Heartland Institute's James Taylor is at it again with his latest Forbes article: "Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims"
"Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"
¶1 Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.
After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
¶2 Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Even inviting posts from prominent "skeptics" such as
- The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
7 May 2013 by KK Tung
- The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
11 April 2013 by KK Tung
¶3 As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
One only needs to look to what is happening in the Arctic with our Polar Ice Cap being transformed into a summer time oceanic solar absorption plate, which will further warm our ocean, and more immediately disrupt ancient atmospheric patterns and disrupting the jet stream.
Here's a bit more information from a recognized authority on the subject.
SkepticalScience.com also posted an enlightening educational article that reviews what's been learned:
"A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream:what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming"Posted on 22 May 2013 by John Mason
¶4 Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
To admit that our planet is warming, but then claiming we have nothing to worry about and worse to advocate we should continue doing nothing and simply allow this run-away geo-physical greenhouse gas experiment to continue unrestrained - completely ignores the weight of the science.
¶5 Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Poptech’s list of Confusion800 papers disputing the theory of climate change!! Can it be true, or is this an over-reaction?
Poptart gets burned again, 900 times - April 19, 2011 - by greenfyre
450 more lies from the climate change Deniers - November 15, 2009 - by greenfyre
Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies - November 18, 2009 - by greenfyre
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶6 Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”~ ~ ~
Craig Idso, has close ties to various contrarian think tanks: including his own "CO2Science": James Taylor's own "Heartland Institutes"; and "SPPI" plus having deep ties with the fossil fuels industry as "Director of Environmental Science" for Peabody Energy formerly known as Peabody Coal Company.
In other words, Craig Idso has strong vested interests that go beyond science and into the realm of economics and political ideology focused on sustaining the economic status quo. This contention is supported by the financial aid received from Exxon Mobil and Western Fuels Association. In other words he is not an objective source.
Among denialist there's a tendency to think that because we have economic interests -
those desires are supposed to trump a sober rational assessment of the available climate science.
Life doesn't work that way - if you/us don't respect the physics and Earth processes, they will blow you/us, away.
~ ~ ~
As for Idso's scientific claims they have been roundly rejected by other experts in the field, see:
Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzenhttp://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/aerosol-radiative-forcing-wild-card-nipcc-vs-lindzen/14 Truths of Global Warming
Favourite climate myths by Craig Idso
¶7 When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.~ ~ ~
Nicola Scafetta is a physicist at Duke University who published a 2006 paper claiming the sun was to blame for half the warming since 1900.
Interestingly Scafetta refused to share his computer program code with climate scientists and other researchers who wanted to replicate his results. Why should we trust this outlier?
¶8 Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”~ ~ ~
This seems like a lot of arm waving. The point is that Scafetta's claims have been roundly debunks, another one of those inconvenient facts Taylor protects his audience from.
- Scafetta & West (2003) “Solar Flare Intermittency and the Earth’s Temperature Anomalies” [Abs, Full]
- Scafetta & West (2005) “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” [Abs, Full]
- Scafetta & West (2006a) “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming” [Abs, Full]
- Benestad & Schmidt (2009) “Solar trends and global warming” [Abs, Full]
- [BLOG] RealClimate
- [BLOG] RealClimate 2
- Scafetta & West (2006b) “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record” [Abs, Full]
- Scafetta & West (2007) “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600″ [Abs, Full]
- Scafetta & Willson (2009) “ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model” [Abs, Full]
- Krivova et al. (2009) “ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996?” [Abs, Full]
- [BLOG] Rabett Run
- [BLOG] Skeptical Science
¶9 “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.~ ~ ~
This sounds like conspiracy ideation - or perhaps, back to that flunking school boy syndrome of lashing out at the professors with wild eyed accusations.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶10 Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”~ ~ ~
This is another example of what I call a practitioner of "science in a vacuum" - it sounds great when there are no opposing voices introducing further information.
The truth is that there is no real evidence for this link."
Here is a link to a critique from Jeff Condon: "Radiative Physics – Yes CO2 Does Create Warming"
¶11 “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
¶12 Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
Mörner may be a scientist, but he's also a water douser and some would say even a grave robber among other eccentricities:
"The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover"
"In his Spectator article, Mörner makes much of his research trips to the Maldives. These culminated in a 2004 paper published in the journal Global and Planetary Change. In it, Mörner uses an apparently random series of observations – including the discovery of a skeletal "reef woman" buried in a 800-year-old coral reef – to postulate that sea level rise in the Maldives is a figment of scientists' imagination. How this paper got published is a mystery that only the journal's editors can explain.
It was comprehensively debunked within a year in the same journal by Philip Woodworth, an oceanographer based in the UK, who wrote acidly that 'reef woman' "is hardly definitive as a sea level marker" and that Mörner's convoluted arguments – which also relied on anecdotal accounts by fishermen sailing over shallow rocks – were "hard to understand" and ultimately "implausible". A follow-up critical comment by the Australian oceanographer Paul Kench and colleagues notes that Mörner's paper "contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced assertions" which fail to stand up to scrutiny, does not follow carbon-dating conventions, and that "standard information is missing"."
the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶13 “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
¶14 “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.
¶15 Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light,~ ~ ~
Taylor manipulates his story and withholds important information in every paragraph. Who's kidding whom, there isn't the slightest attempt at objectivity in this latest rant.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
¶16 Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
¶17 These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.