From 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. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook
Abstract
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”.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5/fulltext.html
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.”
Ouch!
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
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013.html
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:
- Climate Research
- Climatic Change
- Earth System Dynamics Discussion
- Nature Climate Change
- Environmental Research Letters.
UPDATE 3: Common mental/logic errors made by climate zealots:
Click to access BehaviouralEconomics.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Or rewrite the relevant Wiki references.
Pointman
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.
Pointman
BTW. I thought Greenskull had separated Nuccitelli and Cook?
Love the Baghdad Bob photo!
GW contrarian’s climate models don’t work?
Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers (By Nuccitelli)
A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
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.
As we get closer to the Paris climate talks, I expect this to get better and better…(in a popcorn way of course)
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.”
rip
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.
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?
If we got Josh to illustrate these papers, they could be read to children as bedtime stories, modern fairy tales!
I thought something more like the Teletubbies. Lewlew, Coocoo, Hayhoe and Nu. Uh ohhhh!
Laughing my butt off Tiny! But the Telletubbies were scary enough on their own!
I didn’t realize the Koch family comprised 3% of the world’s population
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.
How come Lew isn’t even banned from serious science journals?
Why is it that more than 50% of climate scientists are below average?
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAeMtcURg0&rel=0
more quotes :
http://www.military-quotes.com/information-minister.htm
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.
“The hubris here is astounding, but not unexpected from these egotistical scientists activists.”
Don’t you mean ‘Paris-ites? 🙂
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.
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%.
See my reference at 8:47 for Robin Guinier’s analysis.
Summary by Jo Nova of that analysis by Lord Monckton here :
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/
Abstract
“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
https://www.fanniemae.com/singlefamily/97-ltv-options
Only three out of every 100 rapists will ever spend even a single day in prison
https://rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment
97% Of Apple Watch Owners Are Satisfied, Survey Says …
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsantus/2015/07/20/97-of-apple-watch-owners-are-satisfied-survey-says/
Dark Energy Renders 97% Of The Galaxies In Our
Observable Universe Permanently Unreachable
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/06/08/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
http://www.theonion.com/article/being-on-volleyball-team-accounts-for-97-of-high-s-38010
We provide our customers with a 97% fraud free guarantee, at no cost,
https://www.dataxu.com/fraud-free-guarantee/
Chemotherapy Fails 97% Of The Time …..
http://reset.me/story/if-chemotherapy-fails-97-of-the-time-why-do-doctors-recommend-it/
97% of Planned Parenthood’s work is mammograms
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/03/martin-omalley/97-planned-parenthoods-work-mammograms-preventive-/
The 97% Factor (Book) :
http://www.amazon.com/The-97-Factor-Data-Paved-Management/dp/1479306312
……. 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 !
Indeed thanks for the reminder!
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
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100017.html
Seems relevant, when purported scientists think disproving a handful of the many contradictory papers is the proper way to demonstrate the validity of their pet theory.
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.
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.”
and-
” 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.
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.
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?
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.
Whatever happened to Baghdad Bob?
Whatever it was, ought to happen to Mikey Mann.
““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.
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.