Tol says. '[The IPCC's] reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann'
'If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s (97%) paper is an excellent case in point.'
The paper only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not.
“In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.
Tol: 'Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless.
Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.
The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.
Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.
The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.
'A new paper by Dr. Richard Tol published today in ScienceDirect, journal of Energy Policy, shows that the Cook et al. paper claiming that there is a 97% consensus among scientists is not just impossible to reproduce (since Cook is withholding data) but a veritable statistical train wreck rife with bias, classification errors, poor data quality, and inconsistency in the ratings process.'
Tol: 'The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody. I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that's in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.