New ’97% Consensus’ study goes belly up: ‘This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the U.S., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming (78) than say humans are primarily to blame for it’ (65)
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the inanities of John Cook’s paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has written an extraordinary analysis of the data, which really has to be seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. 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%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)
Skeptic’s Letter To John Cook: Hi John, It appears that the results of your survey have been misrepresented in the press and by the President of The United States. In fact, more papers rejected CAGW than claimed that humans were the dominant influence. I am certain that you would not want your name associated with this spectacular misrepresentation of your modest finding. What actions are you taking to get the facts cleared up?’
Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming — But Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ — ‘What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process…New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable’ — ‘The number of papers is a proxy for funding’: ‘As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned’
Media ignores fatal flaw of study: ‘‘There were almost 12,000 studies — two-thirds of which (i.e, 8,000) expressed no opinion. What consensus?‘
What Consensus? Two-thirds of climate studies (8,000) from 1991-2011 take no position on cause of global warming — ‘An inconvenient fact from a new study attempting to bolster the 97% consensus myth’
Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse man-made global warming: ‘You have to wonder how somebody can write (let alone read) the claims made here in the press release by Cook with a straight face. It gives a window into the sort of things we can expect from his borked survey he recently foisted on climate websites which seems destined to either fail, or get spun into even stranger claims’