Views: 8222|Replies: 16

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-19 12:42:31 |Display all floors
Part: 1 of 2

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims


May 29, 201


JAMES M. TAYLOR, J.D.   James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly...                       (read full bio)

EMAIL



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.
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.”

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 contentious 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.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. 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.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."

To be continued  .......






FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-19 12:44:12 |Display all floors
Part: 2 of 2

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims



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.“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman 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.” “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.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).”“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.Morner, a sea level scientist, told Poplular 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.”"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon. “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.Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, 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.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.


FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-20 13:32:16 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sansukong at 2013-6-20 12:45
seneca Post time: 2013-6-19 17:30
Is anyone interested in TRUTH?

If so, you can safely ignore Sans Souci's alarmist propaganda!
If so, you can safely ignore Sans Souci's alarmist propaganda!

You are lying again! Since when have I become an alarmist?
Translate ......

你在撒謊!從什麼時候開始,我變成一個的危言聳聽?
FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-20 15:19:01 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-6-19 17:33
.org/index.php?title=James_M._Taylor‎网页快照
类似结果翻译此页
跳到The climate skeptic - criticizin ...
org/index.php?title=James_M._Taylor‎网页快照
类似结果翻译此页
跳到The climate skeptic - criticizing climate science – Taylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds,  ...The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute‎网页快照
类似结果翻译此页
Then, why are these invited speakers to this "International Conference on Climate Change", listed below, not be allowed to be heard? Why are they been so indiscriminately censored and silenced? You call that fair play?
Translate  .....

那麼,為什麼這一切特邀發言人在此,“氣候變化的國際會議”
不允許被聽到?
為什麼會被不加區別地審查和沉默?
你認為這是公平的嗎?


ICCC – 1

First International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-1) took place in March 2008 in New York City.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-20 19:53:42 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-6-19 17:30
Is anyone interested in TRUTH?

If so, you can safely ignore Sans Souci's alarmist propaganda!
Is anyone interested in TRUTH?

If so, you can safely ignore Sans Souci's alarmist propaganda!

The guy has a perfect talent to always fall for the least credible writers
Sure, anyone would be interested to know what is the truth. But then, no one is that stupid to believe one who lies all the time, like you do. You have yet to tell us whether it is the truth or it is a pure lie that you are spreading about the Chinese athletes stealing their gold medals at the London Olympics. Now, how can we believe you?
Translate  ....
當然,任何人都會有興趣知道什麼是真正的。
但隨後, 沒有一個是愚蠢的, 相信誰,就在於無時無刻, 像你這樣的。
你還沒有給我們,是否它是真理,它是一個純粹的謊言您正在蔓延,關於中國運動員偷了,他們在倫敦奧運會的金牌。
現在,我們怎麼能相信你嗎?


FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2013-6-20 21:08:01 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked
Hey but what do I know, huh?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-21 05:53:37 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-6-20 19:15
What have Chinese athletes at the Olympics in common with the 97% scientists who recognise that ma ...
What have Chinese athletes at the Olympics in common with the 97% scientists who recognise that mankind is a polluting pest that causes global warming?

Haven't you heard of the common expression, that...... ONE LIE CAN LEAD TO ANOTHER?
Translate .....

你沒有聽說過的共同的表達,那......
一個謊言,可以導致於另一個謊言?

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.