If only Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Hayhoe and others could learn from their OWN mistakes…

consensus-guyFrom the “It’s science Jim – but not as we know it” department. (h/t Foxgoose) Sheesh. Another shedload of 97% consensus, spun to fit Paris COP21. The hubris here is astounding, but not unexpected from these egotistical scientists activists.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

Rasmus E. BenestadDana NuccitelliStephan LewandowskyKatharine HayhoeHans Olav HygenRob van DorlandJohn Cook


Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

The article is open access if you want to bother reading it, but it basically says “we are right, you are wrong, and you have the capacity to learn from your mistakes, we don’t make any”.


here’s the methodology in the SI

Click to access 704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

(h/t to Barry Woods)

UPDATE: a review of some of the papers in the SI show they are targeting some of the cyclomania we’ve seen displayed, which even I reject here at WUWT after intitially examining it. It looks to me like they’ve picked the low hanging fruit.

UPDATE2: At RealClimate, Rasmus Benestad bemoans the fact that this paper was rejected by the first journal they submitted it to.

We first submitted our work to a journal called Climate Research’.

The opinion of one of the reviewers on our manuscript was “profoundly negative”, with a recommendation to reject it (29 June 2012):

“The manuscript is not a scientific study. It is just a summary of purported errors in collection of papers, arbitrarily selected by the authors.”


Reportedly, from comments  by Paul Matthews here, it was rejected a total of five times. He writes:

This is a revised version of the drivel they tried to publish two years ago


It was clobbered in the comments (click on the discussion tab) and rejected by editor Matthew Huber.

They’ve been sending it to various journals (see RC post) and it was rejected by 5 journals before they eventually found one prepared to publish it.

(Added: )

The five journals who rejected this paper:

  1. Climate Research
  2. Climatic Change
  3. Earth System Dynamics Discussion
  4. Nature Climate Change
  5. Environmental Research Letters.

UPDATE 3: Common mental/logic errors made by climate zealots:


Click to access BehaviouralEconomics.pdf

132 thoughts on “If only Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Hayhoe and others could learn from their OWN mistakes…

  1. Insane left-wing drivel. I won’t be reading this because it starts with flawed research and extends further into idiocy.

    • Flawed indeed! “random” and “weather event” should always raise a red flag. Weather events should be assumed to be dependent events unless proven otherwise. Throw all your instincts on streaks.

    • It’s amazing that they START the abstract by quoting their own “97%” figure, which has been proved to be an utterly fantastical statistical fever-dream, and then expect anybody to take the rest of it seriously.
      Seriously. Why OPEN a paper with a proved falsehood? They’re living in their own weird version of reality.
      And I’m being generous… assuming those are merely errors, not even deliberate. But astounding errors they are, if so.

    • “and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases.”
      Just like AGW, it’s impossible to see unless you ignore observations and just believe us.

  2. Without reading more than the abstract, surely they should also have tested the 97% of papers supporting AGW in order to show how many of them also contain methodological errors? Without doing that test how can you rule out the possibility that all climate papers are flawed, whether pro- or anti-AGW

  3. It’s funny how these warmists pile into a paper like clowns in a VW. Similar to the recent Hansen scare paper that had 16 co-authors, they seem to be puffing up their resumes by tagging their friends. And it doesn’t matter if a person is even a scientist.

    • A large number of authors on a paper is often a sign of pal-publishing so that on each of a series of papers they rotate first authors and after a while their citation index is growing. Now the next step is to have more papers citing the previously published pal-publications and the citation index skyrockets. Keeps the promotions, grants, and travel to exotic places going and the taxpayers fund all of this.

      • Like this paper? Find the big name hiding in there.
        COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations
        Scoville, N.; Abraham, R. G.; Aussel, H.; Barnes, J. E.; Benson, A.; Blain, A. W.; Calzetti, D.; Comastri, A.; Capak, P.; Carilli, C.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Carollo, C. M.; Colbert, J.; Daddi, E.; Ellis, R. S.; Elvis, M.; Ewald, S. P.; Fall, M.; Franceschini, A.; Giavalisco, M.; Green, W.; Griffiths, R. E.; Guzzo, L.; Hasinger, G.; Impey, C.; Kneib, J.-P.; Koda, J.; Koekemoer, A.; Lefevre, O.; Lilly, S.; Liu, C. T.; McCracken, H. J.; Massey, R.; Mellier, Y.; Miyazaki, S.; Mobasher, B.; Mould, J.; Norman, C.; Refregier, A.; Renzini, A.; Rhodes, J.; Rich, M.; Sanders, D. B.; Schiminovich, D.; Schinnerer, E.; Scodeggio, M.; Sheth, K.; Shopbell, P. L.; Taniguchi, Y.; Tyson, N. D.; Urry, C. M.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Vettolani, P.; White, S. D. M.; Yan, L.
        2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38

  4. This is all about power and money. We are mistaken if we think that the reason for this is poor science and that we can change their minds by showing them what they are doing wrong – they do not care.

    • I have a question for you, Walt D. Why is it always They who are consumed by power – and filthy lucre? How is it that you’ve managed to escape the curse? Is it because you’re genetically programmed to be wonderful?

      • Because there are bad people in this world, Virginia. They have a very sensitive nose for BS and join whatever most lucrative fad is sloshed around by the rich and powerful. While decent, hard-working people are forced to pay for the Green Marxist destruction of our civilization.
        Why are you a fly on that cow pie, RW?

      • Notice how the troll attempts to deflect attention from the failings of it’s idols. In his mind, only those who are perfect are permitted to question the climate gods.

      • rw,
        Gresham’s Law* applies to more than circulating money. In climate science, bad scientists drive the good ones out.
        You can see it throughout the Climategate emails. People like Michael Mann conspired to have scientists who merely had a different scientific point of view barred from publishing — and in a couple of cases, he actually got them fired from their jobs.
        Those honest scientists were in shock, because they never expected their field to be cutthroat and political like this. So they just walked away, instead of fighting it.
        That emboldened the Michael Manns of the climate world, so they keep attacking anyone who doesn’t toe their alarmist line. It’s all there in the Climategate email dump, if you want to read it.

        *Gresham’s Law states that bad money drives good money out of circulation. This happened constantly in the 1800’s when local banks printed their own currency. They said it was backed by gold, and at first it was. But human nature being the same then as now, more currency was printed than there was gold backing it. So gold was hoarded — driven out, and the only thing left was fast-devaluing paper money. There were even booklets printed monthly, giving the banknote/gold exchange rate for each bank. And it was always less than par.
        (Also, rw is no troll. He asked a question. He was just being a little snarky, that’s all.)

      • No, he was questioned and released. Move to UAE with his family. Was reported alive as of Nov, 2014.

      • Pathway August 25, 2015 at 7:25 am

        Didn’t we hang him?

        I thought I heard NBC was interviewing Baghdad Bob to replace Brian Williams just after Williams was suspended. If I recall correctly, President Obama and Hillary Clinton were on his resume` as character references.

      • In any case, any hangings were done by the Iraqi government, as per Hussein. He was tried and convicted by Iraqi people. So unless you’re from Iraq and speaking on behalf of the Iraq people, ‘we’ didn’t hang anyone.

  5. Well, they don’t seem to have learned from the mistakes found by Dixon & Jones 14. Excerpts from the latter’s abstract and conclusions (regarding the execrable LOG 2013 papers) bear repeating: “….Reanalysis of the survey data sets of Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac (2013) and Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer (2013) indicates that the conclusions of those articles—that conspiracist ideation predicts skepticism regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change—are not supported by the data…….”, and “……. This analysis highlights the fact that a skewed sample can easily mask a nonlinear relationship and lead to serious misinterpretation of modeled relationships ….”.

  6. “…real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny.
    Seems like a partial description of the problems with the Alarmists’ position, except for that last bolded part which is an admission by these folks that the “Science” is never settled.

  7. Did I actually read the SI correctly? Nucci and his merry band of SkepScibots seemed to be saying that MBH 98/99 were correct and MM05 was wrong…

    McIntyre and McKitrick (2005; MM05) claimed that the reconstruction carried out by Mann et al. (1999, 1998) resulted from inappropriate data processing before a principal component analysis (PCA). They attributed the shape of the curve describing the reconstruction (“hockey stick shape”) to the
    leading principal component (PC), and argued that since it had a ‘hockey stick shape’ the results were likely an artifact. They argued that red noise processes tend to produce such shapes if the data were not ‘centred’ before computing anomalies.
    PCA is a common way of transforming a data matrix (X) into a new set of basis functions in data space, while keeping its information intact….

    This is as idiotic as the claim that “Mike’s Nature Trick” is a common way of merging two spectrally dissimilar data sets.

      • It was de-centered PCA, which is a “novel” method (i.e. there is no published support for this method)

    • It was the weighting of hockey stick shapes with the ‘right’ uptick that was the bigger flaw. Oh yeah, and removal of contradicting data sets. The ‘red noise’ comment is not correct. If red noise is fed into Mann’s process it always produces a hockey stick because it rewards such randomly produced shapes with double counting (or worse). That is different from the issue of centering.

    • I see Rasmus is indignant that economists are invited to review “climate science” papers – but silent on the fact that ex-cartoonists, oil services industry waste specialists & eccentric psychology profs are all allowed to help write them 🙂

    • In my field, reviewers are not to reveal their identities, per journal policy. I suspect the same is true in Tol’s journals. Knowing this, I would not send Tol a paper to review. He is not to be trusted.

      • What field is that? And, you “suspect”??
        You are impugning someone with no evidence of wrongdoing. And I know why:
        It’s because character assassination is all you’ve got. Your side sure lacks scientific evidence for what you’re trying to sell.
        Now, in the climatology field, they’re not supposed to disclose those identities. But they routinely do — see the Climategate email dump, or read here about a professor who submitted a Comment correcting someone’s paper (see #59 for evidence).

      • As I said, you are impugning someone with no evidence. In professional circles that’s [called] being reprehensible. It’s what lowlifes do. And like every alarmist, you tried to re-frame the question believing you could try to make us prove a negative. Logic isn’t your strong suit.
        If you had read the link I posted, you would know that climate journal reviewers routinely break confidentiality. It’s also evident throughout the Climategate email dump — another source you obviously never read.
        So as usual, I put up. You’re not nearly smart enough to win any debate with me, traffy. And you never answered: what’s your “field”, and where? Gonna ‘put up’?

        • db, you have to use small words and over explain apparently. The fact that some journals do not reveal the identity of reviewers is not the case for ALL journals, for example the British Medical Journal requires all reviewers to be identified. And, just because a journal has a policy of not revealing the names of reviewers to authors does not mean that the reviewer cannot reveal him/herself to the authors or public or anyone else they choose to.
          Until trafamadore produces a policy from every scientific journal in the industry stating that their reviewers cannot ever reveal themselves to the authors whose papers they review, his argument is clearly just bluster.

    • “We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny.”
      Friend of mine attempted to share her honest scrutiny of this “mainstream” paper at RealClimate and her post never appeared. Apparently they don’t take that last sentence seriously…but we knew that right?

  8. Everyone should read the book, “Future Babble” by Dan Gardner. Not only will it help you understand why climate hucksters push their future catastrophic scenarios, but it will help you see thru politicians, opinion writiers and authors who simply don’t know what they’re talking about. They believe what they say and the more strongly they believe it the less likely they are to ever modify their views. No matter what the evidence shows. This scam will go on forever. Not only because it pays well and brings fame and glory to these imbeciles but because it is psychologically impossible for them to admit they’re wrong. Future predictions are never any better than a random coin toss.

    • But given this basic situation, the wonderful thing is that this CAGW business can’t go on forever, especially if (as I believe) it’s now cooling. The emperor really is dancing around with no clothes on in this case – and sooner or later the chill will freeze his nuts off. And after that there’s no backing out – they’re in too deep – they’ve left a trail of foolishness that’s six miles wide. What remains is to learn how to leverage the situation to their maximum disadvantage.

      • That dix mile wide river of stink is called foolishness?
        I know a few other words for it.
        But no matter the name, you do not want to get any on your shoes.
        The warmistas are swimming in it, and think it is a soul-nourishing mud bath.

      • They are depending on the Gruber Effect. “People are stupid.” They’ve already switched from Man’s CO2 causing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Some still believe them. They’ll just replace the locomentary “An Inconvenient Truth” with “The Day After Tomorrow”.

    • Would have to disagree with you that the Future climate related predictions made by the CAGW types are comparable to a random coin toss. Their future predictions are much WORSE than a random coin toss because the analysis of the data they use to make the prediction is horrendously bad. One would expect half of their predictions to be right if done by coin toss. Their failed prediction rate when it comes to severe or potentially catastrophic climate related events is near or at 100%.

  9. ” ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions”
    A clear case of the Projection defence mechanism. Blaming others for having thoughts and motives that really belong in us.

    • Exactly. They look in the mirror and see somebody else. And they’re too dense to realize they’re even looking in the mirror. It’s as absurd as a Monty Python sketch.

  10. “A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup.”
    Are they saying that skeptics do this or that this is what skeptics are saying about the 97%ers?

    • Elmer, they’re saying
      ‘we’re 97 per cent right’
      but 2 per cent sceptics
      stumble over OUR rightness shortcoming to withhold them from understanding
      A common denominator
      seems to be missing
      contextual information or
      ignoring information that
      does not fit the conclusions,
      be it other relevant work or
      related geophysical data. In
      many cases, shortcomings are
      due to insufficient model
      in short:
      they persist to sell this scrap but WE ai’nt enlighted.

  11. ‘Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. ‘
    Firstly notice there is information on the nature of this ‘position ‘ secondly it is of course , and no surprise given the authors an outright lie for no one knows how many papers their are let lone reviewed 97% that state ‘ a position on anthropogenic global warming’
    If you do not know the whole number you cannot say what percentage any sub-group is of the whole , really really basic maths .
    Of course when you dig further you see they attack these ‘sceptic’ papers for taking the very same approaches which are common and acceptable in climate ‘science’, including being used by the authors .
    Which explains why they simply did not look at any papers from there own side .
    It is a classic pile of BS and poor science from those that when it comes to producing BS and poor science have few equals .

  12. It really is pathetic in ways too many to mention, but yet, it’s out there, published, being shared around Twitter, often by ‘respected’ climate scientists, pushing the boundaries of ‘inane’ over into ‘insane’ in the frantic effort to completely delegitimise legitimate science.
    A particular example of the ridiculous bias in this paper masquerading as ‘scientific research’:
    Rather than refer to solar influences upon climate, they choose to refer to ‘celestial influences’, making it sound like the challenge to consensus global warming ‘science’ is coming from astrologers! When they make it clear what their main target is – solar cycle length – they refer to an ancient 1991 paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen which an SkS article written by Cook ‘debunked’ in 2010. But they conveniently neglect to reference other scientific studies which have linked solar cycle length more definitively with climate change; in particular http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417.

  13. If I were to ignore the headline and the first three sentences in the abstract, I would be tempted to say the CAGW crowd is describing their own work.

  14. The 5 journals that rejected it, according to Rasmus himself at RC, were
    Climate Research
    Climatic Change
    Earth System Dynamics Discussion
    Nature Climate Change
    Environmental Research Letters.

      • This proves the peer review process is “robust”, eh?
        You can just keep submitting until you find someone with sufficiently compromised scruples, and …viola! Peer reviewed!
        It also shows that this process has nothing to do with confirming veracity.
        We should thank them for “outing” the peer review process for it’s utter meaninglessness.

      • They have the known truth. Just because 5 journals rejected it doesn’t mean it isn’t true (as evidenced by it getting published).
        Yea, the peer review by any one of 2600 journals or an open journal, is a useless metric.

      • Menicholas, you were doing well with the French (‘dix’) and then struck the wrong chord with ‘viola’. C’est dommage. 🙁

  15. Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW.
    (Summoning warrenlb… ☺)
    This narrative keeps chugging on because of its vague premise. Most skeptics of man-made global warming (MMGW) would agree that human activity has some small contribution, even if it’s only the UHI effect. But as we know, that’s not the question at all.
    The question is whether there is any dangerous MMGW. If the warming is on the order of a few hundredths to a few tenths of a degree, as the chart below indicates, then there is no problem:
    Use the chart to extrapolate how much global warming could be expected from a 20%, or a 50% rise, or even a doubling of CO2 from current levels. Any warming would be too small to measure using current instrumentation.
    So the question and answer should be something like this:
    “Among scientists responding, those who think that a rise in human-emitted CO2 is likely to cause dangerous global warming is _____%.”
    They’re constantly trying to frame the debate in ways that give the answer they want. That isn’t science, it’s self-serving propaganda.

  16. Re: ‘cyclomania’
    If climate contains cycles, even Dr. Mann agrees there is a cycle, in particular the N. Atlantic SST (apparently he named it himself ‘the AMO’, not forgetting the NAO -atmospheric oscillation, Pacific oscillation, QBO, elNino-laNina, etc) then this the most prominent (AMO) cycle in first instance appears to be of the terrestrial origin, i.e. generated by the
    post-glacial isostatic uplift oscillations.
    The major unknown is why the oscillations are synchronous in their periodicity and the phase with the solar magnetic oscillations.

  17. Benestad regards himself as a great “scientist”. He therefore likes to mock other scientists that he regards as inferior compared to him. Here is an example:
    “It is not every day that I come across a scientific publication that so totally goes against my perception of what science is all about. Humlum et al., 2011 present a study in the journal Global and Planetary Change, claiming that most of the temperature changes that we have seen so far are due to natural cycles.”

  18. Regarding circular reasoning – I wonder what they would think about the following approach in the IPCC report:
    “Observed GMST anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of GMST anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing (Figure TS.9) even though some individual models overestimate the warming trend, while others underestimate it. Simulations with WMGHG changes only, and no aerosol changes, generally exhibit stronger warming than has been observed (Figure TS.9). Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, which are characterized by warming over most of the globe with the most intense warming over the NH continents, are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
    To put the language straight: The model output match the observations best when the model is fed with the theory. Hence both theory and the models must be correct.
    (Ref: Working group I; On the scientific basis; contribution to the fifth assessment report by IPCC;
    TS.4 Understanding the Climate System and Its Recent Changes.) – Well worth a read.

  19. Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW?

    97 + 2 = 99
    And this is the first sentence of the abstract.
    I wonder where this paper has been reviewed, in the local pub, maybe?

    • Because in Cooked et al 2013, 1% of abstracts were scored by them as “didn’t know” or ” didn’t agree but didn’t disagree”.
      What is hilarious is that only a very tiny fraction of the 20,000 papers they reviewed took actually STATED a position of ANY kind on AGW. (They “INTERPRETED” that 33% of 12,000 papers took a position on AGW) So why are they SO concerned about 2% of papers in a group that only made up 33% of the total papers examined in 2013, while completely ignoring the FACT that 66% of published climate papers took NO position at all?

    • Where is Nick Stokes. He told us the other day that in the climate sphere shorty papers do not get published and that only in the bio-med field do scientists game the system to get published.

  20. It is commonplace, in fact, a default, that when speaking from the floor, our US congressmen will utter “I reserve the right to amend and extend my comments (in the written record). What follows is a written record that bears little similarity to the spoken words. That is how climate science works. When caught in a lie they revise and redefine the meaning of their words.

  21. I did get some way into skimming the paper but the gag reflex kicked in. If Alex Springer were still alive, heads would roll for publishing such complete tosh.
    BTW. I thought Greenskull had separated Nuccitelli and Cook?

    • I would think that sufficient response to such a lame claim is that the models all fix the lapse rate at 6.5 km/K and when it is corrected, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 0.1 to 0.2 deg C. No wonder we are not seeing any warming with such a huge % increase in AG CO2 emissions. At 400ppm the increase just doesn’t have much impact.
      The consensus will shift to that position eventually, even if we have to wait for a generational shift. All the foundations laid on shifting sand will by carted to the dump of history and real science will prevail.

  22. The phrase that jumps out at me the most is, “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation…”
    I just love the irony of their apparently unshakable assumption that the models must be correct, and any failings are due to “insufficient evaluation.”

    • Models vs observation equates to the homily, “The steam that blows the whistle will never turn the wheel”. Money wasted on defective models starves research not that anyone seems interested in field work where the climate is concerned.

  23. Sorry, can’t be bothered to read the wonderful paper, is it 99% consensus now? Or are the remaining 3% officially certifiably mad/criminal/Koch family members et al, according to Lew?

  24. Maybe 97% papers “endorse AGW”. Whatever “endorse” and “AGW” is supposed to mean. I wonder what percent of papers “endorse” the theory of relativity.
    Believing humanity contributes to change in our environment (including climate) is kind of obvious. So do all mammals, insects, birds, fish, bacteria, vegetation;basically all living things are part of an eco-system and has some kind of influence on climate and vice-versa. Unfortunately AGW in its scientific ambiguity and lack of scientific rigor has come to mean humanity is at risk from humanity, which has more to do with Biblical or end of world prophesy than science. Hey, with all the flooding projected, I am surprised leading climate scientists have not announced themselves the new Noah and recommend building an arc. Maybe Hansen will have a press release next week.
    Regardless if we are going to play the consensus-endorsement game, recent surveys show over 50% of scientists think that climate science itself is weak; rotten with bias and poor evidence, poor methodology and specisous reasoning making that 97% “endorsement” even more foolish than it already was.

  25. Don’t forget that 100% of the reviewed papers DO NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
    Conversely ZERO percent of the reviewed papers PROVIDE EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

  26. Its very telling that whatever the study on the size of the consensus, its always 97%. Too consistent, too little uncertainty. Rarely is science as reliable as that.

  27. Actually a recap of old news broadcasts of former Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, have a striking similarity to the dogmatic assertions of Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Hayhoe et al …..
    This series of clips, must be the epitome of barefaced denial of facts, even when they are evident to all and sundry. It’s a wonder that the Global Alarmists didn’t employ him as a presenter.
    more quotes :
    He was last seen publicly in a video On November 7, 2014, recorded in a UAE Hospital, reportedly suffering from a serious illness. The Swedish News agency reported that he was dying at that time, but however “Liveleak” stated that he was “fighting for his life”, he himself apparently said so. seemingly he is still alive some nine months later. He may be a young as 72, decades younger than Rockefeller who just had a sixth successful heart transplant earlier this year whilst aged 99. Rockefeller is now 100 years old since 12th June 2015. .

    • Must be getting tiring spending your life at one hundred years old “hanging on” for ? what “dear life”? What the heck does he know about all of this crap going on on our planet? What in heck drives these people? ( and their inheritors)?
      It truly boggles my mind, these money dynasties, royal families and so on. It is no wonder all the conspiracy crowds are talking “aliens”, and “genetic manipulations”, and cloning etc., it is weird. But when the so called ” 97% certainty crowd” does it, it now is “normal”? Makes you wonder where the manipulation really is.

  28. They’d be better off writing a paper that tried to objectively determine the amount of confirmation bias in the so called 97% consensus papers. I mean its a very real human condition and must have an impact. I expect they wouldn’t like their result though. Perhaps someone has already done it and decided not to publish.

  29. Unaccountably, the authors of the much-rejected paper that has now found a hospice failed to include an analysis of the most inaccurate paper ever published: Cook et al, 2013, whose authors found only 0.5% of 11,944 climate-related abstracts had stated that recent warming was mostly manmade but reported 97.1%.

    • Summary by Jo Nova of that analysis by Lord Monckton here :
      “Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted some key results; misstated others; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely that the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.”
      Readers should note that “97%” is a “magic number” very often used in advertising.
      This is a figure which triggers some deep rooted psychological trigger, convincing
      the reader that a statement is “honest”, after all they are not claiming “100%”, so it
      can’t be false. Let’s see some more “97%” claims …..
      May 12, 2015 – Fannie Mae is offering 97% LTV/CLTV/HCLTV financing options
      Only three out of every 100 rapists will ever spend even a single day in prison
      97% Of Apple Watch Owners Are Satisfied, Survey Says …
      Dark Energy Renders 97% Of The Galaxies In Our
      Observable Universe Permanently Unreachable
      Being On Volleyball Team Accounts For 97% Of High School Sophomore’s Identity
      We provide our customers with a 97% fraud free guarantee, at no cost,
      Chemotherapy Fails 97% Of The Time …..
      97% of Planned Parenthood’s work is mammograms
      The 97% Factor (Book) :
      ……. and so on, there are literally thousands more examples.
      featuring everything from shampoos to ships anchors, and
      from Gorillas (which “share 97% of our genes”) to Greeks,
      who may well hold the world records of most 97 percenters,
      1. 97% of Greek bathing waters are of excellent quality.
      2. 97% of investors holding its private bonds agreed to terms of a debt swap.
      3. 97% of Greek citizens are baptised members of the Greek Orthodox Church.
      4. probability of Greece defaulting on its debt is 97%
      5. Deflation, Gold And The 97% Greek One Year Yield. (bond analysis),
      6. 97% Greek students live in opulent chapter houses.
      7. Ancient Greek Remedy – Thyme Essential Oil Kills 97% of Prostate Cancer.
      8. Greek government debt is close to 97%.
      9. 97% of the Greek population drinks non-fluoridated water.
      10. 97% of the Stars’ names are Greek.
      11. 97% of Greece‟s companies employ 9 people or less.
      12. King Gyros Greek Restaurant … 97% of 695 customers recommended us.
      13. Greece’s OTE Q2 net profit falls 97%, below f’casts.
      14. 97% of population change in Greece due to migrants.
      15. Piraeus shares have plummeted 97% in the last five years. (Greek Bank)
      16. 97% Greek businesses are family managed.
      17. Warwick Uni. Ancient Greek Course (in Greece) – 97% satisfaction rating.
      18. Greek Style Turkey Burgers with Tzatziki – 97% had a preferable texture.
      19. 97% of Greek business are micro companies (Int. Journal of Business).
      20. Greek Economy is “97% Owned” by foreign interests – Documentary.
      Loads more, and don’t forget that Greek Yogurt is 97% Fat Free !!!
      Yes folks That 97% really is some “magic number”,
      for me it is a signal that the rest of the article will be
      nothing but absolute bunkum !

  30. Thank you Anthony I needed a good laugh before heading off to work at 05.30 on a wet and windy summer day in the UK.
    James Bull

  31. Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook…
    … sheer propaganda!
    Yep… they certainly remind us of Comical Ali – Saddam’s Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. In fact, the army of global warm alarmists will soon get to realise how they have been acting like Comical Ali.

  32. James Lovelock in The Guardian, 29 March 2012-
    ” The great science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they really don’t know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing.They could be absolutely running the show.We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”
    ” The problem is we don’t know what the Climate is doing . We thought we knew twenty years ago. That led some to some alarmist books -mine included- because it looked clear cut , but it hasn’t happened…. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world by now .”
    “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time…. It ( the temperature ) has stayed almost constant whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising , no question about that,” he added.
    See WUWT 23 April 2012 on James Lovelocks ‘ backdown.
    Now we have these authors saying that science is never settled and that mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to rigorous scrutiny!
    They have been maintaining the preposterous claim of a 97% consensus while paper after alarmist paper, often nonsense ,are given no critical appraisal and waived through to become established ” irrebuttable ” science. There is one mother of all fallouts coming for these characters.

  33. I find it interesting that in the earlier versions, Dana uses his Tetra address – surely his employers won’t be impressed by this?

    • He claims neither his boss, nor his coworkers, would care even if they DID know he was an anti-big oil blogger for the Guardian. I wonder what the CLIENTS of his boss would say if they knew….?

      • I think that’s because normaaly he uses his SkS address. This time he used Tetra, which implies approval by Tetra

        • No, I asked him about a year and a half ago what his co-workers and employer thought of him being an anti-Big Oil activist blogger for the Guardian. (where a lot of people read his crap, rather than at Sks where a handful of people read his crap) He said he doubted that any of them knew, and even if they did, they wouldn’t care. Since Tetra Tech is a company that HELPS big oil companies, and other types, to find more environmentally safe/efficient ways to build plants and collect resources, I’m sure those companies would frown on having a Nutty activist working on their projects.
          The fact that he used Tetra Tech as his professional reference in the earlier/2012 versions of the paper and has now changed it to say “affiliated with Skeptical Science” is curious. I also find it curious that Dana apparently knows his co-workers and bosses well enough to just “know” they wouldn’t care about his extracurricular activities, but they in return don’t “know” him well enough to even know about those activities. The logic is weak in this one.

  34. Well, ThinkProgress naturally ran it with it. The title was ‘ Group Of Climate Scientists Tried To Recreate Contrarian Studies. It Did Not Go Well For Deniers’.
    I may be trending towards bias here, but I think – I just SUSPECT, mind you – the entire purpose of the story was to write that headline, doesn’t it?
    Or am I crazy?

  35. Just an observation, if this ‘study’ was first rejected in June 2012, how can it reference Cook’s ‘Consensus Study (2013)’?

    • It originally didn’t BruceC. Funny thing is, Benestad began his “quest for answers” at pretty much the exact same time that the Sks Kids started their quest to “quantify the consensus”, and Benestad admitted at Real Climate this week that he asked Sks for help on his original paper. I’m thinking it was supposed to be a double whammy publishing thing, but Benestad couldn’t get anyone to publish his paper, and then Sks paid ERL….um….no…what is the PC term…oh yeah “crowd funded the $1600.00 cash required to make their paper public access” and Benestad was left limping along with his paper until now.

  36. ““The manuscript is not a scientific study. It is just a summary of purported errors in collection of papers, arbitrarily selected by the authors.””
    Social science? I think that maybe, just maybe, even I’m qualified to do that.

  37. Neither warmists nor their opponents can either validate or refute the climate models as the statistical populations underlying them do not exist. One can “evaluate” models sharing this characteristic but cannot “validate” them.

  38. Rejected by five journals with comments devastating to the thought process behind the paper. Then it gets published in a journal with an impact factor of 2. It’s published as a free paper, but without any reviewer comments available. Was it actually reviewed? Am I missing something?
    It’s pretty obvious they’re not even trying to forward the scientific debate, and instead are attempting to provide ammunition for climate alarmists.

Comments are closed.