John Cook is cooking up more 97% consensus, while two papers refute his statistical sleights of hand

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.”

Full story: http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2016/april/consensus-consensus-expertise-matters-agreement-over-human-caused-climate-change.html

Advertisements

187 thoughts on “John Cook is cooking up more 97% consensus, while two papers refute his statistical sleights of hand

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    • 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

  5. They are in love!

    Refuting climate change doubters is the main purpose of a website Green contributes to called skepticalscience.com. The website is run by the new study’s lead author, John Cook from the University of Queensland in Australia.

    From the link to the full story at the end of the post.

  6. 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.

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

    • 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.

  9. ..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?

  10. Sample size is unknown

    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…..

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. “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!

  14. 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.

    • 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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%.

  18. 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.

  19. 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?)

  20. Tol:
    “The paper states that “information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden” from the abstract raters. Yet, such information can easily be looked up. Unfortunately, Cook et al. (2013) omit the steps taken to prevent raters from gathering additional information, and for disqualifying ratings based on such information.”
    WTF? Is Tol implying that unless raters are locked up and have no contact to the world outside (especially not the internet!) that ratings can not be trusted?
    Utterly crazy!

    • Perhaps they should have been locked up. It might have prevented the so-called “independent” raters from discussing their ratings and colluding to rig the results.

      • “Perhaps they should have been locked up.”
        Who is volunteering for rating (in general, not only regarding AGW) when they are locked up?
        Why not trust the raters or check the abstracts by yourself (which Cook et al 2011 let you actually do)?
        Don’t believe/trust it? Do it yourself. Repeat it with a group you do trust. You may recruit people here on this site. I will not be demanding that you are closed off from the Internet or that questions are discussed between raters about how the rules should be applied.

      • @ Wagen
        My point was that they were not independent and that they colluded to get the results that they wanted. That is why I don’t trust them. And they weren’t volunteers, they were Cook’s mates.
        Cook himself said he was willing to manufacture a crisis if helped spread the “cause”. And the also admitted the censored, modified and deleted posts on their SKS website.

      • “Why not trust the raters” – well one rated 675 over 72 hrs, which raises a red flag-or-two. Of course, Cook insisted that time stamps weren’t collected, so he was caught in a lie and seems untrustworthy himself.
        But a better measure of “trust” would be to see if the raters misconstrued any papers by…well, I don’t know…asking the authors of the papers themselves? How’d they match-up?

      • @Michael,
        Well they did ask. Unsurprisingly the raters abstract ratings do not agree with the author’s self rating of the whole papers in a substantial degree. Nonetheless, the conclusion is the same.
        But if you don’t trust it, DIY

      • @Wagen
        “Who is volunteering for rating (in general, not only regarding AGW) when they are locked up?”
        If the protocol was not realistic and unworkable in practice, complain to the protocol designer! Why would we care about warmists self-inflicted issues?
        Anyway they should have taken steps to make sure the protocol is followed (at least, try to make it harder to violate protocol than to follow it). They did not. In fact, they did the opposite.
        They violated protocol in a systematic way. Then they made everything possible to hide that fact, going as far as:
        – Saying raters have privacy expectations which mean they weren’t scientists, only subject – absurd on its face; subjects can’t rate. This is farce.
        – Making absurd legal threats (via the university). This is farce (bis).

      • “But if you don’t trust it, DIY”
        Wagen, nobody here thinks this study design has any value. So no, we won’t replicate a study with this stupid design.
        What matters is that the published research doesn’t show any consensus on the effect of GHG, period.

      • @simplething
        “protocol” 😀 Are you from the military?
        You have simply no idea! You think that adhering to protocol or not is defining science is so way of reality that I do not know where to start to give you a more realistic picture,
        In any case, not following protocol does not make research invalid, it can even lead to new protocols.

        • Then you’ll follow the NEW protocol.
          Wagen, I have humiliated you. It’s time for you time to LEAVE.

    • So you think it would’ve taken solitary confinement to do a proper study? Fascinating.

      • Well, that seems to me to be the conclusion from what Tol criticizes. Looks like he wants raters in science to be similar to juries in court cases that are not allowed contact to what’s going on outside the court house during the process.
        Completely out-of-this-world-ishly

      • No Wagen, that’s not it at all.
        How do you like this part?
        http://richardtol.blogspot.it/2014/10/erl-does-not-want-you-to-read-this_90.html
        “…It appears – no survey protocol was released – that the research team (1) gathered data (19 February to 15 April 2014), (2) studied the results, (3) gathered more data (11 May to 1 June 2012), (4) studied the results again, (5) changed the classification system, and (6) gathered more data and reinterpreted the rest. The results from step (1) and (3) are different (raw sample chi-sq(df=6)=255, p<0.001; matched sample chi-sq(df=6)=393, p<0.001). The results from step (3) and (6) are different too: The dissensus rate changes by one-half (Tol, 2014a)…"

      • @michael,
        I was complaining about the:
        “Impossible expectations of what research can deliver.”
        Figure out who said that. 🙂
        Your further points have nothing to with anything I said something about the paper here.

      • Wagen offers Sks as a defense of cook. Logic fail. That’s like claiming Muons prove relativity.
        Look up logical fallacy.
        You are an Sks drone so no matter what is said here you will troll out the same rubbish.
        Cook’s study has been demolished, you are in denial

    • “Utterly crazy!” properly describes the study DESIGN and the study PROTOCOL. I agree, and I think everyone here does.
      The fact is that protocol wasn’t followed. It doesn’t matter at this point why. The not following protocol has been discovered, and that implies automatic retraction, period.

      • You are funny!
        “protocol wasn’t followed”
        According to Tol. He is not the judge on that.
        “It doesn’t matter at this point why. The not following protocol has been discovered, and that implies automatic retraction, period.”
        Oh. My. God!
        You will only hear what you want to hear, won’t you? If someone disagrees, just use to make everyone agree that you are right 🙂

      • OMG OMG OMG
        You are actually defending this pathetic attempt at physics sociology?
        Do you deny the fact the raters discussed ratings?
        Do you deny the fact the raters were actually Cook’s buddies and no subject?
        Do you deny the fact the raters have no expectation of privacy? (in any protocol)
        Do you deny the fact the raters having privacy protection means that raters are subject and this is actually a psychology experiment by Cook on his buddies, not a poll of studies?

      • Wagen and his unsubstantiated denials.
        So funny.
        When faced with clear evidence, he just denies it is true. That’s how Sks rolls

      • ‘Say how do yer define ‘independent,’ H.D.?
        And how do yer define ‘consensus?’
        Humpty Dumpty: ‘When I use a word it
        means exactly what I choose it to mean.’

    • Over the last few weeks I have been reading (The many rediculous) posts by Wagen. I have come to the conclusion that I value Tol’s comments on Cook’s 97% consensus paper over anything Wagen has to say about it (Or anything else) as Wagen appears to be an alarmist know nothing who has fallen for the “message” hook, line and sinker.

      • Alarmists always call for commenters qualifications when they rebut papers like that rubbish Cook published (Refuted many times). What are your qualifications to challenge Tols’ comments on the Cook paper?

      • The Government (Admin/CIC in particular) has the power to send all the little “Wagens” it feels like to places like WUWT . . perfectly “legal” since laws against propagandizing us were set aside a few years ago. I suggest folks stop being so silly as to think that power is not being exercised, routinely.

      • No matter what evidence or argument you show Wagen, he’ll troll out his nonsensical arguments and thinks they make sense.
        Wagen? You are a denizen of Sks yes?
        Ergo you are not here to “discuss” anything. Your obtuse reactions to detailed breakdowns of cooks methods are laughable lol.
        My only issue is people keep replying to this Sks drone, he is not going to ever accept any point that puts Sks or Cook in a bad light

    • @wagen
      There are two options: Either Cook should have indeed prevented the raters from contact with the outside world — and this is standard practice in human experiments — or Cook should not have claimed there was no such contact.

      • “Cook should have indeed prevented the raters from contact with the outside world”
        Not at all a reasonable option given the number of abstracts.
        ” — and this is standard practice in human experiments — ”
        Yes, as far as it is workable. You know full well that these are only guidelines, and that it is not the case that when guidelines are not followed to the letter, that the results are then useless.
        What you are saying is that they should have done ideal research in an ideal world. As I said above:
        “Impossible expectations of what research can deliver.”
        You may remember what someone who wrote about this in a newspaper you are familiar with is thinking it is a sign of. 🙂

    • How typical. The article complains that the different people who reviewed a paper are allowed to talk with each other regarding the paper they are rating, and the troll responds with, “So you want them to be locked up?”.
      When you can’t defend the deed, change the subject.
      I guess that just proves how pathetic the original paper was.

      • “The article complains that the different people who reviewed a paper are allowed to talk with each other regarding the paper they are rating”
        Raters have to be sure that they are in the business of rating the same thing. If it is clear beforehand what the material looks like, clear rules can be set and no further communication is needed. Not the case here. Raters needed guidance because they were not sure how to interpret the material given the instructions thusfar. So, more explanation is needed and all the raters need to be on the same page. This is nothing unheard of. Happens all the time. The mystery is why you think it invalidates the study?

        • “Raters needed guidance because they were not sure how to interpret the material given the instructions thusfar”
          Wagen, are you implying the raters were incompetent?

      • “Wagen, are you implying the raters were incompetent?”
        No, I was definitely not. (I could at this point imply something about your reading comprehension.)

  21. Science should be competitive, but when you see this kind of thing it’s obvious they are all “sharing the pot”.
    Choo choo all aboard the gravy train

  22. Cook et al:
    “At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (“no position”) represent non­endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well­established theories such as plate tectonics.”
    This is left here without further comment. But hoping to see interesting counter-speech.

    • How did the post and re-posts that you read yesterday not get into your thick skull?

      • Well you know, thick skull and all, runs in the family 😉
        Or, maybe (!), your skull is too thick to notice that this is the case, and you failed to give a convincing argument?

      • Why bother. You proved on the Cook-related thread the other day that something has to be spelled-out and repeated over-and-over before you can finally grasp what it is saying. And then you just change the subject to something else.
        Cook’s methods and paper were a fraud. As much as he tried to hide some of his data – and in some cases denied it even existed – his study was exposed as a sham. Rather than nit-picking the wording of particular criticisms, why don’t you look at the big picture?
        If you can’t find the identification of any of the serious problems in the methodology and conclusions to be valid criticisms, then you have a serious cognitive problem. Most of those problems individually would invalidate the study entirely. As a whole, they reveal the study and paper to be an unethically-produced piece of garbage. Maybe that’s one reason you support it…you can relate to it.

      • Michael,
        “that something has to be spelled-out and repeated over-and-over before you can finally grasp what it is saying.”
        Nah, maybe the arguments were poor? Repeating doesn’t help there.
        “If you can’t find the identification of any of the serious problems in the methodology and conclusions to be valid criticisms, then you have a serious cognitive problem.”
        Or maybe you do not understand that this is not the case and reasonable people understand the minor flaws in the paper fully well and see no reason to dismiss the paper’s conclusion because on that (Tol agrees with high 90s agreement in the field too).

    • Your hopes are fulfilled. Cook’s paper claimed the raters were independent. Since you’re apparently scientifically challenged, lets generally define what independent means under these study circumstances.
      It means raters were given/ trained on a single specific rating criteria, then set loose to independently produce their results per that criteria on the sample abstracts. 1. They were obviously in communication during ratings, so not independent. 2. The Criteria shifted over time.
      What part of completely hosed up do you still deny? You have counter facts, post them. Else, go permanently away you uneducated warmunist. Defending the indefensible is very unwise. Even in the always factual quicksand blogosphere.

    • Cook et al:
      “At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (“no position”) represent non­endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well­established theories such as plate tectonics.”
      So maybe Cook’s silly studies count study just cannot be made to work, for any question, in any field?
      How much consensus is there for “well­established theories such as plate tectonics”? Is it even measurable?

      • Exactly, how does a paper by a geologist that does not address plate tectonics, count as an endorsement of plate tectonics?
        Never mind that the entire Cook question is 100 percent unscientific to begin with.

      • “So maybe Cook’s silly studies count study just cannot be made to work, for any question, in any field?”
        If you follow Tol’s silly interpretation, then yes. I would however urge you to ask the geologists at the university closest to you about plate tectonics.
        Same goes for Climate Scientists. Anything else is plain silly.
        @David
        “how does a paper by a geologist that does not address plate tectonics, count as an endorsement of plate tectonics?”
        How does it count as a rejection of plate tectonics?

        • “Anything else is plain silly.”
          I am glad to see that you agree with everybody else here. Are you a troll or did you change your mind?

      • “I am glad to see that you agree with everybody else here. Are you a troll or did you change your mind?”
        You think that is a funny response when you have nothing left to say? Go to the climate scientists at the university most accessible to you. Don’t rely on blogs, they may distort reality. Ask people who are familiar with the subject. Not some blog somewhere on the Internet.

    • Show where this is an issue in the works?
      You just copy pasted this, where are the particulars?
      Again another skirter not willing and unable to get into the actual details without your Sks word doc with canned slogans and nonsense

      • It is quite easy. There are many studies concerning earth crust movements. Most of these do not adress the question if plate tectonics are true or not. Given Tol’s interpretation methods of the results, it is not possible to do a survey in the relevant field and come up with the conclusion that there is a consensus in the field regarding plate tectonics (at the same time that it actually exists).

        • Wagen, Wagen, Wagen… are you addicted to begging the question?
          Why do you think it should be possible to measure plate tectonics consensus this way?
          If you want to know scientists’ opinion, why don’t you ask them directly?

      • “And Cook et al did”
        Then why have raters? Why worry about studies to establish consensus?

      • @Simple-touriste
        So you not know the most basic facts about the paper? You don’t know that abstracts were rated and in addition papers were rated by the paper’s authors? Really? And you have been commenting to my comments on the issue? Please, get back to the real world! Internet echo chambers are not the real world.

        • @Wagen
          You have explained that protocol has not been followed and couldn’t be followed and that we couldn’t expect people to be honest.
          When in a hole, stop digging.

    • It is clearly absurd to count papers not explicitly stating the cause of global warming (no position) as representing no-endorsement. As AZ71 said above “”Indeed, circular reasoning. “Assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent” is as equally valid as claiming that “assumption of lack of affirmation equals confirmation.””
      We must discount “no position” papers because we do not know what position they would have taken if they expressed an opinion.
      To clarify the quote, very, very few biology papers would explicitly take a position on evolution, and very, very few astronomy papers would take a position on the heliocentric solar system and very, very few earth science papers woupld explicitly take a view on plate tectonics.
      So far, nobody has adressed this point.

      • Chris April 13, 2016 at 6:49 am

        It’s not a diversion, it’s truth. If a paper doesn’t take a position on AGW, then it should not be counted as either supporting or negating AGW.

        OK then, let’s ask a different survey question and stick to Cook’s methodology.
        Question: How many scientists have NFI what’s going on with the climate?
        We’ll now leave out the one third of papers that took a position because they apparently have an idea.
        See? . . 100% consensus that scientists have NFI what is going on with the climate.

    • How dastardly. Papers that don’t endorse a theory, are counted as not endorsing a theory.
      How will science ever survive such calumny?
      As usual, the troll puts up a pathetic diversion.

      • It’s not a diversion, it’s truth. If a paper doesn’t take a position on AGW, then it should not be counted as either supporting or negating AGW.

  23. I predict the next steps:
    97% of consensus over consensus on global climate warming change
    97% of studies over consensus on studies concluding explicitly or implicitly that at least half of the consensus on climate concludes that 97% of the climate changes 97% of the time
    the Cook is 97% sure that 97% of the data has been well cooked
    …(after 97 iterations)
    97% probability that studies showing consensus are 97% wrong
    If any of these predictions doesn’t come true, then it will have been a projection.

    • “I can’t imagine what would qualify for the 3%…….”
      Some raters had picked up their grocery lists and rated them by mistake.

    • We don’t have to imagine because it is defined for us. I believe any of the following would count in the 3%.
      (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive…’
      (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming ‘…anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results’
      (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming ‘…the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect”
      No shopping lists there.

      • Absolutely shopping lists. The papers included in the 97%, that is.
        If they’d done it right, they’d have found good consensus, but they wanted to overdo it and ended up creating a piece of crxp which was then more than successfully marketed. I congratulate Mr. Cook. Very seldom people make such a career with so bad and intently misleading representation of results.
        You can state that global warming is being caused by humans, without the need to explicitly state whether you mean all global warming or some global warming. This distinction is important, since some people apparently think that all global warming is caused by humans and at the same time some natural cooling is counteracted by humans, where some other people agree that only half of the recent warming is caused by human GHG emissions. There is a big difference between these statements, all inside the quite large IPCC margin of error. Inside the consensus, that is.
        Also, jumping from the very existence of percentage of anthropogenic, GHG induced global warming to dangerous AGW is something that is difficult to back. There is no consensus on that. Just an endless river of predictions (or projections) on future disaster, all becoming less and less plausible as decades pass and temperatures, well, they appear to rise but you need very careful observations to even prove their increase. It is not that you step out and start sunbathing in Reykjavik in the new warming world, no it is still fxcking absolutely cold there.

      • From day one Cook claims failed the sniff test , oddly because of what he and his followers think is it very strength, then 97 %
        because to get any number of experts to agree to this level is like herding cats while blindfold , and because matching the number exactly was highly improbable.
        The reality is they set out with the intention to ‘prove’ the 97% claim , they made no effort to see if was true or not . In this they failed in their basic methodology , they merely built hill of sh*t on top of quick sand
        However in the spirit of fairness you have to admit they did follow the standard procedure for those working in this are, start with the result you want then create the ‘data’ you need to support it , as long as you get the headlines then frankly any old sh*t will do

  24. Consensus?
    Agreement? As in everyone agrees? Or just certain raters agree that they believe certain words mean CAGW agreement, or AGW agreement, or just CO2 is a GHG?
    Such research has all the value of ‘This week’s Top 50’ alarums and other disturbances.
    Good for future archaeological digs into just how foolish the easily deluded are.

  25. Anyone else wondering just how many logons Cook cooked up for his ratings this time?
    Maybe we should form a pool with the total collected paid to Anthony WUWT. (Any actual winners get to have their names splashed online as ‘consensus’ winners.)

  26. Let’s not waste too much brain time on this worthless instance of study of literature and let’s focus on the idea of studying the literature.
    Science literature, scientist biblio evaluation, like the horrible horrible website Stack Overflow (*), is an abject system of trying to be popular (like cheerleaders). It’s a system where people with the “right” ideas (PC) are worshiped like sexy cheerleaders and quarterbacks in schools, in TV shows (I don’t know about the real thing). Even Noami O. is “a lightning rod in a changing climate”!
    (*) SO can be useful as long as the answer you need is PC or popular or promoted by someone worshiped
    And with scientists evaluation, scientists are expected to publish in sexy cheerleaders journals. The captain of the sexy cheerleaders gets to define science!
    When a dogma dominates the field, the researchers will have to say the exact opposite of the logical conclusion in their conclusion; when a vaccine is shown to be dangerous, they will conclude that nothing is changed WRT the vaccine schedule, the unsafe vaccine should still be given to people with no risk factors, etc. This is craziness.
    People who have a literal reading will read the study proving the awful dangers of a vaccine and conclude that it confirms the usefulness of the vaccine!!!!!! Only people with the intelligence of a 10 years old will understand the meaning of the study. Lawyers will just read the words in the conclusion.
    I wonder how many MD are 10 years old+ and how many are lawyers.

  27. It’s a shame Richard Tol’s arguments are parroted here without any critical analysis as much of what he says is wrong, and he manages to not examine the central problems with the paper. The central problem to this paper is quite simple: The authors conflate any acknowledgement of the greenhouse effect with an endorsement of the idea humans are the main cause of global warming. This problem is particularly important as when designing their rating system, the Skeptical Science group discussed how they could examine two different consensus positions: 1) That humans cause some amount of warming; 2) That humans are the main cause of global warming. Had they followed that plan, they would have found there data shows a massive consensus humans are causing some amount of warming but only a 1.6% consensus humans are the main cause.
    There are other issues which are worth discussing about the paper, such as how the authors lied about the raters being independent and that the authors only used titles and abstracts when doing their ratings. One could reasonably bring those up in addition to highlighting the central problem of the paper. That’s not what Tol has done though. Tol has focused entirely upon these side issues, even creating a ton of fake ones (his repeated claim papers were removed simply because the ID numbers had gaps should get him laughed out of the room). The result is Cook et al have been able to respond to Tol’s weak arguments and pretend that addresses the criticisms of their paper.
    The sad reality is Tol has been the greatest ally Cook et al could have ever asked for. If not for him, they might have had to actually address the fact they conflated the idea humans cause some amount of warming with the idea humans are the main cause of global warming.
    (Oh, and people, please stop citing the ~8,000 papers rated as meaning the consensus is <33%. That's probably the worst argument ever.)

      • To be fair, I’ve stressed this central issue since… I think one day after the paper was published? I think that’s right. It might have been the same day the paper was published though. I’m pretty sure it was within 24 hours.
        I’m not saying that to brag. I’m just wanting to make it clear how simple and obvious a point this is. It took no time or effort to figure out this deception. If there really were some massive fossil fuel fueled* disinformation campaign shaping public opinion on the science of global warming, it would have been hammering this point home since day one. And I’d be a lot richer!
        *Sorry, but I had to use that phrase. It makes me chuckle.

    • Absolutely correct. Moreover, Cook had the figure of who equated Global Warming primarily with Anthropogenic effects versus those who think than industrialization may have contributed some meager amount and choose not to report it. He found it much more useful to lump them together. That is always the key, everyone who points to the 97% implies or states that it is a consensus about the catastrophic effects solely attributable to human generated CO2. They (Obama among them) maintain that the 97% is an agreement with whatever they want to believe is meant by their version of CAGW. The easiest response is to simply ask what the study says the consensus is. Of course, most have no idea where that figure comes from. Or one of my favorite self contradictory jokes, “47% of all statistics are made up on the spot”.

      • Indeed. I actually got myself banned from Skeptical Science because I asked them to define their consensus. Here’s a post about it from May of 2013. If you follow the link in it to the Skeptical Science page where I got myself banned, you’ll see some fascinating comments, in which people repeatedly refuse to offer any clear definition of the “consensus” position. My favorite one was after I had said:

        2) There is no clear, much less explicit, definition of “consensus” in the Cook et al paper. None was provided on Skeptical Science either. Obama’s tweet about this paper, which Skeptical Science has used for publicity, describes the consensus found by this paper as something it could not possibly be. It’s cheeky to criticize people for using a different criterion for the “consensus” when you never bothered to provide one of your own.
        Unless or until a clear definition for the “consensus” is provided, it is silly to criticize people for using a different one.

        Rob Honeycutt, a Skeptical Science team member, responded:

        Brandon… Instead of nitpicking the definitions (I would hold that no matter how Cook13 had defined it, you would still be nitpicking) why not write your own categories, do your own research and see what results you get?

        That’s right. Simply trying to get the Skeptical Science group to define what the “consensus” they found was labeled “nitpicking the definitions.” Dozens and dozens of comments were written simply because the Skeptical Science group refused to say, “The 97% consensus we found is that X is true.” And because I tried to get them to do so so people could actually know what the “consensus” position is, I got banned.

    • In addition some of the studies that were included were studies about the psychology or sociology of Global Warming. Moreover, studies about climate change which did not mention human effects were classed as irrelevant and ignored. Hardly surprising, that if someone felt it useful to discuss human effects, they might tend to think that it might have some influence. Or why else bring it up.

      • Don’t forget there were a ton of papers included that weren’t about climate change at all because they happened to mention something about the greenhouse effect. There were papers about things like paving streets which happened to say things like (paraphrased): “Carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, is created in the process of making cement.”
        Papers like that should have been excluded because they weren’t about climate change, but instead, they were included in the “Endorse AGW” category.

      • There are MANY fundamental problems with the 97% junk science studies, and yes the definition of a climate scientist is not even given. If it is not a scientific study on the causes of anthropogenic global warming, then it is meaningless. So I see four other fundamental flaws which individually, let alone collectively, discount these studies as junk science at best, and make them 100 percent irrelevant to public policy
        Flaw 1. This flaw, common to all 97 percent studies is that it is likely that the majority of the supposedly alarmed “climate scientists” in those scientifically meaningless 97% surveys, are not specialists in the CAUSES of climate change (attribution), but in the impacts of and remedies for such change.
        Many, if not most, know very little about studies of atmospheric physics. They may know details about how in such and such region there was a drought, or a flood, and in that region these species were harmed, be it plants, animals, etc…, and they then look at the IPCC climate model mean projection (which according to all the observations are off by a factor of at least two to three) that says, “It worse than we thought, these events will increase in the future if we do not tax the air you breath now”. (OK, I made up the part of taxing the air you breath now, but that is the policy objective. What they actually say is, “It worse than we thought, these events will increase in the future if you do not give me more money to study the problem now”)
        From there these environmental studies project that frogs will get bigger, or frogs will get smaller, or penguins will get to warm, or polar bears will drown, or forests will burn up, or oceans will rise 20’, or bees will die, or earthquakes will increase,etc… (This is not hyperbole, as the flawed climate science peer review process has produced papers stating ALL of the above, and a far longer list of absurdity then written here)
        We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
        There are other fundamental problems to these studies.
        2. None, as in a big fat ZERO, of the studies ask or define if the observed warming is beneficial, harmful or neutral to humans and life on earth, nor do they quantify how harmful or beneficial.
        3. These studies fail to define the warming as to which global mean T data base they are using, surface, weather balloon, satellite, etc.
        4. None, as in a big fat ZERO, of the studies define what “Most of the warming is caused by human emissions” mean. Do they mean 51% or 99%. Do not forget, the climate models essentially consider 100% of the warming due to GHG emissions in their estimated C.S. to a doubling of CO2, which assumes all other factors to balance out to neutral. By making such a general statement, then the study would most certainly demonstrate that the majority of scientists skeptical of CAGW, would also fall in Cook’s endorsement camp.
        So yes, these studies neither define the warming or the consensus, or the benefits vs. the harms f the warming, or the cogency or capacity of the studies to determining causation of CAGW. These studies are neither scientific, or relevant to CAGW.

    • Brandon, can you explain where you get the 1.6%? If the paper does not say whether humans or non-human causes are mostly to blame, we cannot count it for either side. I don’t see how we have enough infornation to arrive at 1.6%

      • Are you criticising the rating categories then? it’s not clear from your
        comment.
        You can search category one (explicitly endorse at +50%) abstracts
        yourself on the SKS website. There are ~62 in this category I believe.
        One of the problems is how statistics are generated from these data – which
        I believe is central to the point that Tol is making. i.e. if we have 1000
        papers, of which 100 abstracts endorse AGW with ~2 claiming +50% – do
        we have a 97% consensus that climate change is real, man-made and
        dangerous?

      • seiace1, I don’t agree a paper which is rated as endorsing the consensus but not rated as quantifying the human contribution cannot be counted for either side, but that’s largely a non-issue. For people who do feel that way though, the Cook et al consensus on the idea humans are the main cause of global warming is still only ~45%. That would probably be the more appropriate number for me to give.
        But really, whether the result given is 45% or 1.6% doesn’t change the point – it is far lower than the 97% claimed by Cook et al.

      • Brandon, can you explain how you get ~45%? That seems roughly consistent with lay person opinion polling data that I’ve seen. I would expect if one looked at attribution studies in the literature the figure would be much higher. I haven’t seen that done explicitly, but the fact that the IPCC give an “extremely likely” (>95%) confidence that “more than half of warming is anthropogenic” suggest that the attribution literature strongly leans that way.

      • The point is that every paper used to calculate the % statistics must be in one of the “position” categories. If we are to move category 2 and 3 into the “no position” category and not count them (and 5 and 6 also) then we are left with only 64 in category 1 and 9 in category 7 -or 87%. specifically endorse AGW vs 13% specifically reject AGW. I think that the very small number compared to the total indicates that this is not a good methodology. Either you find a way to include a good proportion of the sample, or you find another method.
        For completeness the results in total were (from Legates et al 2015)
        1. 64
        2. 922.
        3. 2910
        4. (no position) 7930
        4. (uncertain) 40
        5. 54
        6. 15
        7. 9

      • MarkB:

        Brandon, can you explain how you get ~45%? That seems roughly consistent with lay person opinion polling data that I’ve seen. I would expect if one looked at attribution studies in the literature the figure would be much higher.

        I don’t think the Cook et al approach has much, if any, merit to it and I certainly don’t think the rating system they came up with is good. In fact, I’ve written entire posts about why it isn’t. As such, I wouldn’t take any result gotten from their work as meaning much of anything.
        But, if we use their categories and the comparison Dana Nuccitelli came up with when designing them (Category 1 vs. Categories 5-7 to see the “consensus” humans are the main cause of global warming), we find there are 64 papers rated as endorsing the “consensus” and 78 papers rated as rejecting it. 64/142 = 45%.

      • seaice1:

        The point is that every paper used to calculate the % statistics must be in one of the “position” categories. If we are to move category 2 and 3 into the “no position” category and not count them (and 5 and 6 also) then we are left with only 64 in category 1 and 9 in category 7 -or 87%. specifically endorse AGW vs 13% specifically reject AGW. I think that the very small number compared to the total indicates that this is not a good methodology. Either you find a way to include a good proportion of the sample, or you find another method.

        You are making the false assumption we must compare Category 1 with Category 7, Category 2 with Category 6 and so on. This is contrary to the approach planned when the rating system was designed (see this post for details).
        If you don’t like the comparison, well… take it up with the authors of the study. They’re the ones who came up with it. When they don’t give you an answer, realize any paper rated as having minimized or rejected AGW must necessarily reject the idea humans are the main cause of global warming, so the proper comparison is Category 1 vs. Category 5-7.
        And if that comparison doesn’t work, that just means the paper didn’t produce usable results. You can’t use a faulty comparison just because the proper one doesn’t give you what you want.

      • OK Brandon, I see where you get your figures. I don’t agree that these are the categories we should use, but thanks for explaining. I also see that you don’t think these are “good” categories to use, just the best we can get from the Cook data.

  28. I’ve done a survey of climate papers written by genuine climate scientists and I found that zero percent included a proper explanation of the theory of greenhouse gases. The only consensus displayed is ignorance.

    • A “proper” explanation of the theory of GHG’s is not a requirement in a climate papers.
      Is a explanation of SR and GR needed in every paper on cosmology?
      It’s empirical science, and not up for argument unless observation says otherwise.
      It doesn’t.

  29. Sheesh! The comments here seem rather desperate. A large fraction of highly trained scientists have acquired a suspicion that humans are contributing to the CO2 increase that has been measured. Is this really disputed? If it is not anthropogenic, it would be more useful to explain where the CO2 increase came from. I follow this site hoping to gain some insight, but so far I have not found it.

    • While you are correct humans are contributing to CO2 increases, and has been estimated, can you show us the actual measures that show this increase is causing CAGW?

      • I’m not sure what CAGW is, but doesn’t it seem like there is lots of data showing GW? My life experience is only anecdotal, but ice-out dates and profoundly moderating winter temperatures, suggest AGW. Why is there so much near-hysterical reaction to this simple observation on this site?

      • There is lots of data showing warming since the little ice age, but is it due to increases in CO2? There is plenty of evidence to show the earth is now cooler than it was ~10,000 years ago, a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum. CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you followed this site you would know what that meant. There is no “measure” of CAGW outside computer models.

      • “Toneb April 12, 2016 at 11:07 pm”
        From the article;
        “Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations”
        Two locations = ~3% of ~0.04% ppm/v CO2 forced warming for the whole world, really?

      • Torsoslo says,
        ==================================
        “I’m not sure what CAGW is, but doesn’t it seem like there is lots of data showing GW? My life experience is only anecdotal, but ice-out dates and profoundly moderating winter temperatures, suggest AGW. Why is there so much near-hysterical reaction to this simple observation on this site.
        ————————————————————
        There is lots of data showing…
        …18 plus years of no warming. r
        …no global decrease in sea ice
        …the benefits of CO2 greatly exceed the failing to manifest predicted harms.
        …no increase in hurricanes
        …no increase in tornadoes
        …lower arctic sea ice in the past
        … increased greening of the earth
        …increased food supply
        …lower demand in water to produce more food
        …the IPCC computer model mean forecasts are wrong, predicting two to three times the warming observed
        … no acceleration in SL rise
        …there is no consensus on CAGW
        BTW, please give me examples of the hysteria you claim to see exhibited here.
        .

      • “Toneb April 13, 2016 at 7:39 am”
        What is your point? You post a graph showing CO2 is increasing. So what? We know this! Can you show that ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 is the driver of climate change and that change (None so far observed nor measured) is bad for humans and the planet? I didn’t think so.

      • “What is your point? You post a graph showing CO2 is increasing. So what? We know this! Can you show that ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 is the driver of climate change and that change (None so far observed nor measured) is bad for humans and the planet? I didn’t think so.”
        Patrick – you originally said…
        “Two locations = ~3% of ~0.04% ppm/v CO2 forced warming for the whole world, really?”
        That graph of CO2 concentration over the SP makes a nonsense of your “two locations” as the result would be the same at any location on the planet.
        What do you mean by 3%?
        Ah, of course, you are a “dragon-slayer” and deny the GHE. Then I’d suggest you look up the Beer-Lambert law, and if that does not scan then visit (sceptic) Roy Spencer’s Blog to see him demonstrate it’s effect.
        Hint its easy to do … and what’s more it’s empirical science my friend.
        Not up for argument, as observation has always matched calculation.
        And NO that does NOT mean that GCM’s are the science.
        This is the history of the science….
        https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      • “Toneb April 14, 2016 at 5:26 am”
        You have shown CO2 is rising and you have stated it is a “GHG” (To be more accurate it absorbs and re-radiates LWIR in 3 specific bands mostly smothered by water vapour, but GHG sounds more scary). I never stated CO2 was not well mixed. What you have NOT shown is what is the ~3% human contribution to the ~400ppm/v total concentration doing to climate. So far there is no evidence that ~3% contribution is doing anything at all to the climate. But you go ahead and post as many graphs as you like showing CO2 rising.

  30. The key point that is often missed is that “Climate Change” has never principally been about climate change. I seriously doubt that Cook, Mann, Gore, Nick Stern or Hansen are seriously concerned about climate change.

  31. It is revealing that Cook lands upon exactly the same 97% as occurred in the discredited work by Zimmerman. What were the chances of that happening?

  32. I ask again, why does anyone believe activist chums of Cook the failed cartoonist can classify scientific papers from abstracts?
    That is a fatal flaw in the study as it is, right from the beginning.
    Because of this you had a paper about TV coverage of AGW as “agreeing”.

  33. I must point out that the IEEE and Springer published over 100 papers that were nothing but gibberish created by a MIT software program, only the abstracts were rewritten by researchers.
    You cannot tell anything from an Abstract unless you read the whole darned paper!
    Am I going insane lol

  34. The consensus curves being drawn give a fine example of the danger of confounding variables. I recently discovered a mistake in some experimental work being done studying effects of longer exposures to certain types of radiation. The experiments seemed to show that longer exposure times had a certain effect and the correlation was strong. However, since the experiments were done over a few month time frame and the exposure times were increased over calendar time, it turned out that the actual source of the effect was not the exposure time but instead the calendar time due to an experimental artifact changing in calendar time.
    In the case of consensus versus “expertise” as has been plotted for example here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211610.htm as scientific agreement on global warming versus “expertise” I believe expertise as assessed is strongly correlated with personal stake in the answer to the question. For example a consensus study of the following questions:
    1. That antiobiotic resistance is the major threat to human public health.
    2. That nuclear power is the best solution to future human energy needs.
    3. That physics is the fundamental science above chemistry and biology.
    would have similar results if given to 1) antibiotic researchers, 2) nuclear power researchers and 3) physicists. Anyone working in a field necessarily will tend to think the field in which they work is important and hence expertise (judged by membership in the research community) and feeling that the field is the most important are strongly correlated. It is not crime. It contributes to a researcher’s zeal for his/her field. How many climate scientists would hold the view that their field was “only” as important as a normal academic endeavor, e.g. study of Norse mythology or categorization of different classes of annelids?

    • The question was not about ranking the threat posed by climate change, but about the existence of AGW. It has been pointed out here and elswhere that even if the consensus described in Cook is correct it does not say anything about whether this is a threat or whether we should do anything about it. President Obama was wrong to say that there was 97% consensus that AGW is real and dangerous. I don’t know what the consensus is about the dangerous bit, and as far as I know it has not been determined.
      It is also difficult to know who has the appropriate expertise. Climate scientists are the experts when it comes to climate science, but when it comes to assessing cost of damage we need lots of other experts as well, such as economists. The climatologists can tell us what to expect from the climate but others must tell us what the consequences are. That is why the group of “experts” selected is appropriate to the question investigated in Cook. If we are to asses the level of expert consensus on what to do about it we would need to investigate different experts.
      We get similar things when doctors make assertions about such matters as sugar tax. The doctors are the experts at determining the damage caused by sugar, but they are not the experts at determining the best policy to reduce sugar intake, and whether the costs of such a policy outweigh the benefits. Is it a sugar tax? The doctors do not really know. Similarly with tobacco. The doctors can tell us it does harm, but they cannot tell us whether we should ban tobacco. That is a very different matter. If we want to argue that we should allow tobacco even though it does harm we can make those arguments. We cannot make an informed choice on tobacco policy unless we accept the evidence from the doctors in the first place.
      Is carbon tax better than cap and trade? A climatologist is not the best person to ask.
      However, we will never get the answers from these other experts if the science is rejected. Why even ask the question if we should have a sugar tax if most people do not believe that sugar causes harm?
      There are arguments that adaptation is better than reducing carbon emissions. Fine, lets have that debate. But we cannot have the debate until everyone accepts the science.
      Cook only tells us that most experts in the field accept the science. It does not tell us what we should do about it.
      Your questions are therefore not at all comparable.
      A better list of questions would have to be about something that commentators and media report that there is genuine scientific debate. There are not very many such topics, because by and large the media does not cencern itself with scientific matters unless there are policy debates. Examples include vaccinations. A comparable question might be.
      1) There is genuine scientific debate about whether the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.
      If you plot “expertise” against agreement you would probably find a positive correlation.
      Another that has genuine disagreement might be
      2) Threre is genuine debate about the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics.

      • Seaice1
        First, very few skeptics would suggest that there is absolutely no effects on the climate from anthropological produced Green House Gases. The question most raise is whether its effects are catastrophic. This is why it was so important that Cook confounded those two categories. He first read them in by accepting people who thought the theory true, but not dangerous, to inflate his numbers, and then labels them deniers because they reject that 97% which includes them.
        What set his purported 97% of Catastrophists apart from skeptics is a total rejection of any significant long term effects of Natural Variability. This is rejected by the IPCC as per their mandate to only study human caused warming. The contribution of humans to long term warming can only be determined if one knows what percentage of 20th century warming was caused by natural factors. All warmust reject Natural Variability as a major source of present day warming trends. In fact, any one who seriously suggests natural variability as a possible source of continuing warming was and is dismissed out of hand by the climate community as a denier. Though, once the Pause grudgingly had to be accepted, some embraced the “transient” effects of natural factors. This dismissal of any longer term effects occurs even though they have no agreed upon theory as to why the Pause has occurred in the first place, only a faith without understanding that it will end and we will catch up with the longer term warming trend. For perhaps the most popular hypothesis, suddenly the oceans started absorbing more heat and will just as suddenly stop.

      • “There is genuine scientific debate about whether the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.
        If you plot “expertise” against agreement you would probably find a positive correlation.”
        I am not sure what kind of expertise you are talking about.
        There is no proof that most vaccines mandatory in some parts of the US are beneficial.
        Your “experts” are in bed with Big Pharma.

      • busing Semantics…” In that it Ari Halperin makes a big point that the IPCC says “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.” The IPCC investigates natural and man made climate change.
        “All warmust reject Natural Variability as a major source of present day warming trends. ” That is because “natural variability” is not a source of heating, but a description of outcomes. All astronomers reject “natural variabilty” as a souce of the day / night cycle.
        You have not adressed any of my points.
        simple-touriste.
        “There is no proof that most vaccines mandatory in some parts of the US are beneficial. Your “experts” are in bed with Big Pharma.”
        You make my point for me. The case against vaccines is similar to the case against AGW. In order to reject the scientific consensus one has to assume the experts are duplicitious.

        • “In order to reject the scientific consensus one has to assume the experts are duplicitious”
          You proved my point. You assume what I assume and disregard what I write. So here it is, again: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT MOST MANDATORY VACCINES ARE USEFUL. NONE. There are proofs some are abominations. “Experts” ‘s opinion isn’t proof.
          I don’t assume “experts” (whatever that is) are anything, except in bed with Big Pharma, which they are.
          You assume stuff. I don’t.
          I follow the scientific method. YOU follow the crowd.

      • Half my post has vanished. The top half said approximately.
        “The question most raise is whether its effects are catastrophic. This is why it was so important that Cook confounded those two categories. ”
        Cook did not confound these, he did not mention catasrophic, or indeed harm at all. He only talked about warming. That is why I said Obama was wrong to say “dangerous” in relation to the 97%.
        “This is rejected by the IPCC as per their mandate to only study human caused warming. The contribution of humans to long term warming can only be determined if one knows what percentage of 20th century warming was caused by natural factors.”
        See the recent post from Apr 5 titled “Abusing Semantics…”

      • @seaice1
        “That is why I said Obama was wrong to say “dangerous” in relation to the 97%.”
        Do you realize how troubling it is when you show some common sense?
        But then you lack any when you assume Cook isn’t responsible. He could and should have protested very strongly.

      • Seaice No the IPCC mandate is Human caused warming http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22 And day night cycles are natural variability. I started to respond to your confusion whether day night cycles are natural variability with a discussion about variables and changes in conditions. But that is a side show. The point you didn’t address is the attack on climate scientist who suggest some form of natural variability as a least as part of the answer to why the climate warmed in the 19th century. For example, Willie Soon is attacked because the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics took money from fossil fuel interests which they then turned about and used some of to fund his work. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/28/dr-willie-soon-a-scientist-in-the-humble-quest-for-truth/ His emphasis on the role of solar variations in warming in conjunction with CO2 as well as talking about it in front of congress was the impetus of the attacks. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/?s=harvard-smithsonian Note that the critique is not about his work which is barely mentioned in passing in these articles. Interestingly no one ever notes the importance of CAGW to Greenpeace’s funding.

  35. What I find interesting is how it is possible to research the genuine views of hundreds of thousands of thinking scientists across the world, who collectively would give a much more accurate figure than concentrating on a relatively few ‘specialist’ AGW believers, many of whom I’m sure would like to change their opinions with the hindsight of 19 years without global warming or the Arctic completely melting by 2010, But in changing their views they know they will put their research money at risk, to say nothing of the wrath they would experience from their warmist colleagues.
    Also even if their was a 99 per cent of believers, history has shown many times that the one individual who defies the consensus can be proven right in the end. So let’s keep the debate to the science on the subject, and not to the useless statistics of those who agree or do not agreeing on the science

  36. Interesting.
    The final credits on Cook’s video at MICHIGAN TECH NEWSt lists the University of Queensland, so presumably they own this study.
    Did the University of Queensland ever admit to owning Cook et al 2013?

  37. [snip – this comment purports on the last line to be from John Cook, as referenced by the name in last line in the original comment, but this comes from a Tor server in Saudi Arabia using a disposable email address, and is likely to be faked – mod]

Comments are closed.