Australian Politics Forum - 97% of scientists Horsesheet

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18065
Gender: male

Re: 97% of scientists Horsesheet
Reply #15 - Aug 5^th, 2015 at 11:08am

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Oh no, he quotes John Cook, an author of 97%. The same bloke who stole scientist Lubos Motl's identity and posted on line as him.

And NASA and NOOA are government "scientific" bodies. And they just changed climate data again on the back of Karl et al 2015. A paper that had statistical significance of 0.10. So much for government credibility.

Credibility Zero.

Back to top

IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17501
Gender: male

Re: 97% of scientists Horsesheet
Reply #16 - Aug 5^th, 2015 at 5:48pm

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Andrew, Popular Technology.net on 21 December 2014.

cartoonThe 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)

Back to top

Q

The STORM has arrived
Every Dog Has Its Day...
Dark to Light.
Sheep no more.

IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17501
Gender: male

Re: 97% of scientists Horsesheet
Reply #17 - Aug 5^th, 2015 at 5:48pm

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Andrew, Popular Technology.net on 21 December 2014.

cartoonThe 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)

Back to top

Q

The STORM has arrived
Every Dog Has Its Day...
Dark to Light.
Sheep no more.

IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17501
Gender: male

Re: 97% of scientists Horsesheet
Reply #18 - Aug 5^th, 2015 at 5:51pm

lee wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 11:08am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Oh no, he quotes John Cook, an author of 97%. The same bloke who stole scientist Lubos Motl's identity and posted on line as him.

And NASA and NOOA are government "scientific" bodies. And they just changed climate data again on the back of Karl et al 2015. A paper that had statistical significance of 0.10. So much for government credibility.

Credibility Zero.

awww poor Spartacus.. its the only thing he's been quoting for the last 10 years...

and now he's the last one to find out that it's all a fraud and that he's been making a total tool out of himself.. Cry

Back to top

Q

The STORM has arrived
Every Dog Has Its Day...
Dark to Light.
Sheep no more.

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: 97% of scientists Horsesheet
Reply #19 - Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:37pm

From the article by 'Andrew':

Quote:

The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

He cites Hulme, but who else?

Quote:

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

Only three of the 'articles' are journal articles.

The first journal article, by economist (not climate scientist) Richard Tol, failed to pass peer-review when submitted to Environmental Research Letters. Ironically, in criticising the analysis done by Cook et al, Tol's own analysis was exposed as shoddy and his criticisms unwarranted:

Google his blog post: Richard Tol Draft Comment on 97% consensus paper
(I can't post hyperlinks)

It's also worth noting that Tol agrees that an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists does exist—he simply disagrees on the exact percentage. Therefore even if this economist's criticisms were valid, deniers would still be hopelessly wrong.

Can't find anything on the second article by Tol, including the full text, so it's impossible to comment on it. There is not even an abstract.

The third journal article by Legates et al makes the claim that only 0.3% of climate science papers, not 97%, endorse the claim of man-made climate change. They get this number by doing the following:

1. Discounted all papers which do not not offer an explicit, unquantified endorsement of the standard definition of man-made climate change.

2. Discounted all papers that met Cook et al's criteria for explicit, unquantified endorsement but don't meet their own criteria.

3. Included all of the papers that expressed 'no position' in the total number of articles.

Therefore, Legates et al could only achieve their ridiculous 0.3% figure by ignoring the majority of climate science articles that endorse the claim on man-made climate change, and have counted 'no position' papers as dissenters.

As for the other 94 articles: who cares?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:46pm by Robot »

IP Logged