Paul McCullough

2016-11-05 00:09:35 -0400

AGW

IPCC

IPCC

AGW

IPCC

IPCC

IPCC

AGW

I still see climate cultists quoting that 97% climate consensus nonsense as if it has any real meaning. Every survey that made similar claims fell apart on inspection. They either consisted of cherry picking a very small data sample or, as in the latest Cook consensus fraud, pooled every scientist with an opinion ontogether & tried to pass it off as a consensus with the garbage coming from theShortly before thereleased it’s 5th 5 year climate assessment we had John Cook et al come out with their 97.1% “scientific consensus” on. This was trumpeted by global warming alarmists & corrupt politicians as further “proof” of the “proven science.” The problems with it occurred immediately upon viewing it.Cook considered the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. A somewhat weaker definition than that of the– the true consensus among published scientific papers is now shown to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Of the 11,944 papers Cook examined, he had only flagged 64 of them as explicitly supporting his phoney consensus. It was then found, upon investigation, that 23 of those papers had not supported it at all. Also found upon investigation, Cook used 3 distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably instead of defining the survey question clearly, as a survey of this type requires. He arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the papers on the unacceptable ground that they expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. He misclassified papers by prominent skeptics such as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin in order to support his findings.Oh, but that’s not all. The University of Queensland are so sure of Cook’s work that they threaten legal action against anyone that dares to even try to look at his data. Brandon Shollenberger came across this information on a third party, unencrypted, unprotected website & got a letter from the university threatening to sue him if he released the data (which he did) or even posted their threatening letter (which he also did.) From this we found, among other things, that the vast majority of the rating were not done independently, as claimed, but instead by his co-authors. There was also no ethics approval for the rating program, as was claimed.According to Sarah Green, one of the most active raters – “But, this is clearly not an independent poll, nor really a statistical exercise. We are just assisting in the effort to apply defined criteria to the abstracts with the goal of classifying them as objectively as possible. Disagreements arise because neither the criteria nor the abstracts can be 100% precise. We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow.” Yet the claim from Cook & the University was “Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.”Mr. Nuccitelli, one of the authors of the Cook paper, has written a posting on the “Skeptical Science” blog in which he sought to justify the discrepancy between the abstracts of Legates et al. & the Cook paper (which had assigned to the “explicit endorsement with quantification” category and the “97.1% based on abstract ratings that the conclusion of the Cook paper had claimed endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined) – “Theposition (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution. Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.” – So the 11,944 paper survey showing a 97.1% “consensus” has become a 75 paper survey showing an 87% “consensus.” A 75 paper survey is not viable. What Cook et al showed was that there is almost no support at all for the/ warming alarmist position onSo why do these climate cultists still insist there’s a “consensus”? Maybe so they’ll have somewhere to retreat to when the “science” fails.