Claims of 97% consensus on global warming depend on research described as fraudulent and biased
London, 8 September: A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.
Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”
Full paper (pdf) – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics
From the PDF:
While Cook’s approach appears to owe more to public relations or propaganda than the scientific method, there is little doubt that there is a scientific consensus, albeit not the one that the authors of the paper have led people to believe exists. The consensus as described by Cook et al. is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The figure of 97% is entirely discredited, whatever the nature of the consensus.
However, the allegations that have been made against Cook’s study in recent months, with an array of experts criticising the conception, the methodology and the integrity of the research, put his conclusions in a very different light. With a very public and unrebutted allegation of scientific fraud hanging over it, the case for the 97% consensus looks shaky indeed.