Cook et al 2013 97% bulltulip

**DimPrawn** · 4 March 2016, 18:24

Eh?

**WTFH** · 5 March 2016, 08:22

Cook et al 2013 97% bulltulip

He's going to provide a link to a story written by Anthony Watts claiming that a certain piece of climate research is false. The story by Watts was proven false about 2 weeks after it came out, but that hasn't stopped it being repeated by many who aren't interested in facts.

The following debunks SO and those he follows religiously, such as Montford and Lomberg:
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

**pjclarke** · 5 March 2016, 12:34

For the click-averse Cook et al was the latest in a series of literature reviews or surveys of scientists that concluded that, what I will call the IPCC consensus as shorthand, is endorsed by a percentage of climate scientists in the high-nineties. It is sometimes called the 97% paper, referring to the percentage from a sample of the subset of 12,000 papers that expressed an endorsing view, although similar numbers were found by several previous surveys and reviews.

As well as rating abstracts, Cook et al also asked the authors of the papers to rate their own studies, and got the same answer.

A few took issues with the methodology, e.g. Richard Tol published a comment, however he conceded that

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on*climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that*climate change*is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." and "The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that."

Monckton's critique was to calculate the number of papers that actually quantified the degree of warming in the abstract as being mainly manmade and got a tiny percentage, naturally. You could do a similar exercise in Biology and conclude that the theory of Evolution is false because it rarely gets explicitly stated in article abstracts. As the SKS article notes iIf you apply His Fraudship's logic the other way around, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.

I would counsel against trusting anything originating with Lord Monckton of Benchley, he has been so frequently debunked.

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Of course, anyone believing this to be 'BS' is free to repeat the exercise, using their own methodology, they could even use the Cook et al data.

Nobody has.

**DimPrawn** · 5 March 2016, 12:37

So basically, another nutter trying to say that snow won't exist or will exist? Along with all the other mentally insane deniers, heretics, infidel, non believers?

**SpontaneousOrder** · 5 March 2016, 14:22

Originally posted by WTFH View Post

He's going to provide a link to a story written by Anthony Watts claiming that a certain piece of climate research is false. The story by Watts was proven false about 2 weeks after it came out, but that hasn't stopped it being repeated by many who aren't interested in facts.

The following debunks SO and those he follows religiously, such as Montford and Lomberg:
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

As I intimated, I am going to post the stats from actually looking at the data myself.
I can only assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, as the data & paper are freely available, and if you'd actually looked at them yourself you'd see that the 97% claim banded about is bulltulip, and the defense you posted the link for only goes to demonstrate just how dishonest he skepticalscumbags.com gang are. They get caught lying and their response is to double down.

There is no opinion involved in the matter - it's all available in cold hard data, for anyone who cares to look rather than just believing opinions that validate their pre-existing preferences.

"he's going to post a link debunking the paper..."
"here's a link debunking the debunking..."

That's how it works. eh? Lol.

**WTFH** · 5 March 2016, 16:12

Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post

As I intimated, I am going to post the stats from actually looking at the data myself...

"he's going to post a link debunking the paper..."
"here's a link debunking the debunking..."

That's how it works. eh? Lol.

Ah, sorry, I thought this was a thread where you were going to actually say something, rather than bluff and bravado.
You started a thread to say you are going to post something, you followed it up by saying anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
You still say you are going to post something.

As yet you have posted nothing.

You hold on to your religious belief that you are right, and I'll hold on to science.

**WTFH** · 5 March 2016, 16:48

I've studied SO's posts and 97% of them are complete tulip.

... The other 3% are incomplete tulip.

**pjclarke** · 5 March 2016, 19:51

Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post

As I intimated, I am going to post the stats from actually looking at the data myself

Oh goody. Once you've disposed of that one, we can turn our attention to:

Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming

Environ. Sci. Technol.,*2014,*48*(16), pp 8963–8971

Abstract:

Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

And

Expert credibility in climate change

*Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (anthropogenic climate change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Expert credibility in climate change

And

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientiﬁc basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

And Oreskes, of course…

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science

And other surveys are available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

Then you can track down an association of professional scientists that does not endorse the consensus. Just one. Good luck with that.

**pjclarke** · 5 March 2016, 22:41

Speaking of expert associations, the largest single body of professional Earth Scientists is the American Geophysical Union, and their position statement starts:

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

http://sites.agu.org/sciencepolicy/f...ugust-2013.pdf

Other position statements are available.

Cook et al 2013 97% bulltulip