tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post916669558774383463..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading; fails to mention they found more papers rejecting AGW than say humans are primarily responsibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-60292249479400820862014-09-08T08:09:30.690-07:002014-09-08T08:09:30.690-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/new-paper-fr...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/new-paper-fraud-bias-public-relations-the-97-consensus-and-its-critics/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50704372027803073772014-03-01T16:22:52.836-08:002014-03-01T16:22:52.836-08:00Protip: Science is not consensus.Protip: Science is not consensus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-25081094849705522122014-02-18T16:03:05.816-08:002014-02-18T16:03:05.816-08:00http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/consensus-...http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/consensus-is-god/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64959589196410150822013-12-09T10:48:26.704-08:002013-12-09T10:48:26.704-08:00http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/tom-cur...http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/tom-curtis-an-open-letter/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5889338445807968232013-12-02T07:29:23.627-08:002013-12-02T07:29:23.627-08:00http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/1...http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/12/cook-responds-badly.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71089346272424401302013-11-25T09:58:21.594-08:002013-11-25T09:58:21.594-08:00http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/the-latest-meteo...http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/?utm_source=feedlyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55052467869162682832013-11-20T11:32:05.850-08:002013-11-20T11:32:05.850-08:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-conse...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-67325559936947452772013-11-14T22:48:16.041-08:002013-11-14T22:48:16.041-08:00http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus...http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-92119707661286088652013-10-28T09:07:25.745-07:002013-10-28T09:07:25.745-07:00http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-con...http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-consensus-wrong-on-cholesterol-but-unquestionable-on-climate/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53476195347547569832013-10-27T21:22:49.360-07:002013-10-27T21:22:49.360-07:00http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2012/06/...http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.com/2012/06/scientific-method-against-anthropogenic.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-42854917422594784902013-10-03T09:23:33.328-07:002013-10-03T09:23:33.328-07:00http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/report-there-is-...http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/report-there-is-no-97-percent-global-warming-consensusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26254822815514964932013-09-30T12:02:49.085-07:002013-09-30T12:02:49.085-07:00http://junkscience.com/2013/09/26/ipcc-reviewer-bu...http://junkscience.com/2013/09/26/ipcc-reviewer-but-to-be-honest-theres-not-a-clear-consensus-among-the-scientific-community/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-81256631809488459682013-09-23T18:13:23.099-07:002013-09-23T18:13:23.099-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/20/join-my-crow...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/20/join-my-crowd-sourced-complaint-about-97-1-consensus/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2845943900637821702013-09-17T19:58:02.894-07:002013-09-17T19:58:02.894-07:00http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/17/consensus-denial...http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/17/consensus-denialism/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50713279554034055052013-09-16T10:45:07.421-07:002013-09-16T10:45:07.421-07:00The Viscount Monckton has written to the editor of...<br />The Viscount Monckton has written to the editor of Environmental Research Letters and asked that the 97% consensus paper by Cook et al. be withdrawn due to its sheer mendacity. I have received a copy of Monckton's very thorough letter and offer some excerpts from it below:<br /><br />The paper claimed a 97.1% “scientific consensus” among the abstracts of 11,944 climate change papers published from 1991-2012. The true “consensus” was not 97.1%. It was 0.3%.<br /><br />The defective paper’s introduction said: “We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change], published over a 21 year period [1991-2012], in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”.<br /><br />Computerized and manual examination by Legates et al. (2013) of the authors’ data-file, made available only some weeks after the paper had appeared, showed that on that file the authors had marked as few as 64 abstracts out of 11,944 (0.5% of the entire sample) as explicitly endorsing that “scientific consensus” as defined in the introduction to their paper. Legates et al., on further examining the 64 abstracts, found that only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed that “scientific consensus”.<br /><br />However, the defective paper you published concluded with these words: “Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”<br /><br />The authors had stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. They had listed this standard, quantified definition of “scientific consensus” in their paper as<br /><br />“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”, the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the abstracts.<br /><br />Yet they did not disclose in their paper how few abstracts – just 64 – they had marked as having stated support for that standard, quantified “scientific consensus”.<br /><br />To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, treating all three categories as one, and did not state the three values separately. An impartial peer reviewer would have spotted this.<br /><br />The seven categories or “levels of endorsement” listed in the paper, with the abstracts marked on the data file or disclosed in the paper as falling within each category, were – Level of endorsement of “scientific consensus” in 11,944 abstracts<br /><br />Marked<br /><br />1 Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming 64<br />2 Explicit endorsement without quantification [We cause some warming] 922<br />3 Implicit endorsement 2910<br />4a No opinion 7930<br />4b Uncertain 40<br />5 Implicit rejection 54<br />6 Explicit rejection without quantification 15<br />7 Explicit rejection with quantification 9<br />Total 11,944<br /><br />So Cook et al. totally misrepresented their own dataMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55737155093805570802013-09-13T11:37:11.387-07:002013-09-13T11:37:11.387-07:00http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/13/in-the-a...http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/13/in-the-australian.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-65088158838302356732013-09-13T07:29:14.651-07:002013-09-13T07:29:14.651-07:00http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/warmist-consensu...http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/warmist-consensus-found-to-be-just-a-pr-campaign-climategater-admits-cook-paper-a-damp-squib/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-60187472174645068772013-09-11T10:17:09.928-07:002013-09-11T10:17:09.928-07:00http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3065058/p...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3065058/postsMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29522678000531532542013-09-10T09:09:45.006-07:002013-09-10T09:09:45.006-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/97-climate-c...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-debunked/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-23409296231780723262013-09-09T11:04:44.292-07:002013-09-09T11:04:44.292-07:00http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/9/the-no-re...http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/9/the-no-response-response.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50193536953559879702013-09-05T18:33:11.897-07:002013-09-05T18:33:11.897-07:00http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/09/05/consensus-...http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/09/05/consensus-shmensus/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+globalwarmingorg+%28GlobalWarming.org%29MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-18682834089939460312013-09-03T23:14:34.151-07:002013-09-03T23:14:34.151-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/consensus-wh...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/consensus-what-consensus-2/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-91283992667539462812013-09-03T15:41:03.446-07:002013-09-03T15:41:03.446-07:00http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-01...http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69334306698216403102013-09-03T13:47:07.413-07:002013-09-03T13:47:07.413-07:00http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/3/benestad-...http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/3/benestad-et-al-rejected.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53802029928149268792013-09-03T13:13:11.695-07:002013-09-03T13:13:11.695-07:00http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/0...http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/08/28/ipcc-lead-author-debunks-asserted-97-percent-consensusMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com