More Woes: Warmist John Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Falsely Classifies 3 More Scientists – Dr. Morner, Soon, Carlin — Plus: Round up of analyses of Cook’s study


By: - Climate DepotMay 28, 2013 4:10 PM

Round Up of Analyses of Cook’s 97% ‘consensus’ claims: 

Warmist turns on UN IPCC, accuses IPCC lead author of ‘behaving like’ Marc Morano: Warmist Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol over that alleged ’97% consensus’ paper

Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981: @richardabetts ‘@richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper’ 

The Cook ‘97% consensus’ study comes further 

Warmist Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Calls John Cook’s ‘Consensus’ Survey ‘Silly Idea…Poorly Implemented’

UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol on Cook’s 97% Consensus study: ‘Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral’

Retraction Watch: Warmist John Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them — ‘When asked about the categorizations of Cook et al, – ‘It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming’

Germany’s Der Spiegel Newspaper Trashes John Cook’s 97% Consensus Survey. Man’s Impact ‘Remains Hotly Disputed’…Only 10% Have Faith In Models 

‘The 97% consensus claim – a lie of epic proportions’ – Warmist John Cook’s study exposed — Warmist study author John Cook’s email: j.cook3@uq.edu.au — ‘To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions — Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie…This whole story is predicated on lies, and they just seem to get bigger and bigger, there doesn’t seem to be any limit to the gullibility of those involved and those pushing it. Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.’

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)

Latest ’97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it! — Warmist study author John Cook’s email: j.cook3@uq.edu.au

Too funny: John Cook’s much touted study finds more papers that reject AGW completely than believe mostly manmade!

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 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’

Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’ — ‘It truly is a CONsensus’ — 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?

1950: 97% Of Scientists Agree That Continents Do Not Move

California Scientists Couldn’t Believe That The Continents Move: ‘If we are to believe in Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again.’ Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain – 1950 – Greensburg Daily Tribune