Prof. Ross McKitrick on Dr. Richard Tol’s reanalysis of 97% climate consensus claim: ‘Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis’
Tol’s reanalysis of 97% consensus: “Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821#
https://twitter.com/RossMcKitrick/status/474568185321373696…
CONSENSUS BUSTED: Fmr. UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol takes on Cook’s ’97% consensus’ claim – showing the claim is ‘unfounded’ – ‘A veritable statistical train wreck rife with bias, classification errors, poor data quality, and inconsistency’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’
…UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled
2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | May 29, 2014 11:00am
Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process
#
The following statements were made during the Q&A session of the May 29th House hearing:
Michael Oppenheimer: ‘Some things are more or less settled, some things are not. The question of whether carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 percent above pre-industrial times, that’s settled. The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result, that’s not.’ Oppenheimer refused to defend the 97% claims. ‘Whether the 97% is defensible, I really don’t know.’
(Climate Depot Note: Oppenheimer was a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense and the climatologist to the Hollywood stars. Oppenheimer was the holder of the “Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies” at the Environmental Defense Fund. Streisand explained: “My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of Oppenheimer at EDF.)
UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’ Tol added: ‘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.’
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor emeritus in meteorology at Colorado State University: ‘The science is not settled, no.’
Related Links:
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips IPCC at Congressional Hearing: ‘The IPCC leadership has in
Global warming: the 97% fallacy
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069#.U4XhkfnD8uo…
The new 97% consensus! Gallup Poll: 97% Of Americans Agree: Environment Is The Least Of Their Concern
97% Of Americans Agree: Environment Is The Least Of Their Concern
http://www.thegwpf.org/97-of-americans-agree-environment-is-the-least-of-their-concern/
Only 3% of Americans consider the environment the most important problem facing the country.
Twenty percent of Americans name unemployment or jobs as the most important problem facing the country in May, up from 14% who mentioned these issues in April. Dysfunctional government (19%) and the economy in general (17%) also rank among the top problems.
These three issues — jobs, economy, and government — have been at the top of the “most important problem” list since the beginning of the year. Mentions of government and politicians rose sharply to 33% in October amid the partial government shutdown, but have dipped back down.
Mentions of the environment as the most important problem have ticked up to 3% in May from an average of 1% over the past six months. The increase may be related to recent news coverage highlighting the negative effects of global warming and climate change on the environment.
Democrats Say Unemployment Is Top Problem, Republicans Say the Economy
Democrats are most likely to name jobs or unemployment as the country’s most important problem, whereas Republicans’ top response is the economy more generally. Democrats, Republicans, and independents are about equally likely to cite dissatisfaction with government. The federal budget deficit is a much larger concern among Republicans (16%) than among independents (7%) and Democrats (3%).
Full story…
Analysis: ‘Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS!’
Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS!
We keep hearing the Global Warming is totally settled science because 97% percent of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and man-made. There are a few things wrong with that claim.Firstly, there is no such thing as settled science. Science is about forming a hypothesis and proving it based on the evidence. For science to be settled means that every time one tests the hypothesis you get the same result, for example, without any other influences every time you heat water up to 212 degrees it boils. Climate scientists cannot say this about global warming, for example none of their experiments to test their hypothesis predicted the almost 18 year pause in warming that continues to this day. Even more important is that the study claiming 97% of climate scientists agree with the global warming theory is bogus. The results are totally misrepresented by the study’s author and the media.The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, and friends, was published a year ago last week and according to Watts Up With That, the University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them Popular Tech. 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. 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 …
Update: Warmist turned skeptic, Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, rips ‘pseudo-science in climate research’ & intimidation – ‘I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers’
Lennart Bengtsson: My View On Climate Research
http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-my-view-on-climate-research/
As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us.
During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge.
Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous.
This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years.
Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.
Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially.
It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological …
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘I’ll see your 97%, and raise you 3% – ‘John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing’
I’ll see your 97 percent, and raise you 3 percent
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/ill-see-your-97-percent-and-raise-you-3-percent/
The meme that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is, well, apparently whatever you want them to believe, is getting really annoying. John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing. Does he really think we can do something that will measurably affect global temperatures without killing millions of poor people in the process? Really?
Or maybe that’s the ultimate goal?
As a published climate scientist myself, I would wager that 97% of climate scientists can’t agree on anything.
Except maybe it’s warmer now than 100 years ago (so what? I’ll agree to that).
Or, that humans are at least partly responsible for some of that warming (so what? I’ll agree to that, too).
But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.
They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most” warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.
You see, we have no idea how much natural climate variations figure into the climate change equation.
For example, this proxy reconstruction of past temperatures suggests climate change is the rule, not the exception:
And this is the stumbling block that will be in everyone’s way until we understand and quantify the causes of natural climate change.
A majority of climate scientists (60%, 80%, or even 97%) might “believe” this or that, but until they figure out just how much of climate change is naturally-induced, we will never know how much is due to humans. All that statistic measures is how inbred the climate research community has become.
And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming, we might never know the answer to this central question. We might have to just sit back and watch where global temperature go from now on.
And if the climate models are ever going to be proved correct, dramatic warming is going to have to get started pretty darn soon.…
‘John Cook’s 97% consensus data is so good his University will sue you if you discuss it’
John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it
UPDATE: After I wrote this Brandon published the letter in full and raised some provocative questions. (See below) —————————— What bad news for The University of Queensland. Their entire legal staff were on holiday at the same time and this eminent university was protected only by a Law & Society 101 student who staffed the overnight service of FreeLegalAidOnline. A mockfest is ensuing across the Internet. It is so unfair. A year ago John Cook published another 97% study (the magic number that all consensuses must find). It was published under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (see Anthony Watts view). Cook’s work is obviously impeccable (except for the part about 97% being really 0.3%), but evidently it uses a special new kind of “open data”. The exact date and time each anonymized reviewer reviewed a sacred scientific abstract is commercial and must be kept secret. These volunteer reviewers allegedly stand to, er … lose a lot of money if that data is revealed (they won’t be employed again for no money?). Such is the importance of this that the University of Queensland left the data on secret-secret forum protected by no passwords and then put urls to […]Rating: 9.3/10 (48 votes cast)…