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.
@Poptech
I don’t know about new replies, maybe you have been blocked. But what you said
“Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.”
was simply not true while there are comments by you being displayed at this time (and some that are moderated, yes, which you allude to in your second answer to me).
Postings of long CVs of scientists with hardly any accompanying context may be considered spam-like (this is a guess).
Dana has been pushed. Check out his latest in the Guardian. Sceptics have clearly rattled him.
Plain Richard, what I said was completely true, as ‘all’ referred to anything new I tried to post since that time as I cannot post a single new comment. Do you find this acceptable?
I did not post anything without additional text. Please stop making excuses for blatant censorship.
Jimbo, Dana is now censoring all of my comments to that article so he can pretend I cannot respond to his comments.
“The climate change literature comprises well over hundred thousand articles and books.”
Man, I though 12,444 were a number beyond belief! 100,000+ – what a sea of sludge to sort through to find pearls. How can more than 1% of it have had a useful premise to explore on one subject. How is it we haven’t even begun to get enough understanding of the subject with a blitz like this over only a couple of decades? I’ve accepted the dumbing down but didn’t know they were so prolific. Trillions wasted – how did they expect this to continue. This alone would have to have put an end to it soon. How are we going to clean up our libraries. How many journals are there? I’m sorry, I lost the thread of this post. I’ll recover eventually
@Poptech
Come on! Nothing wrong with admitting you were a bit over melodramatic with
“Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.”
‘Hardly any accompanying context’ is not the same as ‘without additional context’!
Plain Richard,
That is what the Guardian does. I have responded numerous times to people but most don’t see the light of day. Here is a reply I made to on guy who wrote a piece in the Huffington Post and put it up on the Guardian. Let’s hope this reply makes it through.
———
@Elliott Negin –
In your piece for Huffington Post I read the title and it said:
Therefore since you seem to think that fossil fuel funding calls into question various groups aims then I have a number of straight forward questions for you.
Are the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project results climate misinformation? It was partly funded by Koch.
Does the Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project spread climate misinformation? It received funding from Exxon.
Is the Climate Research Unite engaged in climate misinformation? They have received funding from BP and Shell and have worked with BP since the late 1970s.
Does the environmentalist group the Sierra Club engage in climate disinformation? They have received funding between 2007 and 2010 from the gas industry and fracking industry interests.
Do I need to go on???
Why do they keep doing this sort of stuff? Do they really think no one will check? I suppose Cook was after the hit-and-run headlines, but seriously, that’s beginning to wear thin and it’s not doing his reputation any good – what’s left of it.
Wouldn’t NOW be a good time for these people to look to a future beyond the AGW joke? They need to start cleaning up their act or they’re going to be unemployable.
Plain Richard, I am not over melodramtic at all. All of my comments are now being censored at the Guardian. I cannot respond to ANY of the replies to my existing comments.
Do you find this type of censorship acceptable?
@Poptech
Take it to the Guardian moderators, discuss it with them why you can’t comment anymore. I know three of your comments have been moderated at least (one of Dana was moderated as well as a consequence).
Btw, you were flooding the thread over there with your complaint that papers were rated falsely, and you got the reply that abstracts had been rated, and paper self-ratings were treated separately. Clear answer, but you couldn’t stop going. Here you illustrate this same behavior of not letting go by telling us that you tried to post comments over there 10 times. It could be the Guardian moderators consider you a troll….
On another point, did you actually read the Cook paper and the guardian blog post from Dana? You behave as the perfect example of scientific denialism that Dana could wish for. Think about it.
Poptech, my comment hasn’t make it through after over half and hour and they say it should appear in a minutes. This is the great game these censors play. They don’t want a debate because they can’t stand the truth.
Plain Richard, please tell me what my comments were in reply to theirs? Oh, wait you cannot see them since because they are being censored. I was not flooding anything, each of my comments were unique.
I am well aware they rated the abstracts but that is an excuse not an argument. Now did they apply this rating to the entire paper? Was that an accurate representation of their paper?
Yes, I read the entire paper and the Guardian article.
Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?
If I am the perfect example then let my comments through so I can be used as this example. I WANT to be such an example. Why are they so afraid to debate me?
@Jimbo
“Here is a reply I made to on guy who wrote a piece in the Huffington Post and put it up on the Guardian.”
Could it have been off-topic? Part of the Guardian’s rule 8 says:
“8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic (“off-topic”) then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. “
@Plain Richard – seems that discussing funding climate research WAS the topic. Pointing out the funding on both sides of the debate is directly relevant.
One has to ask, why are you leading the discussion on a red herring? Unless you are somehow employed by the Guardian, you are in no position to speak from authority. And if you are employed by them, your excuses are wearing thin.
All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.
Looks like the Grauniad will be using SkepSci “moderation”. Anything you post may be deleted, while leaving a pattern to the replies that makes your words appear to have been truly horrendous, ignorant, and/or inflammatory. Check back in a bit, anything remaining may be “edited to conform to community standards”, to the point where passerby will wonder just who that ranting racist religious anti-science ignorant nutter thinks he is, stupid bastard should be banned from all polite logical blogs everywhere and sent back among his own lot.
And going by the comments they’ve allowed stand, complaining they’re not allowing your comments in that muck is like moaning you’re not allowed to wrestle pigs in mud.
@Poptech
As said before, ask the Guardian why you have been banned. And stop putting words in my mouth, which you seem fond of.
“Plain Richard, please tell me what my comments were in reply to theirs? Oh, wait you cannot see them since because they are being censored. I was not flooding anything, each of my comments were unique.”
No, I can’t see comments that don’t appear. Someone decided they moderate a few of your comments and, as you informed me, don’t allow any new comments from you. Why would that be? Giving lengthy CVs of Carlin Idso Scafetta Shaviv and Soon, and Toll as a reply to yourself? Unique? You had that as copy and paste stuff, you have used that before.
Or would it be that you say that Dana falsely classified papers? Though nothing in the Cook paper says they did? Did Dana falsely classify papers in the Guardian blog post? You got an answer. That they rated abstracts and were not 100% correct in that. You should have left it at that I guess and not -as you do here- putting words in people’s mouth “So you believe to know more…” Etc etc… You should check out English libel laws, nr 6 of the Guardian rules, you were quite close (I think at the right side of it still).
Flooding? Well, depends… You were very eager, at least more than dripping!
“I am well aware they rated the abstracts but that is an excuse not an argument. Now did they apply this rating to the entire paper? Was that an accurate representation of their paper?”
Where did anyone involved in the Cook paper say that they rated the paper instead of the abstract? Give me a link! It seems that, ironically, you are misrepresenting the Cook paper when you are accusing the authors of that paper of misrepresenting other papers (and take look at rule 2 of the Guardian).
“Yes, I read the entire paper and the Guardian article.”
So you missed the specific criticism of your blog post in Dana’s article? You could have explained why this criticism was wrong, instead you decided to repeat what you already said in your blog post before…
“Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?”
Afraid? Who? Everybody with an Internet connection (cannot speak for those with statewide censorship, e.g. china, Iran) can read your blog! You are not being censored. The guardian decides what they think acceptable for their site, Anthony decides it here (and occasionally comments are moderated here).
“If I am the perfect example then let my comments through so I can be used as this example. I WANT to be such an example. Why are they so afraid to debate me?”
You want to be the example by which Dana can prove scientific d*******m? You’re serious? I guess that could be an argument with the Guardin moderators: “with my comments I will show that Dana is right and scientific d-stuff is alive and kicking!” That”ll convince ‘m!
Oh yeah, debate means you respond to what others say, not say the same thing you said before.
@Poptech
You seem to be responding to a reply I gave to Jimbo. Whatever…
“All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.”
On topic? In Dana’s article they answered your criticism. Instead of taking that up and answering that answer you repeated what you had said in blogs before. Is that on topic? Not in my definition. Too hard for Dana to respond? He just did, but you did not respond to the response. Pretend you cannot respond? Well, then show us! Respond to Dana’s response, not on the guardian apparently, but you can write smth on your own blog or maybe here.
@Poptech
I see you have added new comments at the Guardian. Did you convince moderators? Still being censored? Nobody daring to debate with you? Care to reconsider some of accusations? Not afraid to being used as a perfect example? Been complaining too soon?
@Jimbo
I see you comment now at the Guardian!
@ur momisugly Plain Richard
Why would they admit in Cook’s paper to falsely classify papers?
So you know why I posted the CVs and in what context?
Did Cook et al. falsely classify the abstracts of the papers I mentioned?
Did Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?
Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?
I did not put words in people’s mouths but asked them a specific question and I could careless about English laws as I do not live there.
Is it scientifically acceptable to misrepresent a paper by only reading the abstract?
Are you on medication?
None of your arguments make any sense if I am supposed to be some poster boy for denialism then it would be in their interests to humiliate me with my posts. What are they so afraid of? Dana can’t even defend his own paper let alone prove a personal attack.
So it is OK for Dana to not answer any questions but just repeat what he said before?
@ur momisugly Plain Richard
Dana’s article was a simply ad hominems and personal attacks and failed to answer any of my criticisms. I correctly claimed that Cook et al. falsely classified papers by falsely rating abstracts. This was further confirmed by their comparisons to the authors self-surveys.
Bad data is bad data.
@ur momisugly Plain Richard
Fascinating how I started complaining here and some of my comments showed up (I submitted enough). The rest are still being moderated and some have been censored. This is still unacceptable as again it looks like I cannot reply to their new comments while mine get held up in moderation.
@Poptech
“Why would they admit in Cook’s paper to falsely classify papers?”
If there is false classification of papers then it is due to false self-ratings of authors.
“So you know why I posted the CVs and in what context?”
Context? No context except for what you have stated in blogposts before. Plain repetition.
“Did Cook et al. falsely classify the abstracts of the papers I mentioned?”
I can’t tell you for all of those but Dana already said on the guardian comment section that they -of course- haven’t got all of them right and gave you an example. What’s your point?
“Did Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?”
That’s exactly the point! You repeat this all the time. I don’t see this in the Cook paper. Tell me where I am wrong.
“Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?”
Who did so? Come on, show me proof!
“I did not put words in people’s mouths dbut asked them a specific question and I could careless about English laws as I do not live there.”
A. “Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.” Not true.
B. “I did not post anything without additional text.” I didn’t say so. “‘Hardly any accompanying context’ is not the same as ‘without additional context’!”
C. “Please stop making excuses for blatant censorship.” I did not do that.
D. “All of my comments are now being censored at the Guardian. I cannot respond to ANY of the replies to my existing comments.” Apparently you can…
E. “Do you find this type of censorship acceptable?” Inserting stupid leading questions, nothing to do with me saying you are wrong that all your comments are being censored!
F. “Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?” Ditto!
G. “All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.” Hilarious!
“Is it scientifically acceptable to misrepresent a paper by only reading the abstract?”
This question doesn’t make sense. Nobody misrepresents a paper by reading an abstract. Of course it is scientific to rate abstracts if you have a clear methodology. Why wouldn’t it be?
“You are not being censored.”
Define censorship…
States versus Internet, domains have their own rules. Don’t like m, express yourself somewhere else. Blabber blah blah
“Are you on medication”
Who cares?
“None of your arguments make any sense if I am supposed to be some poster boy for denialism then it would be in their interests to humiliate me with my posts. What are they so afraid of? Dana can’t even defend his own paper let alone prove a personal attack.
So it is OK for Dana to not answer any questions but just repeat what he said before?”
I said you make yourself the perfect example by simply repeating what you said before and not reacting to what others say. You again put words in my mouth. Your discussion style is lacking to say the least. Remember I only said you were wrong when you said all your posts were deleted. You are the one who tries to escalate things and doesn’t take people for what they say but what you think they might imply. And yes, you appear to be able to play a posterboy at the Guardian. Go ahead and do so! Show m all wrong!
@Poptech
“Dana’s article was a simply ad hominems and personal attacks and failed to answer any of my criticisms. I correctly claimed that Cook et al. falsely classified papers by falsely rating abstracts. This was further confirmed by their comparisons to the authors self-surveys”
Which again shows that you are blocking all criticism. You just keep repeating stuff. End of discussion here. Have a good day!
@Plain Richard
Are you aware that they did not contact every author of every paper for a self-survey?
Are you aware that they only got back 14% of the responses for the authors they did email?
So therefore this has nothing to do with false self-author ratings.
So you don’t know what context I stated the CVs in and are attempting to imply what the context was based on any one of my thousands of other comments? Seriously?
If Cook et al. did not falsely classify the abstracts then are you claiming the scientists I quoted are lying?
Cook explicitly says it in their abstract:
“For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”
Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?
What was the purpose of Cook et al. to apply a rating to the abstracts in their study?
@ur momisugly Plain Richard
Tell me what in the Guardian article was an argument that allows Cook et al. to misrepresent the position of a scientist’s paper.