By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Not the least of many signs that the rationalists who have dared to doubt the official story are winning the debate on the climate is…
Category: 97% consensus
A question for Oreskes – But what do we mean by consensus?
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Politicians pay for science, but scientists should not be politicians. Consensus is a political concept. Unwisely deployed, it can be damagingly anti-scientific. A…
Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. –…
Cook's 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination
Bjørn Lomborg writes on his Facebook Page Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has…
Quote of the week …about that 97% consensus
For those that have heard about that claimed “97% consensus” on global warming from John Cook and the SkS Kidz, here is a thought from the oldie but goodie department:
New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW
From Forbes writer James Taylor: Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating…
Inside The Skeptical Science Secret Tree House Bunker*
*with apologies to Josh Normally I don’t go with a Godwins Law parody but… The Skeptical Science Kidz made it a front page issue It’s darn funny!
What Is Cook’s Consensus?
By Paul Homewood John Cook’s little paper, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” has attracted much attention in recent weeks. Yesterday an essay by Brandon…
On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful'
Guest essay by Brandon Shollenberger It’s nothing but laundering lies. The authors don’t come out and directly say anything untrue, but they intentionally create and promote misunderstandings to inflate the…
Friday Funny – the walk of shame
Josh writes: Dana said in a tweet that I don’t ‘put any intelligent thought’ in my cartoons, see screen shot below. I guess that means he thinks they are clever!…
'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment
Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus. Guest essay by Christopher Monckton…
ERL rejects Richard Tol's comment on Cook et al 2013, but won't say who rejected it
Also, it appears the opinion of ONE board member is all it takes, so much for consensus. Richard Toll provides this communication:
Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax
Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences,…
Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper
Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the…
Quote of the Week – marketing the consensus before it's '97% Cooked'
In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control,…
The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds
UPDATE: comments welcome on Dr. Richard Tol’s draft paper on this issue, see below. This will be a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one…
Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus
Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not…
The 97% consensus paper is starting to fall apart
Two developments suggest that Cook et al 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature may be soon be headed for “retraction watch”, since serious problems…
You must be logged in to post a comment.