UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”
Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”
Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.
“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
###
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
================================================================
UPDATE: – Cook and Nuccitelli paper rejected:
Bishop Hill writes:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics
Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal.
– – – – – – –
There is a causal link between both: 1) the non-rational basis of the IPCC’s claim of 95% confidence in significant AGW and; 2) Cook’s (& associates)
integrity challenged work claiming 97% consensus about significant AGW.
Both are pseudo-scientific products of two trends: post-modernism and post-normal science.
John
Quick, Mr. Obama, tweet it.
PippenKool says:
“Dangerous? I thought their point was on AGW not danger.”
Really, are you that credulous? AGW was specifically designed to alarm the populace!
There is no testable, measurable evidence for AGW, but even if it exists, it is not ‘dangerous’. How can it be, when it is too small to even measure?
No, the point of AGW is “danger”. So the government shovels out $Billions to “fight climate change” — a phrase so preposterous that normal, honest scientists give it a big belly laugh.
If the IPCC admitted the truth: that there is no testable, measureable evidence for AGW, and that a degree or two more global warming would be a net benefit, and that more CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere… then where would the money be in that non-scare? The IPCC would have to disband from lack of funding.
AGW may exist, even though it is too small to measure. But that is not the point. The point is grant money, and lots of it. Thus, AGW is the scam of the millennium: more than $100 BILLION handed out in federal grants since 2001.
But don’t worry, we’re already more than half way though 2013. The end is in sight.
– – – – – – – –
mpaul,
That kind of position, which you suggest that Karen Armstrong has, is that any comprehensive philosophy of man must be fundamentally based on religion at the metaphysical level. It says all men by their nature quo man must be religious. It says religion is not a voluntary creation by some men, it is the involuntary mandate within of all men.
That position contains the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Based on your summary she appears to support a myopically biased religious view of man’s fundamental nature. Kant and Plato were just as wrong as her for the same reasons; a belief in the existence of dual realities.
John
PippenKool says: September 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm
“scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.”
Hun?? Dangerous? I thought their point was on AGW not danger.
Ha ha … always love this argument … “We didn’t say it’s dangerous (or catastrophic)!!”
Great, so it’s not a problems after all?!
Do we rename it SMIDRMAGW? (So Mild It Doesn’t Really Matter Anthropogenic Global Warming).
John Whitman, without going too far off topic, its a fascinating subject. The theoretical Physicists David Bohm argued that human consciousnesses is a quantum state, implying that there is entanglement between mind and matter. Imagine, for the moment, that this were true. It would imply that consciousness has a physical schema, and that this schema would (presumably) be common among humans. I am, therefore I think. Fundamental nature = schema.
This is from today’s San Francisco Chronicle. We and PippenKool could mentally masturbate for days (months?) on the exact verbiage:
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Population-growth-increases-climate-fear-4781833.php
What a great example of why the general public know they’re being lied to and, unfortunately, look at modern fake-environmentalism as the scam it is ….
…. and consequently dump their trash wherever they want to dump it.
” People who claim to be non-religious are in fact religious but are simply unaware that their personal belief system has immutable structure. ”
NOT!
Aah – the skeptic psychologists are catching on at last: “Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” The circulation of misinformation is a form of Disinformation, which was a key strategy used on a massive scale by the KGB to promote communism (and btw recruit ‘useful idiots’ to their cause) during the Cold War. Folk like Cook are not simply misguided researchers, they are experts at using very sophisticated disinformation techniques, originally developed and honed by geniuses such as those in the KGB, to ‘circulate misinformation calculated to mislead’. Criticising them for the quality of their academic work is likely to be a waste of time, because such folk care nothing about the discipline, it is just a means to a greater but hidden end – probably the destruction of our way of life, in favour of god knows what.
BoyfromTottenham says:
September 3, 2013 at 9:05 pm
…… because such folk care nothing about the discipline, it is just a means to a greater but hidden end – probably the destruction of our way of life, in favour of god knows what.
—————————-
….. a paycheck from the current government ?
What goes around comes around…
Will Obama issue a retraction?
But the point made in Obama’s supposed tweet was danger. Here’s the context from the head post:
I think some comments are offensive & not to be discussed per WUWT policy. Willis Eschenbach has lost (not the he cares or it matters) my respect. You don’t believe in God? (There is a place for nonbelievers) That’s fine and you have that right. To ridicule those who do is is disgusting.
For starters, why would an omnipotent being give a damn what I wanted?
Because he loves you. If you weren’t so mondo goofy you would know that.
My apologies if the HTML is messed up (preview comment button not on here) & for discussing religion.
@Jimbo
No, Tol has given up hope that the data will ever be released. To be clear: My analysis uses a good bit more data than that of Legates et al.; but still only 43% of what I asked for and what is needed for a complete forensic analysis.
My final appeal to the University of Queensland is still outstanding. It was posted here last week. My final appeal to the Institute of Physics was rejected with an ever so polite letter saying that they don’t give a rat’s arse about replication and quality control. (Anthony has the correspondence, may post later.)
I’m putting the finishing touches on the analysis of the data that Cook released in mid August. Main findings:
1. Cook implicitly acknowledges that about 7% of his data are measured incorrectly. (Monckton begs to differ; see above). It appears that these are not errors (in either direction) but biases (in one particular direction).
2. There is systematic drift in measurement, much like measuring temperature in a pristine white box first and in weathered box green with moss later.
Peter Ward:
Something you said in your post at September 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm provides a good example of how unthinking acceptance of consensus misleads.
You said
Speed does not kill. Stopping fast kills. And being hit by something fast kills.
So, reducing speed limits may be a good way to reduce accidental deaths, but something else may be better.
Consideration of whether or not accident deaths would be most reduced by reducing speed limits is inhibited by accepting the consensus that “speed kills”. The consensus rejects the possibility of considering other – perhaps more effective – options.
Richard
Jeff Alberts:
Your post at September 3, 2013 at 8:44 pm says in total
If what you refute were true, then how could anyone – including you – know if your refutation were right or wrong?
Richard
richardscourtney says: September 4, 2013 at 12:40 am
Jeff Alberts: Your post at September 3, 2013 at 8:44 pm says in total
People who claim to be non-religious are in fact religious but are simply unaware that their personal belief system has immutable structure.
NOT!
If what you refute were true, then how could anyone – including you – know if your refutation were right or wrong? Richard
I’m emphatically with Jeff on this one. As far as the “People who claim to be non-religious are in fact religious…” bit goes.
But does anyone know what “People who claim to be non-religious are in fact religious but are simply unaware that their personal belief system has immutable structure” means? I’m pretty sure I can’t envisage or imagine a god, or a logical reason that one should exist, and I would think that my belief along those lines is immutable.
And so what is the point of telling me my personal belief system ‘has immutable structure’ – ie, is ‘unchanging over time or unable to be changed.’?
Clyde says: September 3, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I think some comments are offensive & not to be discussed per WUWT policy. Willis Eschenbach has lost (not the he cares or it matters) my respect. You don’t believe in God? (There is a place for nonbelievers) That’s fine and you have that right. To ridicule those who do is is disgusting.
“For starters, why would an omnipotent being give a damn what I wanted?”
Because he loves you. If you weren’t so mondo goofy you would know that.
You are offended because someone does not share your quirky unsubstantiated beliefs, and puts up a logical practical statement of opinion?
And you counter with that which has been preached to you, quite likely by priests or ministers who do not follow the rules they espouse in their own sermons, and who apparently have little fear of the disapproval of the god they purport to believe in?
” richard telford says:
September 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
Shock news: gravity consensus in doubt as only 0.3% of papers with gravity in title explicitly endorse gravity as being responsible for more than 50% of falling.”
Nice strawman, but comparing apples to desk chairs will not make your point valid.
You see, the big difference is, the theory of gravity is replicated and supported by evidence derived from millions of observations and experiments.
The hypothesis that the earth will warm by > 2 degrees C by doubling atmospheric CO2 is not supported by evidence derived from observation or experimentation. It is only expressed by models which are designed from the outset to show that result. And, in case it slipped your notice, NONE of the climate models have been correct in their predictions of 21st century temperature trends. NONE of them.
The hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, and no, models are NOT evidence, they are an extrapolation, or demonstration, or depiction, explanation, or simply, a model of the hypothesis, they are not a test of it.
markx:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at September 4, 2013 at 1:12 am and also to your subsequent post addressed to Clyde at September 4, 2013 at 1:19 am.
It is clear that you failed to understand the point I tried to make in my post at September 4, 2013 at 12:40 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#comment-1407359
If you had understood the point then you would have addressed my question and discovered it cannot be answered.
So, I will be explicit.
Discussion of religion is pointless in a forum such as this. It wastes space and deflects threads from their subject.
Importantly, it hinders understanding and, instead, bolsters entrenched views.
The only pertinent issue is how and why people have belief systems which are exhibited as religions. Religions include the cult of AGW, Christianity, atheism, etc.
(And please don’t try to engage in the nonsense that atheism is not a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion, but atheism is a belief in exactly the same way that theism is a belief.)
The pertinent issue is important to this thread because it is directly relevant to why people like Cook commit acts such as the paper under discussion, why Gleick can convince himself that theft, forgery and defamation are “ethical”, etc..,
Richard
For those of you who like stinging rejections of over-hyped nonsense, here it is:
In other words, keep your political bloviation out of my scientific journal. Write some science if you want me to consider publishing it. Send it to a theological journal or a sociology symposium. Or anywhere but here.
But if Cook, Nuccitelli and Benestad did that, they’d lose their edge as preachers of apocalyptic doom condemning heretics….as the hell-bound-damned-scofflaws that we are.
Remember this is where the actual science is supposed to be located.
In other words, your argumentation is simply wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong analysis, wrong treatment, worthless conclusions
This is a fair point, but it goes both ways: the supposed statistical correlation between CO2 and climate change is reversed. CO2 is a delayed response, not a driver as can been seen in ice cores stretching back hundreds of thousands of years into the past.
@ur momisugly mpaul
Some psychology refers to it as “mythic membership”, where one joins the group and buys into its myths. It is basically pre-modern, it creates a community, but it is Us v Them.
Some say Western civilisation inherited a monotheistic system, basically, One True Way, and so for many, we still have this pattern, where their judgements are still black and white, “good” v “bad”. When an environmentalist explains to me that it doesn’t matter if CO2 isn’t a problem, because it is really “about reducing greed”, I wonder about this. People can be “atheist” but their thinking is still this simpler “good v bad” judgment.
Crichton of course explained that the planet is an amazingly complex system, and that even the medical model of what goes on inside a living cell dwarfs the complexity of the planet models. So actually, mythic-membership environmentalists, you know, the ones who shout “denier” at anyone who doesn’t share their thinking, these mythic-membership people are the last ones to be able to save the planet. The problems are above their heads. Actually it is probably above most people’s heads, but many have the good sense to know not to mess with things they don’t understand, or to limit their claims to what they can actually demonstrate.
John A:
Your post at September 4, 2013 at 3:05 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#comment-1407442
is excellent!
I write to draw attention to it, and I thank you for providing it.
Richard
“I have never personally bought into the CAGW hype precisely because of my faith; believing that God designed His creation to be flexible enough to withstand whatever it needed to.”
Not a good reason, sir. By your “logic,” we can’t harm the natural world, which is on the face of it absurd. I’m a skeptic, but 10 years ago I was not. Part of what kept me on board was a broadcast by Rush L. in which he made the same claim. Utter tripe.