Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.
While I admit to being quite surprised they’d allow him equal time, I doubt he’ll win any converts as much of the readership thinks 97% consensus is a fact, and they don’t really want to hear anything different. Tol writes:
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless.
…
Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.
At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.
Read Tol’s essay here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
I find it somewhat ironic that someone who keeps saying that consensus doesn’t matter keeps pointing to a survey to show that there exists a consensus.
I really don’t follow the blog wars closely enough to be obsessed with the OISM petition. I see they did *new* one, the better part of a decade ago. Very few domain experts in there. I will stick with what the experts are saying. Again, try the IPCC AR5 WG1, WG2, WG3 and the thrird US National Climate Assessment for starters. Unless you believe there is a giant conspiracy amongst the scientists preparing these reports… oh wait, let me guess… you do believe that? Well, then, you stick with your feisty band of truth defenders at OISM, then. Me, I will stick with what the domain experts are conclusively saying.
By the way, dbstealey, I had a rather extensive post up that touched on Tol’s math error. Probably an hour or two ago. Anybody seen that post around?
Anyway, gotta go to dinner. best, rust
p.s. Anthony had asked me a question about the data needed for replication of Cook et al (2013), and the info like raterid’s, that was withheld. I may come back later with a fun story of how the efforts of Anthony and Richard Tol conspired to, regrettably, prevent much of that from being released. Own goal.
REPLY: Why not show your cards now Mr. Morrison? If your plan is to argue that because of the many different letters and essays that were written on the subject of Cook’s failures and fabrications has caused them the be reticent to release scientific data to allow replication, then I don’t think that will fly. There’s never any excuse for real scientists to withhold data that allows others to replicate or verify a premise.
But if you are a propagandist, then yes, withholding is an important part of the process lest they be caught out. I see from your Facebook page that you are a big cheerleader for the 97% consensus. If you believe it so much, why are you in the corner of preventing replication? Or is it that you yourself, hiding behind fake names and offering nothing substantive other than taunts, are a propagandist yourself? – Anthony
These two defenders of the consensus believe they have it nailed down.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming?commentpage=1
Fergus Brown 07 June 2014 8:37pm
…..” I also got a 97% result. Are you claiming I concocted my work?”
Tremelo 07 June 2014 8:40pm
“Why do you disbelieve there is a consensus when even Richard Tol says “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role”.
rustneversleeps says:
June 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm
__________________
Do you also comment here under the nom de plume. magma? There is a stylistic similarity in your words.
I repeat:
The interesting thing is that Richard Tol got to speak at the Guardian.
He could have been ignored and the easily swayed Guardianistas (like myself) would never have known there was reason to doubt the 97% – near – certainty about the evilness of AGW doubt.
Why try to beat them if they are offering not to fight?
Alan Robertson says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:16 pm
rustneversleeps … Do you also comment here under the nom de plume. magma? There is a stylistic similarity in your words.
_______________________________________
No. rustneversleeps is the nom de plume. I’m pretty sure my real name was highlighted on the other Tol thread. In dbstealey’s taxonomy, probably just a “nobody”.
When “the consensus” is softly defined enough to result in a 97% measure of it among working scientists, about 97% of climate model skeptics are also swept into the tent where indeed humans are responsible for *some* amount of enhanced warming, so the entire exercise is ridiculous.
From Cook’s abstract: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
What it does *not* claim is that 97.1% endorse climate *alarm*.
He goes on: “Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening….”
But nobody except climate “scientists” claim that climate doesn’t change naturally or isn’t changing naturally now. Not a single person on this planet claims that climate change is not happening, any more than you might find a person to claim that the seasons do not change or that cats do not meow.
Yet rustneversleeps takes this drivel seriously enough to become an activist about it in *support* of it? Well, certainly propogranda requires activism I guess, to create enough confusion amongst the already converted not to suddenly question it.
Dr. Tol was also immediately able to spot how Cook used the bizarre boutique search term “global climate change” instead of the standard terms of “global warming” or “climate change” in his abstract selection search, thus tossing out the vast majority of climate papers.
The scam here is sociological, in that a false dichotomy is willfully created that is known to be deceptive, namely it slanders skeptics of the highly amplified version of the greenhouse effect as being deniers of the mild and beneficial old school textbook greenhouse effect itself, as if CO2 had zero influence on climate. That may well be so, due to negative feedbacks, but in the main the whole hockey stick team and the associated “tree house club” of SkepticalScience.com are very well aware that only a tiny fraction (about 3% indeed) of skeptics in maverick fashion construct paper tiger attacks on the greenhouse effect itself, on its warming *influence*.
Exactly what question did Cook ask the climatologists in order to rate their paper abstracts? Was it the IPCC definition of attribution that at least half of recent warming is due to man? No, that was *not* the question, was it? In a paper that uses the word “consensus” 24 times, the term is not even defined.
For his truly alarmist ranking of category 1 of “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming,” he found a mere 0.3% of a “consensus,” as the peer reviewed debunking of it demonstrated, but Cook’s paper deceptively combined with a much softer category that even included “implicit” endorsement in which the subject of the paper alone, without stating it at all, *assumes* man is causing warming (yes, but how much, and how can potentially *natural* warming be classified by Cook as being assumed to be man made instead?):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
In the era of Internet access, it’s funny to watch the melt down of would be propagandists, when real facts are free to publish. Today, rustneversleeps has motivated me to learn more about Cook’s deception so that I can better address it in the future. Defending slander against sincere critics of supercomputer model assumptions is shamefully immoral and amount to fraud to the extent that grant money is involved to academics and green economy crony capitalists, and I intend to help it all go the way of Enron who invented carbon trading in the first place.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
Dbstealey clings to the idea that science is not done by consensus but it is done by petition. That’s a good joke. Made better by the signature of Geraldine Halliwell PhD.
Tol’s particular shark is contained here:” Science is not a set of results. Science is a method.” So it doesn’t actually matter what the result is, it’s all about doing it right. So the forthcoming soccer World Cup will not be decided by the number of goals scored but the quality of the passing. The counting of sunspots, the measurement of temperatures, there is no point in Tol’s world. Except, of course, he is wrong about the results bit.
Guardian contributor
DanaNuccitelli > Smith1867
06 June 2014 8:07pm
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.
_______________________
jajajaja
kylezachary says:
June 7, 2014 at 10:23 am
“…Someone give us a number. Stop researching how the other guy did it and let’s make our own and one that is done objectively and cannot be dismissed. As a fellow skeptic, give me a real number or drop it.”
========
Kyle, you are demanding the right answer to the wrong question. We need good science, not better surveys. Real skeptics know this. Surveys generally only indicate the effectiveness of the propaganda. And “dropping it” leaves the propaganda unchallenged. The skeptical approach will win in the end: show the errors and machinations in the existing consensus while promoting real science, wherever it leads.
this is a fake fight. it’s the Delphi Technique. tol is here to close on Da Synthesis.
cook says 97, tol says 95 – and it just has zero relevance but it keeps the bull chasing the cape.
these guys are stupid but look how they outsmart their enemies.
what’s that tell ya?
@ur momisugly Don says:
June 7, 2014 at 3:08 pm
____________________________________________________________
That’s actually not how “real science” works, Don.
I will quote from a letter of support – signed by a who’s who list of leading climate economists – defending Dr, Frank Ackerman in another unfounded attack/hatchet job by Richard Tol:
“Above all, we urge scholars with criticisms of each other’s work to pursue them through the normal channels of academic debate. If you doubt another researcher’s results, try to replicate the analysis, and then publish your findings. If you don’t like a published article, publish a better one.
“
This is what we are *not* seeing from the “skeptics” of Cook et al’s 2013 consensus paper – a legitimate attempt at replication. Instead, it is just flailing slur after unsubstantiated slur.
Tol himself admits that he can’t be bothered trying to replicate Cook’s study – too much work for old Dickie, and he already realizes the result would show consensus in the high nineties (as he is also on record saying). Instead, he chooses to simply make a “destructive” comment.
But of course, as we see in the Ackerman case, Tol has prior history in choosing not to do replication work in favour of destructive sniping…
Yes, there are times when you need to simply challenge flawed research that makes it through the initial peer review process. For instance, when Dr. Tol mixes up plus and minus signs in his economics research (see Andrew Gelman’s article in the Washington Post last month. Tol blames these embarrassing mistakes on “gremlins” mysteriously messing with his spreadsheets…)
I will note that I had an extensive post up earlier (one of two or three apparently in moderation) on Tol’s math error, specifically pointing to Neal King’s comment on Tol’s blog showing that people are going to the effort to replicate Tol’s math. And it is wrong. Replication, not just sniping. That’s how it’s done… And it is rather delicious to do so with Tol’s current nonsense paper that our host embarrassingly keeps bringing to his readers’ attention….
Mmm! Let me see now, Mother Nature versus a bogus 97% consensus?
Eamon.
What does that mean, Eamon.
rustneversleeps says:
June 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“What does that mean, Eamon.”
That means it’s not warming. Tol vs. Nuccitelli is irrelevant. Warmist vs. Warmist. Who cares.
M Courtney says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:20 pm
“I repeat:
The interesting thing is that Richard Tol got to speak at the Guardian. ”
That means that warmism is no longer key to the regime’s strategy. Regime too busy now with fighting for financial survival. (Guardian = Regime propaganda outlet)
As Rustneversleeps shows, those who believe 97% in global warming are incapable of being objective about any climate data or climate research results whatsoever.
They just believe and they need need to repeat each morning three times when they wake up …
… Global warming is real …
… It is happening now …
… And it is caused by humans…
… scientists agree 97% that this is the case…
… We want climate justice now.
Repeat three times.
Quite cultish and creepy in my opinion.
I particularly like the bit where Tol says “There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.”
His words not mine.
rustneversleeps says:
June 7, 2014 at 3:51 pm
————–
“Tol’s blog showing that people are going to the effort to replicate Tol’s math. And it is wrong. Replication, not just sniping.”
a) Replicating math calcs is not comparable to replicating data collection
b) Ever heard of Steve McIntyre? He’s done a fair share of math replication too. Not much in the way of tree ring data collection though.
Not being a scientist, I’m unclear on the hurdles behind data collection. I thought Tol would do far more. But, the methodology of this study is flawed anyway, so I’m not even sure what replication proves. Hey, people that write articles about baseball….like baseball, hurrah!
gnomish, +1
Siberian_husky says:
June 7, 2014 at 5:33 pm
I particularly like the bit where Tol says “There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.”
His words not mine.
__________________
Ok. Climate change is real. How much is human made? Pre- 1950 and since then? Do you just mean climate warming, or any kind of climate change?
rustneversleeps says:
June 7, 2014 at 3:51 pm
If you doubt another researcher’s results, try to replicate the analysis, and then publish your findings. If you don’t like a published article, publish a better one.
“
This is what we are *not* seeing from the “skeptics” of Cook et al’s 2013 consensus paper – a legitimate attempt at replication. Instead, it is just flailing slur after unsubstantiated slur.
________________________
Seems like there was a recent kerfluffle about Cook not releasing substantial parts of his research, which precludes replication, etc. Seems like others have mentioned that to you, as well. What do you think about that?
Rust, Go back and read your link. Of the authors that wrote a paper supporting AGW (32.6% of the publications) 97.1 support AGW. Without even having to go through Tol’s paper or anyone elses, it is clear straight off the top from the beginning the 97% does not hold water/
His follow up question poll was mundane: do you think humans have caused any climate change. Cook posted research that the researchers themselves DO NOT support AGW.
.
Some of the Cook papers and authors that Crook claims support AGW include the following scientists who have been very clear they do NOT support such assumptions
Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlinby, in particular.
.
To call research into debate is not a slur. If it follows scientific method, the findings can be replicated. As a scientist, I am sure you agree with that.
Their great mistake was blaming greenhouse gases, 95% that is water molecules. Then trying to push green energy to save the planet. There are so many variables dictating weather and precipitation patterns. Wind, ocean currents, cosmic rays, position of the sun and our orbit, these forces are so strong we cannot control them. And most of the fresh water is held up in ice, and ground water that is finite if it is tapped too much it will disappear forever. Anyway more should join him or be silenced forever.
“Seems like there was a recent kerfluffle about Cook not releasing substantial parts of his research, which precludes replication, etc”
I have seen comments like this several times, and it is a limited understanding of what is meant by “replication”. Replication is more than just getting someone’s data and checking their arithmetic. You do not needs Cook’s data, in fact you are better off without it. The sceptic community could easily arrange a bit of crowd sourcing and get a bunch of people to rate several thousand papers and do, and publish, their own survey. A proper scientific replication of an experiment is best if you re-investigate the conclusion by independent means, not by just reanalysing what was done before.
There’s a lot of talk on this blog about replicating Cook et al’s analysis. I think that’s a fair call, although whether the figure is 97% or 91%, the conclusion is largely the same- an overwhelming consensus. To read several thousand abstracts and rate them- that’s a lot of work. If you are so concerned about the Cook et al article and the degree of consensus in the scientific community here’s a much easier task for you:
Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming. Given the supposed lack of consensus this will be really easy to do presumably. And when i say “genuine peer reviewed scientific articles” I don’t mean books, websites, the Indian Journal of Dodgy Results or the Exxon/Heartland/CEI we couldnt get this crap published anywhere else so we made up our own journal- but proper respected scientific journals.
What’s that crickets? A series of comments not stepping up to the challenge and instead trying to divert the issue?