We’ve had the climate wars, now we have the consensus wars, and it appears Cook’s side and his publisher aren’t playing fair with the numbers, or with the review/rebuttal process.
Dr. Richard Tol writes via email:
Two critiques on Cook will be published tomorrow [today Toll adds ERL just sent me an email that the paper is published (it isn’t actually), so the embargo is off] . I attach mine. I have not seen the other.
Cook’s rejoinder is attached too.
This is what I wrote to Associated Press:
Unfortunately, Environmental Research Letters does not believe in open discussion and forced me to hide the rather severe methodological critique on Cook’s 2013 paper behind a superficial literature review.
This allows Cook 2016 to hide their response to my critique; but they admit that Cook 2013 misleads the reader on the independence of the raters and on the information available to the raters. This is normally sufficient for a retraction: the data behind Cook 2013 are not what Cook 2013 claim they are.
Cook 2016 ducks my other critiques:
(1) sample size is unknown;
(2) there are systematic differences between the raters; and
(3) the people who collected the data in phases 2 and 3 had access to the results of phase 1 and phases 1 and 2, respectively (while there are systematic differences between the results from phase 1, 2, and 3).
As to the consensus on the consensus, if you carefully pick results from the various studies, then you see agreement. If, on the other hand, you look at all the data, then the various consensus studies strongly disagree with each other.
This is what I wrote to the Guardian
It’s a funny thing that – you exactly reproduce someone else’s findings and they accuse you of misrepresentation. It’s their numbers. If this is wrong, it is their fault.
Their Q: I was wondering if you have any comment or reaction to these authors of previous consensus studies who have said you misrepresented their research
Tol’s paper: Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ (PDF)
Cook’s paper: Consensus on consensus- final (PDF)
The second rebuttal to Cook will be added once we have it and will appear here.
Meanwhile the climate news PR machine is gearing up to claim Cook has conformed er confirmed, the 97% consensus, with this story from Michigan Tech:
Consensus on Consensus: Expertise Matters in Agreement Over Human-Caused Climate Change
A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.
“What’s important is that this is not just one study—it’s the consensus of multiple studies,” Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, “conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, after Obama & co used it so prominently, the 97% figure has become the status of a sacred number. Thus – no matter what the truth really may be – the saga must go on…
The worst part of the study, even beyond the outcome, is that they never looked beyond the abstracts to see if there was even any validity to what the papers’ authors were asserting.
I’ve read quite a few full papers that were complete bollocks when one stepped past the abstract. One asserted that the ecological tipping point was in the 1980’s by just cherry picking any graph it could find on any subject that showed a change of any sort in the 1980’s, with no explanation of those changes or why they were significant. Yet some ” climate science reporter” jumped on this as the subject to use for another “Feed the Fear” article to keep the paycheck from the environmental NGOs coming his way.
Instant gratification culture + fear-mongering media + manipulative politicians + scientific illiteracy and ignorance = idiocracy.
THe main stream media will never publish the fact that after 25 years of climate research
Not a single word of validated evidence has yet to be produced by the IPCC to the form of
Factual (Observed or experiMental or theoretical to substantiate their “Hypothesis”!!
PLenty of assertions and speculations but NO evidential facts.
Additionally the MSM will never mention that for over 70 per cent ov the last 75 years
Global temperatures have decreased while CO2 has increased during that entire period!!
THat fact alone proves that for at least that period natural causes of climate change
Have dominated over man made causes.
Chemistry professor … ? we’ll my degree in Ocean Engineering makes me more of a Climate Scientists than she is … hack …
Haven’t you figured out yet that alarmists are “experts” in EVERY field….not just their own. They typically stomp on other sciences and call us quacks because–they are CLIMATE and therefore all other sciences fall under their purview. I’ve yet to find out if any of the alarmists actually took Oceanography or Marine Biology–since they typically ignore or stagnate the ocean in their “models”.
I’d love some mathematician to tear their “statistics” apart–heck I’d kick back with a bowl of popcorn and watch them squirm–it would be lovely.
Circular reasoning. It would hardly be any surprise that those working in the “climate” industry, whose livelihoods and reputations are dependent on it, and who are considered to be climate “experts” by other climate “experts” would favor the so-called consensus.
Indeed, circular reasoning. “Assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent” is as equally valid as claiming that “assumption of lack of affirmation equals confirmation.”
When I hear these sort of arguments I think of this and smile.
James Bull
Indeed. Probably 97% of theologians believe in God.
Unless you’re an Anglican, in which case it’s options.
I mean optional
If you give a monkey a peanut every time it nods its head, it will nod willingly and vigorously. If you only give fat grants to scientists who endorse global warming, they will endorse warming willingly and vigorously.
But all you have, is a trained monkey.
Indeed. They should be called “climate monkeys”.
Right! Also, any “consensus” based on published research is absurd after years of employing and funding only AGW-alarmists and scientific journals rejecting research by scientists who don’t support the AGW scam.
Then there are solar scientists, whose work is considered irrelevant as we get closer to the solar output of the Maunder Minimum.
Disgusting..
trained? monkey: Not every well trained in the scientific method. Only trained to say “yes evil master”.
Earth to Lewandowsky…. how about a study on Pavlovian responses to government grant money on CAGW alarmists? 50 years from now will we be talking about Pavlov’s Monkeys? ha ha ha ha
They are in love!
I think this is the real reason this mess got started.
So how did this belief of man made climate change get started? Because the climate scientists did not believe in rapid climate trend change.
The first Earth Day was in 1974.
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm
“By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over
many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years.
During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require
to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from
studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade. “
“SPENCER R. WEART ( ), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and
geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park,
Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center. “
Marlow
l was watching a post on youtube about the ice age a while back. lt look like it was made back in the early 80’s, and even then they were saying that the change from warm to cold could have been as little as 20 years in North America.
Climatology from the beginning was ruled by the Gradualists, their basic premise was that the world was too big for the climate to change rapidly. by the 1950s/60s as the data got better and the instrumental record got longer it became obvious that either;
a/ The basic premise was wrong and climate could shift suddenly. or
b/ Something “unnatural” was causing the climate to change.
This placed the “Elite” in the position of either admitting they had been wrong all their lives and the Catastrophists (who they had made a career out of pooh-poohing) were right (And thereby ingesting large amounts of well done crow.) or they had to find another cause. CO2 fit the bill quite nicely thank you. It allowed crusty old men to retain their positions and smite their enemies without having to ever examine their own beliefs for fault.
Knowing humans, which way do you think the elite would jump? 😉
Climatology remains one of the last sciences to believe in a “steady state”. Astronomy got over it and embraced the Big Bang because that’s where the data led. Geology ditched the stable planet idea and got on board Continental Drift. Climatology still thinks the Hockey Stick is correct.
BTW, note how that fits the narrative. A slow and steady decline for 1,000 years or so at maybe .1 degrees per century followed by an “unnatural” uptick at the end. More than anything else it “proves” the gradualists to be correct.
HA, the real reason this mess got started is the fact that Charles Keeling started recording fairly accurate daily-weekly-monthly-yearly atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities in 1958.
After a few years, the aforesaid Mauna Loa Record afforded every wanna-be “scientist” an accepted physical measurement (standard values) that they could base their “junk science” claims on as proof of their legitimacy.
Ice Core CO2 ppm data is “processed” to insure that it correlates too the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm Record.
Yearly quantities of CO2 being emitted by human activities are “processed” to insure that they correlate too the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm Record.
You would think they might change the number a bit, just to add credibility to the “objective review”, say to 96.3%, but no, it’s still 97 percent.
Tragic, but not at all unexpected. The Ministry of Truth forges on.
Shall we call it Cook’s Constant? I think the symbol should be a hockey stick. Upper case Gamma might be overused, so we may have to resort to a different symbol…
Brilliant! Cook’s Constant I like it, Bulldust.
That’s the way I like it!
Damage was done when published and grabbed by Obama. Doesn’t sound like ERL is retracting. Better to fight the next battle (unconstitutional CPP, ‘RICO’, ‘Karlization’) than to continue skirmishing over the last one.
On the bright side, wheels are falling off both CAGW science and solutions. La Nina coming on strong to extend the pause and model discrepancies, SLR not accelerating, Arctic summer ice beginning cyclic recovery, no increase in extremes. Renewables not viable without unaffordable subsidies. Intermittency screws up the grid, makes conventional generation investment impossible, and risks mjor blackouts. Abengoa and SunEdison bankrupt despite subsidies. UK’s Port Talbot steelworks likely shutting over artificially high energy costs. The mythical 97% CAGW consensus will stand as a high water mark for how wrong and how foolish warmunism was. Climate Lysenkoism.
ristvlan
lts interesting what going on in NE Canada and Greenland at the moment. While the Hudson Bay area is up to 5c below average. Over in Greenland its up to 20c above average. Looks like the weather maybe providing the answer to those big swings in temperature in Greenland during the ice age.
“La Nina coming on strong to extend the pause ” Yes, how is that going>? We must be at about no significant warming for ….two months now?
“Arctic summer ice beginning cyclic recovery, no increase in extremes” That is an odd claim since they recently announced a record low for the winter maximum and we do not yet have this years summer minimum. There is not enough time since the record 2012 minimum to say that this is a recovery rather than fluctuation about the downward trend.
If enough people ignore the troll, will it go away?
The science doesn’t matter to the Loony Left though. You can explain the Ice Age to them till you’re blue in the face… and I have tried… and they just see another “right wing Fox watcher” out to bash their religious beliefs, even if you’re a registered Green like me that avoids US mainstream media like the disease that it is.
They have politicized and internalized this into a core belief, the science be damned. If Ted Cruz doesn’t believe in global warming, then it must be happening and they must treat it as the coming of the Anti-Christ straight out of their liberal Book of Revelations!
This isn’t a scientific war. For them, this is a religious one. And that’s gonna make it a long fight for the science to win.
97% of those who agree with me agree with me.
Like!
How wonderfully to the point via sideways humor. Will Rogers would have been proud.
Yogi Berra?
..So scientists who agree with them are “climate experts” and scientists that do not agree with them are ” non climate experts ” ?? ummm, ok
That’s right up there with the fact that the only way to be declared a “climate scientist” is for those who already claim the label, to acknowledge you as one.
So is it any wonder that all the “climate scientists” agree?
How touching: Cook upholding the age-old principle of not sharing data. Mann would be so proud. And Jones would probabaly have something to say about it…..
Today we heard from the highly esteemed colleagues of Trofim Lysenko at the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences. They unanimously (I.e., 100% not a measly 97%) declared that Lysenko’s view on environmental determinism was correct and that those promoting the notions that genes and DNA were responsible for inherited traits and characteristics would be subject to prosecution. They stated that in 20 years Lysenko would be proved right by the mountains of grains that would put two chickens in every pot along with a case of finest grain vodka. Members of the Academy are currently working on details of where and how to store the additional foodstuffs and how to minimize the negative health consequences of the populace having too much cheap food to eat.
/s/i
It is so easy to make stuff up when nobody holds you accountable.
Let us use the John Cook methodology to determine criminal trials. If the prosecution fail to find any actual evidence that would stand up in court, let them take a poll of police officers at to whether they believe the word of their colleagues. Do this on a regular basis, linking career progression to endorsement of the expert evidence of their colleagues. Also let the prosecution use pejorative language towards the accused.
reminds me of the old….9 out of 10 doctors
….how lame
“As shown in Table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or nonscientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus.” The main thrust seems to be that ‘climate experts’ publish warming papers and non-climate experts do not!
What a surprise – when some of these people are paper reviewers…..
And the lead author is a non-climate scientist!
97% consensus is laughable. Put 100 people in a room with 99 chairs and you won’t get 70% of them to agree on who should sit down.
http://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/10-evil-vintage-cigarette-ads-promising-better-health/
Must be true, 20,000 doctors said so.
20,679 doctors to be precise. and 113,597 doctors were surveyed as to what brand cogarette they smoke. The brand most named was Camel.
Therefore clearly the consensus is that Camel is best.
Yeh, good one Cook.
But a Camel is so hard to light.
Depends on which end you are trying to light.
Certainly they have published the results of a study that gives a statistically significant level for rejecting the hypothesis that the change in temperature during the 20th century was entirely due to solar phenomena. Perhaps Mr. Cook and company could send me a link. Didn’t think so.
Agreed.
But not only must they prove that the solar phenomena do not explain all the temperature rise, they must explain how the sun plus ALL other natural phenomena do not explain all the temperature rise. They got a 97% consensus on that? Unbelievable.
I have seen a lot of natural explanations for the rise in temperature (very slight though it may be) from the end of the Little Ice Age to the present that had nothing to do with CO2.
markstoval – what are these explanations, and what do they predict will happen? I have not seen any explanations, but I have seen lots of correlations, such as with solar activity delayed by 11 years or similar. There is not a mechanism included in these, so they are not an explanation.
So, please tell me what these explanations are, and what observations they predicted?
If enough people ignore the troll, maybe it will go away.
I don’t find any logic in the 97% consensus claim. It seems to have first appeared about 7 years ago and is now the magic number all the Chicken Littles aim to achieve. In that time, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that new scientists coming in, leaving the field or changing their positions would in turn change the percentage?
Well, this makes six papers (that I know of) criticizing Cook et al. 2013 in the peer-reviewed literature. These two are in addition to four others: Legates et al. 2015, Tol 2014a, Tol 2014b, and Dean 2015.
1. Did the Guardian publish your answer.? They seem to me to be the guardians of CAGW.
2. Marlow, I think you’re right. Spencer Weart’s “Discovery of Global Warming” is a good read, but he’s become pretty CAGW fanatical.
3. The 97% is used by the media to promote that 97% of scientists expect CAGW, a sort of bait and switch since the 97% or whatever per centage affirm AGW, not CAGW, as different as having a temperature of 98.6 and a fever of 106.
97% is the same as the single blank cartridge in the firing squad – to assuage the soldier’s concern that he may be the one that fires the fatal shot. Nobody would believe 100%, so they can always claim that any naysayer was part of that last 3%.
I cannot for the life of me see how anyone pays any attention to John Cook. He is a clown who needs no makeup IMO and his work is just clowning around on street corners for the coins in the hat.
Ah, but he has silly hair, big boots and a car that falls apart at will!
Whenever I see that silly 97% figure I think about North Korean election turnouts or something. Even though anything less than 100% voter turnout would be considered a disgrace over there. If AGW theory adherency would eventually be made compulsory in our countries we might see the 97% figure creep up to 100%.Then they wouldn’t have to Cook their figures anymore, either.
(Seriously, though? 97% consensus ? How could they possibly make such an outrageous and bleedingly obviously false claim with a straight face? Assuming they are not liars with an agenda (which they very well might be); are they really in their right minds?)
Please don’t take this as an invite, but, where’s Wagan?
Enjoying Cooked goose?
He apparently heard you.