Cook et al (2013)

Cook’s team also made follow-up calls to a large number of scientists and claimed assent. Nonetheless many leading scientists rejected the Cook study upon release, claiming that their work had been misrepresented and incorrectly categorized as supporting the IPCC declaration of AGW when their work does not.

Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired) rejected Cook’s classification of his workxxiv and suggested the Cook survey may have been reverse engineered to arrive at the 97% consensus result.

Dr. Carlin said, “The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations ....”

This is a powerful statement that shows one example of how badly Cook et al (2013) did the classifications. Dr. Carlin says the IPCC is wrong by a factor of 100, but Cook wrongly claims Alan Carlin endorses the IPCC. It is hard to be more wrong than 100 times wrong.

Dr. Carlin is not the only high profile scientist rejecting the Cook et al study for wrongly categorizing work as supporting AGW when it does not.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta rejected Cook’s work: “My paper says that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

The Legates et al (2013) xxxix review of the paper reveals that only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

The 41 papers that supported the consensus as defined by the IPCC declaration represents only 0.34% of the papers examined, not 97%.

Information from here

climate scientists who reject cooks paper.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

Costing the Earth: Funding city climate initiatives with green banks

by Sue Weekes: News editor, Smart Cities World
Green banks are on the rise as cities look for ways to fund essential work to prevent climate change and its effects.

The world needs to spend $2.4 trillion every year until 2035 to mitigate the effects of climate change. This was the stark reality delivered by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.

Cities recognise they need to be on the frontline of the action and a growing list have officially declared a climate emergency, including Krakow, London, Liverpool, Paris, New York and Sydney. According to the Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation in Action (Cedamia) website, more than 888 jurisdictions in 18 countries, covering 161 million citizens, have now declared such an emergency.

As the IPCC highlights, though, fighting climate change costs and the race is on to find sustainable ways to fund green initiatives in cities around the world. This is bringing new momentum behind the green bank movement. On July 2, Washington, DC Mayor, Muriel Bowser, signed the District’s Green Finance Authority Establishment Act, officially making it the first city in the country to establish a government-funded green bank. The bank is being capitalised with $105 million of public funds.

The world needs to spend $2.4 trillion every year until 2035 to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The rest here,

https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/special-reports/special-reports/costing-the-ear...

The IPCC after the reviewing scientist's approved the final document titled

"The Science of Climate Change 1995"

Changed many parts of section 8 to take out any scepticism that the reviewing scientists had agreed on.

Some of the statements that were omitted are shown below as highlighted,

Ok lets look at Oreskes, 2004

Oreskes reported examining abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the keywords “global climate change.” Although not a scientist [sic], she concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported IPCC’s view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

BUT

Oreskes Claim of Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Climate Change Discredits Harvard Kennedy School; Debunked by Peiser in 2005 and Friends of Science in 2007

97% Consensus Survey Breakdown Reveals only 1-3% Explicit Agreement

Calgary, Alberta (PRWEB) March 06, 2014

In a report entitled "Science vs. Politics - Kennedy School Panelists Scrutinize Climate Change Denial" published Feb. 14, 2014 by the Harvard Gazette, science historian and Harvard Kennedy School professor Naomi Oreskes continued to claim there is scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, despite her 2004 paper being rebutted by Roger Pielke, Jr. in 2005, re-run and found to be inaccurate by Benny Peiser in 2005 and debunked by a Friends of Science Society commissioned report, written by Madhav Khandekar and sent to Oreskes in 2007.

"Academics normally retract statements when they are proven to be wrong," says Len Maier, president of Friends of Science. "Continuing these consensus claims discredits the Harvard Kennedy School."

The Harvard Gazette narrative states Oreskes explained that ...'Overall agreement on the issue is at 97 to 99 percent, she said — about as close to perfect harmony as scientists can get; quoting her as saying: “This is beyond reasonable doubt. This is not disputed in the scientific community.”

Friends of Science point to their recent deconstruction of the 4 most-cited 'consensus' surveys. The research revealed that instead of a broad 97% as claimed - in fact only 1-3% of scientists in 3 surveys stated agreement with various IPCC declarations. The vast majority held no position at all and a significant percent felt natural factors were far more influential. A single survey done in 2010 was able to find a 66% consensus, but the remaining 34% scientists of that survey publicly denounced the IPCC declaration.

"It seems a lack of academic integrity to continue to defend a position that is so obviously incorrect," says Maier.

Friends of Science began the deconstruction of the 97% consensus reports, being curious as to how 4 separate surveys, each with a different data base, different parameters and definitions could all arrive at the same consensus number.

"This was described in 1954 by Darrell Huff as "statisticulation" or math manipulation," says Maier. "Subsequently, social psychologists like Robert Cialdini developed the theory of 'social proof' and how influential it is for others to fall in line, if the public think all authority figures, or all their friends agree. Surely science studies at eminent universities should be teaching about empirical evidence, not wallowing in propaganda."

Roger Pielke, Jr. rebutted Oreskes 2004 paper upon publication. Peiser (2005) re-ran Oreskes survey finding only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) declaration, 34 scientists rejected or doubted the alleged ‘consensus’ position outright and 44 claimed natural factors as more influential. At least 470 papers expressed no position on AGW whatsoever.

Friends of Science point to the fact that other scientists who dispute the alleged consensus are publicly humiliated with condemnatory and dismissive name-calling - even by university professors like Oreskes and others on the Harvard Kennedy School panel.

"We provide evidence, they call us names. That's not science," says Maier."This misinformed view is about to devastate US industry and the world economy if extreme climate change targets based on faulty social proofs are imposed by the Obama administration's proposed expansion of EPA regulations."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing further expansion of emissions regulations cites the EPA’s documents, from 2004, which state that related permits would cost businesses “. . . an average of $125,120 and required 866 hours for the applicant to complete . . .” – death to small and medium businesses.

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Global warming stopping in 1998; CO2 rose but temperatures did not," says Maier. "Solar cycles and the sun's magnetic flux are the main driver of climate change, not CO2. This is the science people never hear about."

About

Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.

Contact:
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11635348.htm

Despite her 2004 paper being rebutted by Roger Pielke, Jr. in 2005, re-run and found to be inaccurate by Benny Peiser in 2005 and debunked by a Friends of Science Society commissioned report, written by Madhav Khandekar and sent to Oreskes in 2007.

"Academics normally retract statements when they are proven to be wrong," says Len Maier, president of Friends of Science. "Continuing these consensus claims discredits the Harvard Kennedy School."

Return to Oreskes’ claim, “How do we know we’re not wrong?”

Recent evidence complied by Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2013, compared 90 climate model runs prepared for the IPCC 5th assessment report to the surface and satellite measurements.

Both the satellite and surface warming trends from 1979 are lower than 97%of the climate model runs.

The only true consensus is that 97% of the model runs are too hot, leaving us to question, what is the value of computer models that do not reflect reality?

While there may be a general agreement amongst scientists that human activity and greenhouse gases affect climate, there is no consensus about the degree, ratio or human ability to mitigate climate change

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

You dare to post such heresy! The Climate Cultists are even now readying their torches and pitchforks while chanting 'THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!'