thesis: “Amplitude and phase changes in the seasonal atmospheric CO₂ cycle in the Northern Hemisphere“), Arizona State University (1998); President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (1998-2001); Climatology Researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1999-2001); Director of Environmental Science, Peabody Energy (2001-2002); Lectured in Meteorology, Arizona State University; Lectured in Physical Geography, Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges; Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Member, American Meteorological Society (AMS); Member, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences (ANAS); Member, Association of American Geographers (AAG); Member, Ecological Society of America (ECA); Member, The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi; Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2002-Present); Lead Author, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (2009-Present)
Nicola Scafetta, Laurea in Physics, Università di Pisa, Italy (1997); Ph.D. Physics (Thesis: “An entropic approach to the analysis of time series“), University of North Texas (2001); Research Associate, Physics Department, Duke University (2002-2004); Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University (2005-2009); Visiting Lecturer, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (2008, 2010); Visiting Lecturer, University of North Carolina Greensboro (2008-2009); Adjunct Professor, Elon University (2010); Assistant Adjunct Professor, Duke University (2010-2012); Member, Editorial Board, Dataset Papers in Geosciences Journal; Member, American Physical Society (APS); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team (2010-Present)
Nir J. Shaviv, B.A Physics Summa Cum Laude, Israel Institute of Technology (1990); M.S Physics, Israel Institute of Technology (1994); Ph.D. Astrophysics (Thesis: “The Origin of Gamma Ray Bursts“), Israel Institute of Technology (1996); The Wolf Award for excellence in PhD studies (1996); Lee DuBridge Prize Fellow, Theoretical Astrophysics Group, California Institute of Technology (1996-1999); Post Doctoral Fellow, Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto (1999-2001); The Beatrice Tremaine Award, Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics (2000); Senior Lecturer, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2001-2006); The Siegfried Samuel Wolf Lectureship in nuclear physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2004); Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (2006-Present)
No surprises. Move on.
Cook has done his job. He has given the alarmists in the media and politics a reinvigoration of the 97% meme.
He has not served science or the pursuit of truth, but he has given the alarmists more false ammunition to fire in their war against truth.
I am forwarding links to this article to everyone I know.
Well that’s three in the eye for Cook et al
was it only these three that responded or are you hoping/planning for more to come from this line of questioning
Over 97% of the interviewed scientists whose papers were surveyed by Cook et al disagreed with Cook’s conclusions!
Let’s see: Idso, Scafetta and Shaviv. Obviously these are three Big Oil hacks that somehow have managed to slip under the radar. Time to rectify this. /s
Nice work Andrew, thanks.
Must be a 20+ yo picture of Dr. Shaviv. He looks 14….
You know….modeling a rotating sphere, subject to alternating surface solar heating, with 70% oceans and variable cloud cover, both with latent heat transfers….with varying albedo and photosynthesis driven CO2 changes….just to name a few of the bewildering variables is…impossible.
So….let’s reduce this to the grade school level of parameters. The rotating sphere becomes a disc and the day/night insolation cycle is eliminated. This shortcut is “corrected” by then dividing solar input P/4….which could not possible give the observed surface temperature. Therefore,
we declare that there is a MAGIC MIRROR IN THE SKY that has no effect on incoming solar radiation, but can capture and reflect the once solar heated surface energy back to control the Earth’s temperature, and from that the weather, and from that the long term “climate”.
“You don’t have to be a genius” to realize that some of the “metamorphosis” of logic could be flawed. As a matter of fact….it is better that you NOT be a genius or the rampant defects would overpower your group think orthodoxy. The IPCC is irredeemable flawed, as Dr Vincent Gray eloquently details in his New Zealand Climate Newsletter #311 which has just been issued. Disband this rogue science front group for one world bandit government.
We all knew that the paper was Cook-eyed because of the treatment of statistics. Now we see that his raw data are rubbish.
I’ve just posted a comment on Guardian about Poptech’s findings and quotes but I doubt it will see the light of day.
Meanwhile the Guardian is reporting on some pretty eye popping claims – or maybe it’s right in a way but misleading
How much time did Cook spend evaluating each of the 12,000 papers? If he spent 1 minute each, that would be 200 hours. I would consider him scientifically illiterate to think that he can do that with a complex paper. If he spent 10 minutes each, that’s 1 years work – full time. Then he spent a few hours concocting up a survey. Makes you wonder if he even had access to 12,000 papers.
“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing”.
This comment from Nir Shaviv is more illuminating than any other. Reinterpret all the abstracts and conclusions in light of continued Team gate-keeping and the so-called consensus diminishes further. not that consensus matters of course, but those that think it do would have even less of a leg to stand on.
And this is just a small sample, I wonder what a broader sample of scientists opinions on their own papers -vs- the Cook ratings will show?
He’s certainly…. cooking up… quite some claims right there.
In the Shaviv response, he writes “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.”
The fact that scientists must avoid stating the truth in straightforward terms in order to get published is significant. How can science be done openly and honestly when politics dictates what can be published? It can’t.
To be fair, you cannot expect that all Cook assessments are 100% correct in all cases.
The real issues are:
1 – Are these scientists view representative?
2 – What % of the total assessments are incorrect
3 – Does Cook’s results fundamentally reflect mainstream science opinion?
Close scrutiny of Cook will not likely change the general belief. Both Cook and the IPCC have consistently overstated AGW and its effects.
A growing set of data are show ever-widening inconsistencies with AGW theory. AGW will have to be seriously revised or dismissed entirely.
Though human CO2 is affecting climate, the arrow of climate change is probably up to the sun and significant changes it is undergoing now and over the next couple solar cycles or so.
The IPCC’s attribution of 90–100% of warming caused by human emissions begs the question of how, if we contribute 3% of the 3% of the CO2 greenhouse effect that warms the climate, how do they get to the 90–100%? It makes no sense.
Oh, wait! I forgot that they have water vapor harnessed like work horses to CO2 and CO2 is the little boy driving the team, producing a huge positive feedback. All grade schoolers know about the water cycle, which acts as a huge negative feedback mechanism, but it is indeed too much to expect those luxuriously funded hacks at the IPCC to know about such basic things.
Yes, it is too small a sample. The effort is enormously appreciate though.
…appreciated …
I suppose this is good, but look at the selection.
Craig D. Idso, “Lead Author, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (2009-Present)” which is by Heartland.
Scafetta, we already know about his work.
Nir Shaviv, it’s been noted he’s somewhat supported Svensmark’s work, which according to Leif Svalgaard is already discredited.
Frankly, you’ve got three scientists that very much do not approve of the IPCC AGW stance, and are willing to discount/discredit/debunk it.
So why are we celebrating this obvious inducement to charges of cherry picking? Where are the complaints from those scientists less critical of (C)AGW, perhaps even some that support it but still found Cook misrepresented their particular papers?
Did deeper, see what’s really there.
now if all the fellas and gals that are NOT happy about how C(r)ooks used their work..all spoke up TO the media??
OR
Insist he removes their work from his list as its being used falsely?
with a note of the retraction to be published as well
what a nice change that would make.
Darn good start here though 🙂
We issued a press release on the Cook et al study:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=655
Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming.
Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).
Kadaka – You are attacking the victims of misrepresentation and deliberately missing the point. If Cook et al. (2013) falsely claims support for IPCC AGW from the likes of Idso, Scaffetta and Shaviv, can the paper have any credibility at all?
I would like to add a comment to clarify an important issue. Perhaps Anthony may add it to the end of the above report.
The Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) theory as advocated by the IPCC since 2001 states that the net anthropocentric forcings have contributed about 90-100% of the total warming since 1900. Claming that the AGW is quantified by the IPCC advocates as 50+% of the total observed warming is very misleading.
The IPCC claim that the AGW since 1900 is quantified as 90+% (and not as 50+%), is clearly evident in figures 9.5a and 9.5b of the IPCC report (Anthony, please show the figure as an image)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
In Figure 9.5 shows a comparison of GCM simulations made [a] with all used forcings and [b] with natural forcings (solar radiative forcings + volcano) alone. As it is evident from the figure, when the GCMs are forces only with the supposed natural forcings (see Figure 9.5b) the result of the analysis is that natural forcings have contributed less than 10% (or better almost zero) of the total warming observed from 1900 to 2005.
On the contrary, as the IPCC Figure 9.5a shows only the addition of the claimed anthropocentric forcings could let the GCMs to reconstruct the observed 0.8 K warming from 1900 to 2005.
Thus, it is evident that the AGW theory, which is based on these GCM simulations, clearly states that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 can be explained only by anthropocentric forcings.
Such claims are supported by all AGW papers based on GCM simulations (e,g. Hansen papers, Schmidt’s paper, etc). For example, Benestad and Schmidt (Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, 2009) claimed the sun could contribute only about 7% of the net warming since 1900.
However, as also demonstrated in my 2007 JGR paper and in my latest paper (open access):
Scafetta N., 2013. Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics, 1, 37–57.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.html
the claim that the sun contributed less than 10% of the global warming since 1900 is compatible only with the hockey-stick temperature graph (e.g. Mann’s graph), which were popular from 1998 to 2005. On the contrary, more modern temperature reconstructions (e.g. Moberg et al (2005), and others) would imply a far stronger solar effect on climate because they show a far greater pre-industrial climate variability.
On the contrary, my papers since 2005-2006 have claimed a much stronger solar effect on the climate, and more recent papers since 2010 have claimed the existence of large natural oscillations likely induced by astronomical forcings such as the quasi 60-year oscillation observed since 1850, which is also a typical solar oscillation together with others and is likely responsible of the quasi 60-year oscillation observed clearly in the AMO, PDO, NAO etc, and the great millennial cycle. Of course he sun can effect the climate in many ways (TSI radiation, UV, cosmic ray etc.)
By taking into account geometrical considerations associated to solar records and harmonic oscillations and by demonstrating that the GCM do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate system (one of my 2012 papers) it has been demonstrated that at least 50-60% of the warming observed since 1900 was indeed induced by natural phenomena likely associated to solar/astronomical mechanisms not properly included in the climate models. This necessarily imply that only about 50% of the left over warming could be induced by anthropocentric forcings, although part of the left over warming could have been caused by uncorrected UHI effects.
The above issues are demonstrated and clearly stated in my papers.
Thus, claiming that the AGW is quantified by the IPCC advocates as 50+% of the total observed warming is very misleading.
Science is not a democracy……….
……….I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing
Anthony wrote:
“And this is just a small sample…”
….of prominent skeptics. I’m not sure that it follows that there must be lots of mis-categorized papers based upon these three, but it does provide clear proof that Cook has no shame.