Two developments suggest that Cook et al 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature may be soon be headed for “retraction watch”, since serious problems with the data are becoming evident, which when accounted for bring the 97% consensus figure into question.
First, there are new issues with the search system used to gather the papers, as Shub Niggurath explains at Bishop Hill:
===============================================================
The climate change literature comprises well over hundred thousand articles and books. Cook et al’s strategy was to focus on papers directly related to “global warming” or “global climate change” in Web of Science. Here’s how they describe it:
In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types.
A Web of Science search performed following the authors’ description to the letter actually returns 30,940 entries, not 12,464. Excluding the ‘Arts and Humanities Citation Index’ (A&HCI), this becomes 30,876. This is when search phrases are not enclosed in double-quotes (i.e., ‘global warming’ instead of “global warming”).
Scopus is an academic database covering technical, medical, and social science disciplines. Surprisingly, when Scopus is searched using the correct search phrases, a total of 19,417 entries are retrieved. A Web of Knowledge search returns ~21,488 records. These figures are 7473 records (Scopus) and ~9544 records (Web of Knowledge) greater than what Cook et al eventually analysed.
More here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/landmark-consensus-study-is-incomplete.html
=================================================================
Second, more authors are now reporting that their papers were categorized improperly:
=================================================================
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
“Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon
“No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin
more here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, scientific research shows ‘AGW Consensus’ falls from 97% to (say) 44% in less than 3 months.
That should grab some headlines.
Perhaps somebody else has pointed this out already, but by searching for papers with “global WARMING” the selection must be skewed. Would the ration be the same if one search for “global climate CHANGE” ?
‘Of those that stated a position on the cause of global warming, 97% stated humans were the main cause’.
Yeah but couldn’t that also just mean that this particular 97% (which is only 33% of the whole total in any case) had come to a position when they shouldn’t have done so, because the data was ambiguous, and that the remaining 67% are really the right ones? There are numerous cases where those (even a majority, which isn’t even the case here) who drew a conclusion prematurely were the dumb ones, not the smart ones. Reminds me a little of the Stanley -Millgram experiment, many people will just follow something because a man in a white coat, or in authority says so. This paper has got political convenience written all over it.
Honestly, Cook is a crock, history won’t treat him kindly. I don’t know what to make of the journal that published this tripe.
The damage is done. There will be no equivalent fanfare when this ‘paper’ gets balled up and thrown in the direction of the waste basket as there was when it was prestidigitated.
The search should have been for papers containing the word climate and included only those whose entire content could be parsed cost free.
There is a reason the ‘warmists’ will not debate the facts concerning the most basic analysis and fundamental issues concerning the AGW theory: Lukewarm AGW Vs Dangerous AGW: They would lose that debate.
Rather than have a scientific debate that defines the key issues, that requires observational data to support positions, this paper appeals to the parsing of wording in the abstracts of papers (the parsing of the wording is done by a biased person) to support some vague position. The paper that alleges consensus is a pathetic attempt by the warmists to distract the conversation from the key issues. Data and analysis does not support the extreme AGW position.
The warmists and many media sources are trying to push any warming (a single hot month, a single storm) as evidence of dangerous warming.
The following are some of the key issues and observations that the warmists will not debate and are trying to hide:
1) The 20th century warming is not statistically significant (i.e. there has been other periods of warming and cooling in the recent human history post 1850 that is similar to the 20th century.) As we are aware, the MET will not when formally asked to quantify the scientific significant of the 20th century warming: respond with a quantified answer; as the temperature data does not support the warmist position.
2) The latitudinal pattern of warming does not match that predicted by the AGW theory. (There is too much observed warming in the Northern Hemisphere ex-tropics. There is hardly any warming in the tropics.) See paper link to below to back up that claim.) That fact indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has caused by something else than CO2. Hint solar modulation of clouds. No one is even discussing this observation.
3) Even if 100% of the warming was caused by CO2, the amount of observed warming is significantly less than what is predicted by the general circulation models (See link below). The most recent warmist’s response is the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. (No one has noticed that if there is mixing of surface water with deep water that will significant reduce/cap the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2. Is there no end to the problems for the warmists?)
4) There is no tropical tropospheric warming. The IPCC general circulation models predict that the most warming on the planet should be at around 8K above the surface of the planet in the tropics. This predicted warming amplifies the CO2 forcing and is due to additional water vapor in the atmosphere. 20 years of measurement by satellites and over a 100,000 weather balloons supports the assertion that there is no tropical tropospheric warming. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis (2009 and 2011 papers) shows that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. That result explains why there is no tropical tropospheric warming and explains why there is almost no long term warming of the tropics.
5) A 1000 years ago it was as warm or warmer than current temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 did not cause that warming. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record. The cycles of warming and cooling are not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. There is no explanation for past cyclic warming and cooling that matches the pattern of the 20th century warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tropic53.gif
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/26/tropical-troposphere/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
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
There probably shouldn’t be any surprise that 97% of climate change scientists, or scientists which publish papers on climate change, have a consensus that they agree that AGW is THE explanation. If a similar survey was made of papers on a monotheism religion – Christian, Islam and Judaism – it would be a fair bet to say that there would be greater than 97% consensus that there was one god. There would be a lot of others that would disagree but amongst the believers there would be a very high agreement. Separating dogma, faith and facts has always been, and will probably always will be, a very prickly pear.
Dealing with opinions expressed almost a quarter of a century ago is hardly a way to estimate current consensus claims. The Climatology world has changed enormously, and so have the
opinions of climatologists.
Last week on the Guardian I said I was baffled as to why the Cook paper was necessary if their ‘science’ was so strong and we already had the 97% in place. Of course the reasons are the crumbling consensus, lack of warming, a stream of recent climate sensitivity papers, government hesitancy / U-turns over green energy, the return of freezing winters to Europe etc.
Hailing retraction watch. The Cook paper clearly illustrates the manipulations that are part and parcel of climate science.
Henry Galt says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:05 am
The damage is done. There will be no equivalent fanfare when this ‘paper’ gets balled up and thrown in the direction of the waste basket as there was when it was prestidigitated.
==================
Agreed. I can look forward to having this ‘peer reviewed paper’ thrown in my face for years by the ‘cocktail party AGW advocates who automatically classify me as a ‘right wing ignorant nutball’ as soon as I mention anything that goes against the orthodoxy (that being that dirty Republicans are ‘for pollution’ and are mainly responsible for the lack of inaction to ‘save the planet from CO2 pollution). These folks are NOT interested in hearing anything that might make them have to think about the orthodoxy. It is so much easier to simply accept and repeat the party line. They are wholly uninterested in facts or truth.
Bill Marsh, you are correct. And when I make any attempt to explain how the 96% or 97% ‘consensus’ was arrived at, ie to demonstrate it’s falsity, eyes glaze over: it doesn’t fit with what people want to hear.
It’s the environmental and science correspondents of the MSM I blame for this false public perception: they make no attempt to question what they are spoon-fed by climate ‘scientists’ ie propogandists for AGW. They make no effort to master the scientific and statistical basics they need to understand what they are being told. They fail to familiarise themselves with scientific method, which leads them to take amateurs (self-proclaimed ‘experts’) like John Cook or William Connolly seriously. And so they continue to spout rubbish in their papers to an uninformed public, which looking to them and is largely dependent on them, for information. Teachers read their papers and force-feed their pupils with their rubbish. Shame on them all.
THIS is what they should be reading, and following up on – how many alarm bells like these need to ring, before they start to research in depth on what they are fed?
Quote from above:
“Is this an accurate representation of your paper?”
“Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon
“No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin
Cook’s mum should tell him to stop hanging out with Lewandowski – the man’s a bad influence..
It was written to perpetuate the 97% lie and is serving that purpose. Read the op-ed by Eugine Robinson in the Washington Post “Obama’s Mission on Climate Change”
If the authors corrections to their paper classification was ice, we would have a real problem with accelerating sea level rising!
Let’s assume for the moment that Cook et all has good intentions. They really were trying to assess the consensus. What we are seeing is the effect of researcher bias. There’s no doubt Cook and his minions are biased and now we get to see just how much that bias has affected their research.
Now, if they had an intelligent bone in their bodies they would realize this same type of bias has been infecting 97% of the scientists that support AGW. That includes the researchers that have been adjusting temperature data and defining sensitivity.
What Richard M says:
May 28, 2013 at 8:16 am
With great big bells on …
I think they were right to leave out review articles as most of these would not take a position one way or the other. Also many review articles will not have an abstract (as I recall) and thus could not have been used anyway.
Bill_W, review articles do not take a position one way or the other and do not have abstracts? Really?
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science
That is amazing news.
My question is …. as we go into 20 or 30 years of cooling tempatures, are people like Cook and places like “skepticalscience” and “realclimate” just going to dissapear like puffs of smoke? At a certain point you are just never going to hear from them again?
If it does indeed get cooler. (see how that’s done, alarmists?)
Dana Nuccitelli responds to criticism of the Cook et al survey in The Guardian today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
Interesting to note that he refuses to cite WUWT directly, using webcitation.org to divert traffic, yet repeatedly cites links to Skeptical Science, which has been proven to be an unreliable source.
Once you have moved to a discussion of the data, analyses of the data, and which conclusions are to be drawn from it, consensus becomes irrelevant. If you argue, “As you can see from pionts A, B and C, it follows that D. But D entails that E. QED,” it doesn’t make sense for your interlocutor to say, “But most experts don’t believe that E.” At that point, since you have provided a case for E, the consensus that E is false is irrelevant.
So, if you provide an argument based on data and your interlocutor says, “Oh, yeah? Well whom should I believe, you or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?” then you are warranted in pointing out, “At this point, we’ve moved to the data and I have given a case for what the data shows. If you can’t address that case, then just admit that. But citing consensus against my conclusion is irrelevant once we’re analyzing the evidence.”
Consensus has only two epistemic uses. First, for those who do not have the wherewithal to understand the data pertaining to a certain question, they must fall back on the consensus of the experts, place their bets and take their chances. There’s nothing wrong with that. We can’t be experts in everything. I have to rely on the opinions of ancient Greek historians and nuclear physicists to navigate those fields because I am too ignorant to do otherwise. (Of course, since I can’t trust them entirely I must use caution.)
The second use of consensus is in observation. If a scientist is unsure of what he thinks he’s observing – it’s too surprising, say – he may enlist others to repeat the experiment and compare observations. If there is consensus about the observation, then this counts in favor of it. Human sensory apparatus isn’t perfect and repeatability across many observers weeds out many of the foibles and bolsters the case that an observation is correct. But observation should not be confused with analyses based on it. If you have provided an analysis based on observational data, your analysis’s not having been repeated by others is irrelevant. if they disagree with your analysis’s conclusion, then they need to refute your analysis. Repetition of analysis is irrelevant.
I’m just saying.
Duke C,
Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.
@Poptech
That’s not true (at least at this moment). Could it be you didn’t abide by the community guidelines? And I believe the Guardian has it’s own moderation crew.
Plain Richard, all of my new comments are not showing up and various one have been censored so unless posting CVs of scientists is against their community rules then no.
Richard, did you miss this? “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
Do you really think I cannot reply to Dana’s comments? I have tried posting comments ten times now and none of them are going through.
Oh well censorship is the only way they can win a debate.,