The Cook ratings document contains some incredible remarks, one of which is documented here. According to it, “the training period in the initial stages of the rating period” covered more than half the ratings they did. What kind of training period covers half of your project?!
Guest post by Brandon Schollenberger
Last month, I highlighted the fact there is quite a bit of disagreement about what the consensus on global warming is. I showed even people who worked together on a project, specifically discussing their disagreements, can’t seem to agree what that consensus is. Since so many people agree there’s a “97% consensus,” but they can’t seem to say what that consensus actually is, I think we should try to help them out.
Tom Curtis, Skeptical Science contributor and one of the 24 participants in the Cook et al study of the “consensus” describes the consensus as:
Endorsement levels 1-3 each endorse anthropogenic factors as causing 50+% of recent warming.
That is, anything classified in one of the three categories labeled “Endorse AGW” is part of a consensus that humans are “causing 50+% of recent warming.” We can confirm this by looking at some examples. Let’s pick examples in the order Cook et al listed them.
There are 49 abstracts placed in category three in the first year covered by the study, 1991. The search page for them displays 25 results at a time. We’ll start on the first page of results for category 3. One paper, Anticipated Public-health Consequences Of Global Climate Change, says this of global warming:
Human activities are placing enormous pressures on the biosphere. The introduction of new chemicals and the increasing ambient levels of existing chemicals have resulted in atmospheric degradation. This paper reviews some of the adverse effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming…. because the atmospheric effects of global warming are less understood, public health problems that could be intensified by climate change are assessed qualitatively.
I definitely see how that paper implies humans are responsible for 50+% of recent warming. I mean, could it be any more clear? It even says “the atmospheric effects of global warming are less understood.” That’s almost as strong as another paper which says:
There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem.
But can you really imagine a more clear way the authors could have stated they believe humans are responsible for 50+% of recent warming than saying people argue it will happen? I guess they could say something like:
As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environmental problems and simultaneously address a number of more pressing developmental imperatives?
But it’s hard to be so forceful in one’s support as to say global warming is a rising “to the top of the international agenda.” What comes after that? Do you go over-the-top and say:
Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flooded rice.
How could you? People would label you a paranoid, alarmist, pinko commie!
I’m kidding, of course. The reality is you can say, “addition of methane to the atmosphere warms the planet,” and nobody will care. Except for Cook et al, that is. They’ll appreciate your statement of support for the 97% consensus humans have caused 50+% of recent warming. After all, when reviewing the first of those two abstracts discussing methane, Sarah Green said:
‘implicated in GW’ is weak endorsement, but mitigation linked to climate = implicit
Andy Skuce’s review of the second methane abstract merely quoted the exact text I did. Because clearly, saying methane is a greenhouse gas indicates endorsement of the idea humans have caused 50+% of recent warming. Just like how Riccardo explained saying “‘decreased risk of global warming’ = Implicit Endorsement.” It’s as clear a statement of support as if you only referred to global warming in a backhanded way in one sentence:
Desirable features include ethanol’s fuel properties as well as benefits with respect to urban air quality, global climate change, balance of trade, and energy security.
Or if you were so confident humans have caused 50+% of recent warming you labeled global warming a “possibility”:
Examines the possibility of global climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The problem can be ameliorated by reducing fossil fuel consumption through conservation and expanded use of nuclear and solar power.
Of course, some people are so confident humans have caused 50+% of recent warming they don’t talk about the past at all, but instead only discuss what people will think in the future:
The information presented should help prepare electric utilities to address future public concerns and the related regulatory pressures regarding the utility’s role in carbon-dioxide proliferation and global warming
I know whenever I look for a consensus on a topic, I don’t look for papers which examine the consensus position. I much prefer papers which just assume it is true and go from there:
Previous studies suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 cm (2 to 7 ft) in the next century. This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States
Of course, some papers don’t even look at the consensus position at all. That’s okay. The only reason someone might look at ways one could reduce greenhouse gas emissions is they are absolutely certain humans have caused 50+% of recent warming:
The paper presents a methodology for comparing the cost-effectiveness of different technical options for the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions
Other people are so certain of the truth of the consensus they feel it’s important to tell us:
While considerable global warming uncertainties remain, limiting the emission of the greenhouse gas, CO2 at minimum cost is a growing social concern.
Of course, the truly confident people are the ones who say humans are responsible for 50+% of recent warming, but:
An analysis of data pertaining to the period 1861–1986 reveals that (1) a 1 °C rise in the mean annual air temperature of the British Isles has historically been associated with a 35% drop in the percentage of days that the United Kingdom has experienced cyclonic flow, and (2) a 2 °C increase in the mean annual air temperature over the sea to the north has typically been matched by a 60% drop in the percentage of days that the isles have experienced cyclonic flow originating from that source region. These findings raise significant questions about the oft-reported claim that CO2-induced global warming will lead to an increase in world storminess.
After all, who would question the consensus on global warming if they questioned the common view of global warming’s effects on storms? That’d just be crazy.
I’m sure there were more examples clearly confirming the consensus on global warming is humans are responsible for 50+% of recent warming. I ignored one of the 25 because it was labeled as not having been peer-reviewed, and I was only skimming the rest. I just wanted to give people a little idea of how clear the consensus position is.
I mean, how much more clear could these papers, published in 1991, be that the consensus on global warming is humans caused 50+% of the recent warming, as of ~2012? How could anyone possibly think the consensus position is merely that the greenhouse effect is real when the people studying this say endorsing the consensus requires going so far as to make bold claims like:
addition of methane to the atmosphere warms the planet
I can’t imagine how they could possibly make the consensus position more clear.
Actually, I can if we jump ahead one year. In 1992, there was the paper, An Improved Process For Converting Cellulose To Ethanol, which clearly endorsed the consensus. The clarity of it was so great John Cook himself felt it important to explain:
‘contributing to global warming’ = Implicit Endorsement
With how clear it is what the “consensus” found by Cook et al was, it’s easy to understand why Cook et al (with a slightly different roster) said this in a ~20 page document responding to a peer-reviewed paper criticizing their work:
C13 classified abstracts of climate science papers based on the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is man-made (AGW, Categories 1–3)
And similarly, why John Cook co-authored a paper last year that said this about their findings:
Cook et al. (2013) examined abstracts for papers published between 1991 and 2011 using the search terms “global warming” and “global climate change” to search the ISI Web of Science database. Of the 4,014 abstracts that expressed a position on the issue of human-induced climate change, Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
And finally, why Dana Nuccitelli recently told people:
the 96-97% consensus is that AGW since 1950 is >50%.
When during the rating process, he said a paper endorsed the consensus because it:
says ‘the CO2 global warming problem’| but doesn’t quantify the CO2 contribution.
It’s so easy to understand, I won’t bother saying it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William said: “Even Spencer and Lucia are among the 97% who agree that humans are probably responsible for the majority (+50.0001%) of the global warming we have experienced. Why are we flogging this 97% study to death it’s pretty much true. What scientists disagree on is whether it matters that the globe will warm by a degree or two.”
what are you talking about? 97% of scientists (climate or otherwise) most certainly do NOT agree that humans are responsible for >50% of global warming. where did you get that idea?
“a large group of people spread across the planet certainly can”
Brandon,
Since you decided to argue an uninteresting point, I’m going to comment further:
OK. Which group of people experienced which Global phenomenon (details please)?
Are you saying everyone (‘global’) experienced an average (which is what Global Warming is)?
Please say yes.
Andrew
Bad Andrew, your questions are too ill-posed for me to give a meaningful answer. Either you phrased what you’re asking poorly, or you’re asking questions in bad faith. Either way, I’m not interested in changing the logic of your questions so it is possible to actually answer them. I’m going to just stick with topical matters.
It is a difficult article to read because nothing makes sense on first reading. But for me the take-away is that when you tried some spot-checking of the 97% consensus, you found a lot of false-positives. I know that you are interested in a comprehensive crowd-sourced review of the data, and that would certainly give you the ammunition to go beyond sarcasm.
William-the study didn’t prove that 97% of scientists agree with the AGW theory. It proved that a group of people read 11,994 abstracts and decided that 4,000 of them (1/3) had either implied or explicitly stated a position ON AGW. Of that 1/3-97% (of 1/3) leaned towards an AGW “consensus” according to their definition. (Only something like 49 papers-out of the 4,000 (1/3) actually stated agreement outright)
BUT that means that the study proved that 2/3 of the abstracts-almost 8,000 papers, took NO POSITION. So really only 32% of scientists wrote papers that indicated they agree with the AGW theory.
Bad Andrew and Brandon seem to be arguing past each other. Global WARMING has not been a GLOBAL phenomenon because not all areas of the globe have experienced WARMING. The climate has changed, and certainly humans have changed the planet in various ways (like farming/land clearing etc), but again, not all areas have WARMED and in this debate, qualifiers are necessary. For example Global Warming is not the same thing as Anthropogenic Global Warming is not the same thing as Natural Global Warming. Not all climate change is caused or affected by human activity because we know that the climate has changed in the past WITHOUT human influence.
If people want to nitpick, then at least be very specific about the nits you’re picking at. 🙂
OK we all use sarcasm sometimes, but in a post like this it’s not IMHO a good idea. If you play it straight then you are giving people quotables, and quotables are useful for arguing with others.
In common with some others here I found the sarcasm rather difficult and unfortunate. Given the effort that has clearly gone into this work, if it had all been done in a serious and factual way, it would have been ideal ammunition to put before some of my friends who have been sucked in by the alarmists (possibly mainly those like Monbiot and Nuccittelli who get published in the Guardian). Unfortunately, as it currently stands, I suspect they would, at best, ignore it as sour grapes or, at worst, laugh at it; either way the point would be lost.
I would encourage you, Brandon, to rewrite this in a ‘straight’ way. Very few people go any further than looking at the headlines this alarmist nonsense so for someone to point out, in a simple, clear and concise way, with specific examples, that the criteria used are utter bollox would be a powerful argument.
The response I give to those 97% claims is, “The consensus is about AGW, but the debate is about CAGW.”
jgmccabe says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:16 pm
“…I would encourage you, Brandon, to rewrite this in a ‘straight’ way…”
————————————————————————
Some subjects and actions are difficult to show without having your jaw drop to the floor in amazement or disbelief.
Brandon did an okay job using sarcasm but it would take a Monty Python or Mel Brooks to parody this BS to the level that shows how ridiculous the whole 97% consensus notion is.
From picking the team members to their method of paper selection and classification.
How could you even discuss their methods and not shake your head and wonder?
You can’t treat it honestly.
You have to ridicule it and treat it like the joke it is.
cn
Michael D, that wasn’t the point at all. Nothing about this piece even hinted at false positives. The very first paragraph I wrote indicates the purpose of the piece quite clearly, saying it’s to help identify what the “consensus” found by Cook et al is. I then use large amounts of sarcasm to show it is not what Cook et al have recently claimed. I get sarcasm can be hard to follow, but there’s no way to come up with the interpretation you reached.
Mike Jonas, being serious in this post would have required direct accusations of dishonesty. There’s no other viable interpretation of Cook et al’s flagrant misrepresentation of their findings. However, once you start accusing people of dishonesty most people will tune out. Sarcasm lets you make the same point.
jgmccabe, if I had written this in a “straight” way, people would dismiss it as me being just another paranoid conspiracist who believes global warming is a hoax. The simple reality is critics of the global warming movement have thrown around accusations of fraud and dishonesty so much it is impossible to effectively point out legitimate examples in a direct manner.
I could post this same piece without sarcasm, accurately title it, “Cook et al Lie Their Faces Off,” and I bet you fewer people (who don’t already share my views) would be willing to sit through it.
But you know what? I think I’ll test that belief. I should have a non-sarcastic version uploaded within two hours.
I just uploaded a non-sarcastic version of the same post. I’d be curious to see how people react to it as opposed to this version. You can find it here:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/cook-et-al-lie-their-faces-off/
Its called the consensus project. So one has to get a consensus. I’m surprised they don’t go for 100%.
Might go down as one of the stupidest papers of recent years. Can any alarmists actually produce a paper on level of support for alarmist AGW without getting the figures all wrong? Obviously after several attempts, they can’t.
Having a consensus does’t mean they’re right; I’m sure that there was a consensus that the earth was flat, the the sun revolved around the earth or pick one of any number of other “scientific truths”. Remember that the Nazis tried to proved Einstein “by consensus”;-)
That should say … tried to prove Einstein wrong ..
.
Who ever heard of a poll of scientists or anybody for that matter where 97% agreed about anything? Since scientists are trained to be skeptical Cook’s poll is obviously manufactured nonsense.
North Korean manufactured election results probably come close to >90%.
Brandon, I appreciate the humor. But if you want what you say to matter, limit yourself to factual reporting.
andrew, you would have to very carefully describe the meaning of “experience” when you claim that nobody experiences global warming but local effects, to be able to defend your point.
I live in a place where tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamies or earthquakes NEVER happen. However, should there be any change in the frecuency of any of those worldwide, it would be incorrect to claim that I did not “experience” it. I did, anytime I heard of read about any of those happening anywhere or saw worldwide relevant statistics about those events.
To claim that I didn’t, you would need to specify that by “experience” you mean “personally experience”, as in directly feeling the weather instead of reading some report about it. But if you limit the meaning to what one can directly feel, you fall into the subjective world of our senses. You no longer can say that I “experienced” a 0,7ºC rise in temperatures just because it happened in my neighbourhood. What I may have read in a thermometer doesn’t count, that’s “reading a report”. What counts is what I feel. And my feeling of temperature changes with the air conditioning of wherever I am at any moment, the clothes I wear or changes in my own metabolism with the years. Not even two people living in the same place will experience, with their own senses, the same evolution of temperatures. They will only be able to agree on the reading of some OBJECTIVE way of measuring some climate metric, such as a thermometer. And they can get that reading about the place they live as well as about any other place thousands of km away that they have never been to but that publishes the corresponding climate data. They do not personally experience the 0,7K warming in their neighbourhood any more than they experience the 0.9K warming somewhere else. In both cases, they read about it.
Nylo says: “What counts is what I feel.”
Precisely. That is my understanding of “experience” and what you experience is what your senses tell you. You cannot know that the cold air you feel is global or confined to a little bubble immediately around you (which can happen if you are standing near last winter’s snow bank).
Therefore you do not experience global warming. You experience warming. I suspect that you or I cannot experience anything global. Astronauts might be able to experience “global” as it takes only 90 minutes to go completely around the Earth.
Remember folk – our lives are but a brief candle. Time spent reading anything by Dana the Nutter is time lost. Don’t bother.
Brandon,
I’ve read your modified, more ‘stick with the facts’, version and much prefer it, especially from the point of view, as Michael 2 said, of putting it before friends and family who’ve been sucked in.
I also think Steve R is being facetious 🙂
Michael 2, you did not understand my point. What I was saying is that, if “what counts is what I feel”, then it doesn’t make any sense because it is irrelevant. I know for sure that there has been some warming where I live. I, however, have not experienced it. In my personal experience, what I have felt, is more and more cold. My neighbour may have experienced warming, on the other hand. My brother may have felt the same all the time. But we all live around the same place, we all have access to the same climate metrics of the place we live in, and we know what has really happened. And we know it doesn’t match any of our personal experiences, despite they are diverse. What one feels is irrelevant. I have had high fever in very hot days and I have experienced cold as a result in those days. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t hot. And so on. We have objective ways to measure the climate which are independent of one’s particular feelings and it is the data obteined by those means what counts. What counts is what I know to be true. That is my experience. My experience is made of the facts that I know to be objectively true. My experience tells me that this day I felt cold, but also tells me that this day was hot despite I felt like that. And I can get this data from my place, and from anywhere around the globe. My experience tells me that the arctic ice is less than it used to be 20 years ago, despite I have never personally seen it. I’ve learnt about it from those who have. And that constitutes experience. I do experience global warming because I have access to the temperature databases that prove that the globe’s average temperature is going up. How I personally feel it in my skin is irrelevant..
“I do experience global warming because I have access to the temperature databases that prove that the globe’s average temperature is going up”.
Nylo,
You are confused as well. It may be that the globe’s average temperature is going up, but the fact that you use a database for information supplied by other people about it means you don’t experience it yourself. Other people are telling you what’s happening.
Andrew
I am sure the following comment has been made somewhere, but it is worth repeating.
The elephant in the room concerning Cook’s study is his data’s likely built-in bias. Even if the surveys and analyses were perfect, the best that could be said is 97% of those who publish climate science papers are on-board. Considering how difficult it has become for any contrarian AGW points of view to get published, the study likely was a fait accompli. Finally, such opinion was determined among a small subset of all scientists whose living is tied to doom yet is attributed, directly and indirectly to all scientists/science. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to recognize a bad assumption when seen. A perfectly conducted research project is not only worthless but harmful to its field of study if its foundational assumptions are wrong but get a pass.
What about all the other surveys that show that the vast majority of climate scientists do agree that over 50% of the warming is caused by humans?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html
Based on the supplementary data for Cook et al 2013, I believe the proportion of papers classed by the paper’s authors as endorsing more than 50% human-caused warming is around 1.6%. My reasoning can be found on my blog, here: http://dereksorensen.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/ninety-seven-percent/
Is there a ‘Science Hall of Shame’ website?