A new paper by Dr. Richard Tol published today in ScienceDirect, journal of Energy Policy, shows that the Cook et al. paper claiming that there is a 97% consensus among scientists is not just impossible to reproduce (since Cook is withholding data) but a veritable statistical train wreck rife with bias, classification errors, poor data quality, and inconsistency in the ratings process. The full paper is available below.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
Richard S.J. Tol dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Conclusion and policy implications
The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).
It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration. During that time, electoral fortunes will turn. Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further polarize the climate debate.
Full paper available in plain text here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
And a PDF here:
RustNeverSleeps says ….. By the way, Anthony, those extra ~ 300 papers Tol “found” rejecting the consensus. Care to point us to a few?
Here you go son, heres an extra 1000 to go with it..
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Rustneversleeps,
what is you take on the Cook paper? Is it good? If so, how do you know? Do you have the data and information needed to replicate it? And don’t expect us to take your word for it, step up and show us!
BTW, I haven’t read Tol’s paper and I thus don’t vouch for it. It may be flawed. That does not make the Cook paper good.
Can someone explain to me why no one has just gone to a climate conference or something and taken a survey?
“Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statement (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree):
‘The current crop of climate models are reliable.'”
I don’t know why so much angst and effort is going in to this 97% stuff. The premise was incorrectly posed , and the result is just GIGO. The question is not ‘whether’ man’s activities contribute to a warming of the globe. I am sure a large majority of scientists, maybe 97% for all I know, would agree they are. So what! The relevant questions are ‘how much’ and ‘how rapidly’? Increasingly, the answers to those questions appear to be ‘not much’ and ‘quite slowly’. Whether on the scale of a generation or two, this will overwhelm natural variations is a moot point. So we should continue to research this, at a moderate and Inextravagant level, and be prepared to adopt mitigation processes if things start to get out of hand. And we should use energy efficiently and effectively, and adopt energy efficiencies as it is established they work.
@sebastian
‘reliable’ is too broad. Replace it with ‘skillful’.
Tol cannot say otherwise re AGW he would lose his job. Still this posting is feeding warmist trolls, Why cant we admit that sooner or later we will all have to face the fact that there is NO AGW
Oops….it appears my comment may have ended up in the spam-bin. Mods can you please check.
TIA.
How hard is it to canvass physical scientists at the world’s top 50 universities and ask:
1) is man the primary driver of climate change
2) is climate change a) benign, b) worrying or c) catastrophic
Publish the answers along with underlying data of how many were asked and how many responded.
Done.
Theo Goodwin says:
“June 4, 2014 at 7:38 pm
rustneversleeps says:
June 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm
If you have criticisms of Tol’s math, why are you not stating them? We are here to offer arguments and to respond to arguments. If you offer no specific argument then you will get no response.”
Firstly, Tol corrects it to a 91% consensus which really just reinforces the idea of a strong scientific consensus.
Secondly the maths is bad. 2 people rated each abstract. In the case where the rating differed they went through a 1st reconciliation stage where the raters discussed and tried to agree on a single rating. Tol examined the reconciliation stage and looked at how the papers resolved in this stage were correct. Obviously one of the 2 raters would see their rating changed. Tol created this histogram of how each rating changes.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oKQ82HTCdlA/Uhi4vKWA30I/AAAAAAAADvA/EltZoY1dkqA/s1600/bias.png
Unfortunately he created this histogram across all ratings. So he has lost the important information that in general the reconciliation process moved papers towards a more neutral position. i.e. if a paper endorsed AGW then it was more likely it would be resolved to having no position and visa versa. Papers that rejected AGW were more likely to be resolved to no position.
Richard Tol then took this histogram and applied it to the disputed rating in each category. i.e. a paper rated 2 he assumed had a 50% chance of becoming a 1 or 50% chance of becoming a 3. This is not what is seen in the real data at all. The real data showed reconciliation moved towards the neutral position. If you were to test Tol’s method against the real data for the 1st reconsiliation process it gets it completely wrong.
Tol major error was assuming this histogram applies equally to every rating. This was always going to result in moving papers from high population categories to the extremes.
So not only is this paper reinforcing a scientific consensus the flawed maths allows “rustneversleeps” to argue that skeptics will accept any crap.
Over at Bishops Hill there is a link to a document that apparently debunks Tol written by an anonymous Scientist. I wonder if its Rust Never Sleeps.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/6/5/consensus-collapse.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true
Whenever I talk to alarmists about this and I mention Dr. Tol and his contributions to the IPCC reports, the reply is “Well, what would he know? He’s not a climate scientist. He’s an economist!”
Rusty betrays the old Stalinist mindset so common amongst Warmists who desperately try to control open debate and discussion. His suggestion that this posting and comments might ‘disappear’ because it doesn’t conform to some ideological position simply shows that he doesn’t know how WUWT works…things don’t disappear here…that happens over at SS…
but perhaps the simplest way to stop the wrangling would be for Obersturmbannfuhrer Cook himself to step forward with his data, code and method and simply demonstrate how he got to 97%.
Should take but a minute of his time. Put him in the clear and win the argument for the Warmists.
We’ll wait…but we won’t hold our breaths!
“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.”
That’s a guess, the first step in creating a scientific theory. If the paper doesn’t show any further evidence for his guess, his paper is even less significant than Cook et. al., who at least tried to proof their claim
So I can say that with “no doubt in my mind that” climate change would NOT occur if humans were not around? Better definitions and understanding is required. Global warming would be helpful. Climate change has always been happening. There is no doubt in my mind.
Is there a consensus that we were in the Little Ice Age? What has always happened after the numerous little ice ages on Earth?
1910 to 1940 similar rate of global surface temperature rise. What is the consensus on this?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif
I wonder if where Tol’s statement includes There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.
Isn’t that the disclaimer that has to go into every single scientific paper submission these days?
If not, it looks like this paper adds to Cook’s consensus as it supports AGW.
Could be an interesting bun-fight has Tol is far from being a sceptic and Cook like his hero Mann has a universe size ego and is the current ‘hero’ of the cause.
The 97% claim is and always been BS from top to bottom , it’s so poor that fails even a basic maths test.
But is show how much we are not in the area of science but in the one of religion where despite the poor quality of the claim all that matters how important it is in supporting ‘the cause ‘ and if its important it must be defended to the death and dam the facts.
Holy cow Anthony! Words of wisdom from being raised in a digital age. This is the internet, don’t feed the trolls.
Re: Latitude says: June 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Really!
Fresh from the “Cat fight on Capitol Hill” Tol and Cook et al. are now hissing and spitting at each other about whether “overwhelming” equals “91%” or “97%”:
http://econnexus.org/richard-tol-says-climate-change-is-caused-by-humans/
I have to say, I find it weird to see people criticizing the same things I criticize accept a paper the moment it is published, without any critical analysis, simply because they like its conclusions.
There are a number of issues which, even if you don’t accept are problems, certainly need to be addressed before accepting what this paper says. Section 3.4 is the most obvious. Richard Tol basically just hand-waved away entire categories (mitigation and impacts) because they don’t provide evidence showing the cause of global warming. That’s questionable, at best, as a consensus isn’t about papers showing evidence. It’s about papers showing agreement.
Even if we leave aside Tol’s decision to simply redefine the word consensus, you can’t argue a consensus is meaningless because science is about evidence, not agreement, then go redefine “consensus” as only relating to those papers which provide evidence. You cannot believe both:
At most, you can only pick one.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.”
====================
humans 150 years ago used 4% of the earth’s surface for cities and farming combined. today we use 40%. 40%!! Our cities alone today use 4% of the surface.
Of course we cause climate change. Cut down the forests and replace them with cities and farmland and the local climate will change. Now repeat this over 40% of the earth’s surface and you have changed the climate of the planet.
However, nowhere does this say anything about CO2 causing climate change. No matter how much we reduce CO2, 40% of the earth’s surface has been changed over the past 150 years, and this has changed the climate.
Unless we are willing to turn our cities and farmland back into forests this cannot be changed. No matter how much we reduce CO2.
So, Is Richard Tol yet another CAGW fanatic trying to prove there is an overwhelming 91% consensus that is pro-AGW? I expect his methods and arithmetic are faulty. Perhaps someone will analyse it in detail and tell us the mistakes. Is he a peer of John Cook? I think we should be told.
@fredberple
June 5, 2014 at 6:05 am
“Of course we cause climate change” Yes, probably, but the evidence and a measure of extent is missing. But that’s not the point here: this paper is about the literature on climate change.
“Humans 150 years ago used 4% of the earth’s surface for cities and farming combined. today we use 40%”
As far as I now 71% of earths surface is oceans. Maybe I’m not informed, but as far as I know, there are few cities and farming in the water.
I’ve been thinking of ways to make money off the CAGW money train. I’m thinking of publishing my own study showing a 97% consensus (I thinking an online poll where I discard results if I deem the person unqualified). Then I can become an IPCC hero too.
Ironically rustneversleep has obviously not read Lyberg and Briemer 2008 (chapter 22 here http://joophox.net/papers/SurveyHandbookCRC.pdf ). I am still awaiting some explanation from Tol around the use of “fatigue”, but it is apparent that the SkS comment #15 isn’t just poor English, rather the usual misinformation.