In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show that Cook et al. 2013 was little more than a marketing ploy under the guise of peer reviewed science.
At least one commenter on the SkS forum thought this “cart before the horse” marketing discussion was strange:
“I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).” – Ari Jokimäki
read the whole story here: Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed
Meanwhile, Richard Tol continues to find errors in the paper data and methodology. Probably time to place your bets for retraction by the journal.
Don’t get out much, eh, Ryan?
You assert that there is a consensus about the consensus about the reality of global warming. Perhaps it’s consensuses all the way down, eh? Feels real good here in this consensus! Fashionable and hip and all those good things!
If Koolaid helps one to think clearly and independently, as a majority of folks here do, perhaps you should try some yourself. You could start with the Sour Grape flavor.
Given the number the number of posts necessary, it appears not that easy to exorcise the 97% demon…
“A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” Martin Luther King
Ryan says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:30 pm
I think they had a good idea of the results beforehand because everyone who isn’t drinking the Koolaid knows that the consensus about global warming is very real. No real mystery, except in the land of CO2-rise-might-be-natural.
>>>>>>>>>
WOW….
(They will never lose their fear of CO2. Imagine their nightmares–molecules of CO2, with chainsaws, and tentacles, and three eyes…..)
Latimer Alder says | June 4, 2013 at 2:06 pm :
Cook says, “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus.”
——————
“Perceived” is the magic word … they concede that the “consensus” is an illusion … just like their perception of science, illusionary.
Cook’s work may be a crap piece of research, but it is certainly being milked for all it’s worth by the Guardian and others. So he is not so stupid after all and any subsequent retraction will as usual not be reported.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/16/climate-research-nearly-unanimous-humans-causes
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/02/facts-need-backing-up
Since the prominent “technical” skeptics, Watts, Mcintyre and many others follow the meme….”let’s talk science” the 97% crapola will never leave the public forum. It isn’t based on science to begin with, it’s a political posture. Most measuring their responses to the contrived “consensus” are cut from very similar academic and political left cloth, it should be no surprise if fudging climate fear for the “greater good” of the environment or having hacks like Cook conjure reports are standard procedures. So Morano and Delingpole get to do the heavy lifting about AGW motives and are falsely marginalized while technocrat skeptics express their disdain of “politics”.
Why many skeptics behave this way is more interesting a discussion that trashing the idiotic 97% consensus claim. Why is the green science left exempt from public scrutiny of its politics in the first place? The motives to the informed of the AGW movement are rather obvious politically yet time and again they will be ignored or minimized in discussions and public statements. Euphemisms such as “activism” are thrown about that have little context to many in the public. It’s all a rather gutless adherence to political correctness that is well represented in AGW advocacy.
If you accept logic and know AGW and “consensus” are driven by deep left-wing desires to control, central plan, regulate and have corrupted the science for that reason you should stand out and up and include that in your message even if you share related beliefs or politics. The current skeptic orthodoxy of political minimization enables AGW advocacy to thrive. It certainly doesn’t reflect reality.
If the paper is destroyed, I will file a complaint and have the local news media retract their story on it and apologize; they have mislead the public by uncritically mistaking garbage for truth.
Everyone else should do the same.
Contact your local organization for press ethics or similar.
Ryan says:
June 4, 2013 at 4:23 pm
“If the conclusions were foregone, why do the research at all?”
Because there are a lot of people motivated to lie about it, forestalling progress addressing one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.
I agree Ryan – the false science and misrepresentations of the CAGW by CO2 supporters is one of the greatest threats we’ve ever faced. It’s insidious nature perverts both science and politics.
A microcosm for the larger AGW issue being marketed as ‘settled science’ since its inception?
Even if the 97% figure were correct it has no meaning. The true marks of science are, firstly to make novel predictions, and secondly to build on the traditions of the greatest scientists and philosophers of science. Neither is the case. That John Cook massaged the figures just demonstrates the point. Alarmists have nothing positive to say.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/05/29/three-positive-ways-to-counter-climate-denial/
hilarious piece from New Zealand:
4 June: Dominion Post: Fairfax NZ: Michael Berry: Bill McKibben: Climate expert explains cost of fossil fuel future
A “climate change rockstar” is coming to New Zealand to outline how unsustainable fossil fuels are with cold, hard math…
He is rolling out his “Do The Maths” tour in Auckland, Dunedin and Wellington between June 11 and 13.
Despite Christchurch not making his schedule, former mayor Vicki Buck managed to organise a live stream from the Auckland event on June 11, with 350.org the climate change action advocate that is hosting McKibben’s tour.
She arranged for the live stream to play, free to all, from 7pm at the Jack Mann Auditorium at University of Canterbury through the Unlimited School, which is temporarily based at the university.
Buck writes the climate change blog Celsias.
The voluntary Ministry of Awesome, which she helped set up, is helping spread word of the event in the city.
McKibben was a “rockstar of the climate change world”, albeit an unlikely and quite studious one, she said…
“We’re at the point where we all realise that if we’re going to wait for governments to take action on climate change we’re doomed,” he (McKibben) said
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/8752390/Climate-expert-explains-cost-of-fossil-fuel-future
——————————————————————————–
That is not science. That is advertising. I wonder if he is angling for a new career with the Martin Agency?
“That is not science. That is advertising. ” [Phil Jourdan]
LOL, it sure is. And this video is a reminder of what happens when you emphasize marketing over engineering (probably Cook’s first ad campaign — 97% of the squirrels in the park (oh, yes, he asked all 5 of them) said they’d prefer a Yugo to any other vehicle on the road (they had a better chance of getting out of its way! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaa!)):
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Yugo+TV+commercial&view=detail&mid=FE0A3949753FE2417B33FE0A3949753FE2417B33&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR
Yes, yes, I know you can’t get 97% out of any vote with a population of 5. You can’t and I can’t either…. but Cook “The Books” can!
The secret SkS forum which WUWT wouldn’t cover at the time. Big mistake that one.
REPLY: Perhaps, but I tried to take the high road. Clearly SkS never does, so those days of playing nice with them are over. – Anthony
Gary Hladik says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:10 pm
LOL – thanks for the clip. But how did they get the toaster to pop on queue?
SkS has defended itself by saying that when it has interviewed the authors, they’ve been more alarmist than their papers. That may be so. It would be worth knowing by surveying a random sample of authors–or maybe all of them.
Let’s say such a survey, which might like the earlier 97% surveys to give greater weight to the most frequently published authors on the topic, finds a high level of alarmism, and records their predictions. (Ideally, author’s names could be attached to their predictions–they should be given the option to do so.)
Then let’s say that global warming is a bust; instead, the planet cools for the next five years. That would give contrarians a powerful comeback the next time the consensus card is played–e.g., when it is claimed there is a consensus that the oceans are acidifying in a dangerous way.
So Heartland should toss SkS a few million to conduct such a survey. And WUWT should set up a tip jar for it.
‘ They might as well have printed out the papers and weighed them. The actual content does not seem to matter much.’
the deeply unpopular and carbon taxing australian government was trying to spin a line last year about how good they were, based on the number of bills they had passed. As if sheer volume of new laws were somehow an indicator of quality government!
“Ryan says:
June 4, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Because there are a lot of people motivated to lie about it, forestalling progress addressing one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.”
The only threat is the forestalling of progress for humanity. If you were in any way concerned with emissions of CO2 being a threat, turn off your power guzzling PC, TV and appliances and sell your car (Assuming you have one). Alternatively, I could put you in touch with a few million Africans who’d drop their lifestyle for yours in a heartbeat!
It doesn’t matter if it’s retracted or not. The most important
thing was to get the propaganda meme the global headline
ink.
If it’s retracted, who is going to report it? If only a few find
out, who cares?
The fight is about memetic mindshare.
““I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).” – Ari Jokimäki”
Sounds like Ari is a skeptic who accidentally found SkepticalScience and mistakenly assumed they were skeptics.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
June 4, 2013 at 4:24 pm
“Given the number the number of posts necessary, it appears not that easy to exorcise the 97% demon…”
It was an invalid claim from the start and it was obvious. But your movement has most journalists on its side and repeats lies decades after their invention, like the Gelbspan Big Oil smear which just recently popped up on German environment minister Altmaier’s (a “conservative”!) website “klima sucht schutz”.
So it’s a pretty all pervasive movement of lies. The USSR was built on lies as well and lasted for 60 years.
I like the idea that there are 6000 neutral papers but if people find AGW support in them they should submit the text to SkS via an easy-to-use form. What if people find AGW rejection in them? Is there an equivalent easy-to-use form for that?
No, I didn’t think so…
The trouble is that the media have already bought the 97% meme, hook, line and sinker.
This week I have picked up almost identical quotes in the Mail and Telegraph, saying 97% of 12000 papers, etc etc etc.
I have already complained to the Press Complaints Commission, but it really is like trying to stop the tide.