'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

[khwaidee1 196]

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Duh! Liberal's hate science.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[ready4ONE 5,400]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

How come NASA appears to have failed to mention Cook?

Edited January 7, 2015 by ready4ONE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, the math is a little fuzzy:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How come NASA appears to have failed to mention Cook?

Plausible deniability.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Statistics are great:

"33% of the rats lived, 33% died, and the last one got away somewhere in the laboratory."

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Consensus is not science.

Google 'eugenics'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Duh! Liberal's hate science.

A statement as meaningful as saying that conservatives hate English grammar, punctuation and spelling.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A statement as meaningful as saying that conservatives hate English grammar, punctuation and spelling.

That is American grammar, punctuation and spelling to you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No. It's English. To everyone.

'American' isn't a language. 'American English' is a loose collection of dialects of the English language.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No. It's English. To everyone.

'American' isn't a language. 'American English' is a loose collection of dialects of the English language.

I reject your obvious bigotry toward Americans.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I accept your ignorance about linguistics.

[Rob L 3,811]

I reject your obvious bigotry toward Americans.

I reject your obvious bigotry toward 'Mericans.

Fixed

[eieio 1,594]

Don't forget to buy your carbon credits. The end is near!!!!!