A so-called study or survey that found a 97-percent scientific consensus on man-made global warming received extensive media coverage and support from global warming alarmists and their useful idiots across the world. This latest story was so important to the global warming camp that even Barack Obama tweeted about it.
That was highly expected since both neo-liberal media and political establishments have been aggressively promoting the anthropogenic global warming theory to justify the passage of carbon taxes, industrial regulations, environmentalist laws, and their globalist agenda.
Skeptical Science, a neo-liberal, junk science website run and managed by GW alarmist John Cook, published on May 16 its survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers that found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible”.
It’s good that Mr. Cook used the word “survey”, which means his paper is not a scientific study and that the site’s members who did the survey could have been influenced by their political ideology, lack of scientific knowledge, and confirmation bias. Simply put, Cook invited people who then cast their votes. Isn’t that so hilarious?
Cook in this blogpost states:
A team of Skeptical Science volunteers proceeded to categorize the 12,000 abstracts – the most comprehensive survey of its kind to date. Each paper was rated independently at least twice, with the identity of the other co-rater not known. A dozen team members completed most of the 24,000+ ratings. There was no funding provided for this project; all the work was performed on a purely voluntary basis.
Cook and his team classified the global warming papers into seven levels of endorsements.
The survey also found that the global warming consensus “has strengthened over time”. The blogpost further states:
In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change.
Cook then warned his readers and supporters that some climate opponents will dismiss their findings by saying “we don’t dispute that humans cause some global warming.” He stressed that a lot of people don’t buy the over-used consensus rhetoric that humans cause global warming. He thus concluded that their paper shows that climate contrarians’ position “is not supported in the scientific literature”.
Not so fast.
A number of climate contrarians have examined Cook et al.’s paper and methodology and found that it was nothing but a fraud. As they say, if you don’t have the facts, invent them. That’s what the AGW alarmists and their fellow raters at Skeptical Science exactly did.
A day after Skeptical Science posted its most celebrated pro-AGW paper, Brandon Shollenberger published an article that exposed the Cook et al. paper as nothing but a global warming bluff.
We’ve been having fun on this site about this study, but what I say next I cannot say with any humor. It is simply too serious. Skeptical Science recently invited people to rate the 12,000+ abstracts via Skeptical Science’s interactive rating system so people could “measure the climate consensus” themselves. An additional feature of the system allows users to view the abstracts, as well as the ratings given by the people behind the paper.
According to him, the guidelines for rating the peer-reviewed studies abstracts merely indicates “the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming” on human activities.
“No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions: ‘that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%),'” he said.
He found that only 65 results out of over 12,000 studies meet the requirement. “Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper: Reject AGW 0.7% (78),” he added.
The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.
Also, Forbes contributor James Taylor did not mince words when he said that Cook and his fellow global warming alarmists “doctored” the 97-percent consensus claims.
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Taylor said that Cook and his minions may have been motivated by “idiocy, ignorance, or both”.
He cited an investigative paper at Popular Technology that examined which papers were classified within the claimed 97-percent. The site’s investigative journalists discovered that Cook and his team deliberately misled the public when they categorized papers by such AGW skeptics as Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the so-called consensus.
For instance, Cook et al. classified scientist Craig Idso’s paper as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ “without minimizing” the purported severity of anthropogenic global warming.
Popular Technology contacted Idso to verify whether this was an accurate representation of his peer-reviewed paper. Idso made the following response:
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
The investigative journalists also contacted physicist Nicola Scafetta for verification. Scafetta rejected the Cook et al. paper and said it was based on “a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.”
Scafetta further stated:
What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006.”
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly rejected the pro-AGW paper by saying Cook and his minions misrepresented his peer-reviewed paper.
Shaviv’s statement is as follows:
Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C). I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.
It was also found that Cook and his Skeptical Science colleagues mis-categorized various scientific papers as taking “no position” on man-made global warming.
When asked by Popular Technology to comment on this particular issue, Morner, a sea-level scientist, said that classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “certainly not correct and certainly misleading”.
“The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC,” Morner added.
In conclusion, the Cook et al. study merely proves global warming alarmists will do everything and stop at nothing to fool the people and to achieve their globalist agenda.
Here’s my two cents worth on this issue. I strongly believe that science is not about so-called consensus; it is supposed to be dictatorial. It is the pursuit of facts, knowledge and truth. Science is what science (meaning, metaphysical facts) says. And the discovery of facts is supposed to be constant, unhampered, and unregulated. The government has nothing to do about science, and there should be separation of state and science, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
This is just for fun!
What did Filipino useful idiots, particularly members of the Filipino Freefarters, say about the Skeptical Science meme?
This proves these stupidly arrogant Filipino freefarters merely take things that mention such terms as “peer-reviewed”, “scientific study” or “consensus” on FAITH. Did they even read the Cook et al. paper? I doubt it. They’re morons…