The Consensus Project

A lot of hard work went into it, no doubt. The mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Many venues have already written about the Cook et al Consensus project. The thing is, you can completely accept every single finding in the paper. Yet, it falls flat.

What did the authors find? First, that about 32% of climate papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming. Fine. Second, of the papers that expressed a position, 97.1% ‘endorsed’ human-caused global warming. Accepted again.

Put two and two together. What does it tell us? That about 30% of climate papers ‘endorsed’ human-caused global warming.

This, after counting up every climate paper over the past  twenty-two years – more than eleven thousand of them.

Nice ‘consensus’ you’ve got there guys.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

    Love the cartoon, Shub 🙂

    But that aside … it seems to me that the “consensus” meme crowd must be really feeling the hard pinch of reality if they are dependent on work by the likes of Cook (and Lewandowsky) to bolster their “case” – such as it is – and their “cause”.

    The deafening silence (with a few exceptions) of those who should be vociferously denouncing such shenanigans is perhaps somewhat telling, don’t you think? But then, again, why should I be surprised. Clearly they have learned absolutely nothing from Climategate (or if they have, no one has yet written the new, improved playbook for them!)

    Yet (as I know you know!) Richard Betts started a discussion at BH in which (in his typically imprecise fashion) he spouts the 97% as though it has some scientific validity – while leaving himself sufficient wriggle room by meandering on to his own “opinions” on other related matters.

    Surely a far more honest (and revealing) question would have been addressed to the so-called 97% and would have asked how many of those scientists who consider themselves within the “97%” have actually reached their position of “agreement” following a personal examination of the actual data underlying the claims.

    It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise critically thinking people simply blindly accept the self-referential “authority” of the climateers and/or their cheer-leaders in the MSM.

    Sorry, I’m rambling … I’ll get my coat, now 😉

  2. Shub Niggurath

    “…asked how many of those scientists who consider themselves within the “97%” have actually reached their position of “agreement” following a personal examination of the actual data underlying the claims.”

    Exactly. Any scientist may even say they ‘support the IPCC’. Only a slightly detailed examination is going to show the exact nature, strength and breakdown of this support. How many scientists would blindly stake their personal reputation to support things like the IPCC’s Himalayan blunder? Agreement and consensus is superficial. Variations in understanding, differences in opinion, and approach are deeper.

  3. omanuel

    I also liked that cartoon. In my opinion, the climate war is but a symptom of a much more serious problem:

    The decision to form the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 out of fear and loathing that human knowledge of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 & 9 Aug 1945 might result in nuclear annihilation of the world.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/govt-out-of-touch/#comment-52336

    Civilian control over government and many fields of science (astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and space physics) have been seriously compromised since 1945 in the effort to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I hope my analysis is wrong, but there are many indications it is on target.

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo