Why the Cook paper is bunk: Part I

In the Cook group paper, the ‘authors’ measure the degree of acceptance of a ‘consensus’ in climate literature.

Remarkably enough, this is what they find:

cook trend

From 1991 to 2011, the fractions of papers accepting the orthodox position decrease with time (Figure 1 & 2).

Of the papers said to have accepted a consensus position, the major fraction, declines from  33% to about 24% ( ‘implicit endorsers’, ‘3’ in Figure 1) (Figure 2).

cook - imp

Figure 2

Papers that explicitly support the consensus position (‘2’ in the graph) also decline.

Cook and co-authors say they identify ‘strengthening consensus’, among other increasing consensus trends. The underlying data however does not support their claims. Instead, there is a remarkable stability in the overall composition of the literature. There is a steady increase in the proportion of neutral papers (called ‘No position’). In other words, no partisan category increases (or decreases) at the cost of another (Figure 3A & 3B).

endorse - Copy

Figure 3A

percent fraction

Figure 3B

Strangely enough, Cook and co-authors take note of these findings. Their interpretation however reveals a major problem in their analytic approach.

Cook and co-authors rationalize the decrease in the proportion of papers supporting the consensus, via a convoluted theory, as evidence for a high degree of consensus. They contend the decrease implies more papers have accepted the consensus and therefore don’t need to talk about it. At the same time, they take the increase in absolute numbers of orthodox position papers as evidence for ‘increasing consensus’.

The fallacy in reasoning is shown easily. Consider, as an example, a prosperous county which shows 60 cases of pneumonia in 1993. The media raises a hue and cry. Stung by criticism, the county institutes rigorous public health and education measures. Twenty years pass and a survey is undertaken. The cases of pneumonia for 2012 is 80. The media goes on a rampage. Is this justified?

It turns out that it is not. The county experienced a population boom in the early 2000’s and the incidence of pneumonia/100,000 per year actually fell during the period.

Now, imagine a mayor loudly criticizing local health officials for the increase in pneumonia cases, and a while later, traveling to a conference to boast that his city had lowered pneumonia rates due to measures undertaken by him.

This is exactly what Cook and his co-authors do. They put a different spin on two facets of the same observation.

Finally, if the proportions of papers accepting the orthodox position is decreasing, by what way does their actual number go up? The explanation it turns out is deceptively simple.

Cook et al studied 11944 papers for acceptance (or rejection) of AGW. There are papers which explicitly state something with respect to this question, and those that do not. As noted above (in Figures 1, 3A, & 3B), the overall composition of the literature remains more or less constant. Yet total numbers of papers published in the climate field increases dramatically during this period (Figure 4), particularly after 2005.

total

Figure 4

Examine the composition when the two groups are broken apart. Shown in the graph below, the light blue line is papers that don’t say anything explicit and the red line is for papers that make an explicit statement (Figure 5). As can be seen, the rise in number of papers seen in Figure 4 is almost entirely made up by papers that say nothing explicitly about anthropogenic warming.

uptick

Figure 5

In their study, Cook and co-authors include a significant chunk of the rising group into the ‘endorse the consensus’ category. In a widely circulated draft, Tol reaches the same conclusion: “the apparent trend in endorsement is thus a trend in composition rather than in endorsement”.

The inclusion of papers into the consensus from a group of papers that is increasing over time, makes the consensus appear to increase over time.

[minor edits]

Advertisements

158 comments

  1. plazaeme

    Thanks. Good points.

    Another case of clown science defended by mainstream climate scientists and press. They tend to shoot their own feet.

  2. wottsupwiththatblog

    Why would mainstream climate scientists defend this study if there is no consensus. Surely if they’re defending this study, it implies the study results are probably roughly correct?

  3. plazaeme

    The question is not whether there is a consensus, nor what exactly says such consensus. The question is clown science. And, bad method + good results = bad science.

    Cook’s joke has been used by the press implying “the consensus” says what it does not say. And critics lesser than they are.

    I can imagine the motivations of people doing their things most of the time. And I do indeed understand the motivations in this case. At least so I think. But that’s only speculation (although a very easy one).

    Facts are the Cook paper is obvious clown science, and there are many well-known mainstream climate scientists and journos defending it. These facts are not minimized by the fact that you don’t understand why they do it.

    More on the clown science, submitted by Richard Tol to ERL:

    http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-paper.html

  4. wottsupwiththatblog

    I’ve read Richard Tol’s draft and he doesn’t seem to disagree with the basic result. He is criticising the method and the survey strategy, but not the result. I also, just for completeness, think his criticisms are uncertain and – in some cases – pedantic or his opinion, rather than clear problems.

  5. Shub Niggurath

    wotts
    It is possible to show there is no increase in consensus in climate science papers, rather only an increase in climate science papers that has then been called ‘consensus’. Figures 4 and 5 show this clearly.

    The ‘implicit’ acceptance, rejection and ‘no position’ papers all have no stated position on anthropogenic warming. The volunteer rater *reads an interpretation* into these papers, which is then termed ‘implicit endorsement’ (or rejection). Cook’s raters were able to do this with a large number of papers, especially after 2005, simply because there *are* a large number of papers after 2005.

    This is no ‘pedantic opinion’. Tol arrives at the exact same conclusion, via different means. His Figure 1 shows the same thing.

    Ratings based on explicit ratings are more grounded in textual material. Ratings based on surveyor interpretation are less grounded, and consequently subject to variations and long-term trends that may be seen independent of any ‘consensus’. When you do explicit ratings, you are safer.

    Consider, as an example, that a bandwagon effect exists or comes to play in a body of literature. Quite suddenly there will be a large number of papers mentioning certain key words and topics. What effect would this have on a volunteer rater who’s been tasked to look for implicit meanings in paper abstracts? He or she would simply read implicit acceptance into a greater number of papers than before. Yet, when looked carefully, this would not mean any increase in consensus.

  6. plazaeme

    Sorry Wotts. Sometimes is difficult to realize some people just won’t see an elephant in front of their own nose. Let me try other way.

    You think the result is correct, so you don’t care the conclusions are unfounded. You think Tol agrees with the result because he supports “the consensus”. In this case, I suppose you can tell me, what does this consensus exactly say?

    For instance, imagine a paper (paper A) which shows the warming during the second halve of the last century was caused by:

    – Atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 – 40%

    – Ocean cycles – 35%

    – Atmospheric anthropogenic CFCs – 25%

    Now imagine paper B saying the same thing without numbers. The warming was caused by CO2 with a significant help of oceanic cycles and CFCs.

    In fact this would be a rather normal result in the literature.

    To get you understand the problem, I would like you read again the classification system of the clown paper, and tell me for both papers this two questions.

    Paper A, paper B:

    – ¿Are they “consensus” or not “consensus” papers?

    – ¿How many Cook’s classification groups are valid for each of them?

    The problem is they would most certainly be classified as explicit endorsement – with and without quantification – but could also be classified as explicit rejection. And the problem is the clowns where quite aware of this absurdity beforehand.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

    With this classification system, most of the so-called deniers are 100% consensus. In fact, me too. So, what the heck have we learned with this paper?

    If you don’t see the problem, you cannot tell apart a scientific paper from a PR operation.

  7. wottsupwiththatblog

    I completely accept that this is not a piece of quantifiable science. I accept that the raters had to make judgements and may well have got it wrong at times. However, it seems that even Richard Tol doesn’t dispute the basic result.

    I don’t understand the latter part of your comment. How can these papers be rated as rejection or endorsement? Rejecting was stating a position in which there was no anthropogenic warming. Not stating that it didn’t dominate.

    Is the Cook et al. a PR operation? In some sense yes. Why? Because there are those who claim that there is no evidence for a consensus in the literature. In most areas, determining this would not be necessary or relevant. In the politicised atmosphere of climate science, it may well be necessary. If you think the Cook et al. paper is a PR operation, you must be horrified by the campaign against it.

  8. plazaeme

    Wotts, your “basic result” doesn’t have any meaning if you don’t know what “consensus” mean, because the basic result is 97% of published papers are “consensus”. So, what? Is the CO2 a problem? Not with my examples. Consensus, as they classify it, does not mean we have a problem. So, the results don’t show what they pretend them to show.

    If you don’t understand the latter part of my comment, just read the classification guidelines:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=rate_papers&a=guidelines

    Who exactly claims there is no evidence for a consensus in the literature? The basic “sceptic” point, as far as I know, says there is a broad consensus about part of IPCC thesis (direct radiative effect of CO2 without feedbacks), and a strong scientific debate about the speculative part of such thesis (strong positive feedbacks).

    All this fantasy about consensus is just another “climate science trick”. They use a real consensus in the first part of the thesis, to pretend there is a consensus about the second very speculative part. In my book, they call it cheating.

    No, I would not be horrified about a PR operation against a lying PR operation. As far as they don’t cheat with pseudo-science.

  9. plazaeme

    I am playing semantics? Great. Then, read the f**** guideline, and tell me what the consensus is about. The meaning of the consensus, with your own semantics. Thanks.

  10. plazaeme

    Well learned. Is the first lesson in cheater’s classroom. Do never, under any circumstance, debate your arguments when you are cheating.

  11. wottsupwiththatblog

    Thanks for that. Your rhetoric is sufficiently unpleasant that you deserve to be ignored. If you think this is the appropriate way in which to engage in a serious discussion, you have a lot to learn. If you think people stop engaging with you because your argument has more merit and they can’t think of a suitable response and hence run away, you’re deluded.

  12. plazaeme

    You are not being serious at all, Wotts. And, I didn’t come to please you. And, this is not rhetoric, it is just plain logic. When we are talking about a consensus, first thing we need is to know what the consensus is about. Otherwise, there is no way to know if some paper / opinion / person is with or against such consensus.

    If you don’t understand something as simple as that, (1) this is not my fault, (2) I am not going to cure your problem.

    Get it?

  13. willard (@nevaudit)

    > When we are talking about a consensus, first thing we need is to know what the consensus is about.

    Reading the article might be a good start for that.

    Best of luck!

  14. willard (@nevaudit)

    > It is possible to show there is no increase in consensus in climate science papers, rather only an increase in climate science papers that has then been called ‘consensus’. Figures 4 and 5 show this clearly.

    Everything is possible, except the impossible. And even then.

    It would not be impossible for an increasing group of ABSTRACTS to mark a decrease about a consensus if there was an even more drastically increasing group of ABSTRACTS that was not endorsing it. The same goes for PAPERS.

    Figures 4 and 5 do not prove much more than that. I’m not sure how they distinguish ABSTRACTS from PAPERS, btw, since all we see is the word papers. Interestingly, they have nothing to about the part of Cook & al 2013 speak about PAPERS, e.g. figure 2, Table 5, etc.

  15. plazaeme

    Thank you Willard.

    – tell me what the consensus is about.

    – The A in AGW. Cf. Cook & al 2013 and all versions of Tol.

    Really?

    Level of Endorsement

    1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification

    1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

    Any other question?

    Yes, have *you* read the guidelines?

    Any other question?

    Yes- Once you do read them, tel me your opinion.

    Tel me how can you find an explicit endorsement because …

    – 2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change as a given fact.

    If it is a given fact, and you are not studing attribution, you are not endorsing, but just taking it (from authority, for granted, whatever).

    Tel me how can you see an “Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification”, if you need a quantity (percentage) to get an endorsement.

    Tel me if you think many papers can be qualified in more than one category.

    Any other question?

    Yes.

    7. Explicit Rejection of AGW with quantification

    7.1 Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming with a specific figure

    Why is there not a figure? Any figure is ok for “minimise”? 99%?

    Any other question?

    Yes. You still think this is not a clown paper?

    Any other question?

    Yes. Do you still think the consensus is just “The A in AGW”, in this clown paper?

    Thanks.

  16. plazaeme

    Willard, reading the guidelines may be a good start for you. I pointed you to some clues. You wil find more.

    Best luck.

  17. plazaeme

    I am talking you about how they didi it, at their web, providing you with the link. Guidelines for those who wehre qualifying. Not interested? So much for your interest,

    Quite interesting.

  18. plazaeme

    Willard, hope this gets to the proper nest:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=rate_papers&a=guidelines

    You have to register.

    That’s the way they did it. After seeing that, no way I am going to read such idiocy.

    Then, some people have tried to get the answer from the authors about what the definition of endorsing consensus was. For example:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-saga-continues/

    Now, you tell me consensus, in the paper, is just the A of AGW. A is any percentage of W. Well, this would be plain stupid because we are all consensus in such case, but many quite critic with IPCC assessments. So, your consensus has no meaning. You see my problem?

  19. plazaeme

    I did. Do register, and you wil see:

    Rate Abstracts

    Each climate abstract was rated in two ways – the level of endorsement of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the category of research. The level of endorsement of AGW ranged from explicit endorsement with quantification (e.g., saying humans have caused most of recent global warming) to explicit rejection with quantification (e.g., stating humans have caused less than half of recent warming. The 4 main research categories were Methods, Paleoclimate, Mitigation (research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and Impacts. We also eliminated some abstracts from our analysis by categorising them as “Not Related to Climate”. The guidelines we followed are listed below:

    Level of Endorsement

    1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification

    1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
    1.2 Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement – that would be implicit.
    2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification

    2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change as a given fact.
    2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity relegates to implicit endorsement.
    3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW

    3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change

    3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming

    3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change

    3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral

    3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2

    3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)

    4. Neutral

    4.1 If a paper merely mentions global climate change or global warming, this is not sufficient to imply anthropogenic global warming

    4.2 Mitigation papers talking about non-GHG pollutants are not about AGW

    4.3 Research into the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth without including the warming effect of CO2

    4.4 Anthropogenic impact studies about direct human influence like urban heat island and land use changes (eg – not about GHG emissions)

    4.5 Research into metrics of climate change (surface temperature, sea level rise) without mention of causation (eg – GHGs)

    5. Implicit Rejection of AGW

    5.1 Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW
    6. Explicit Rejection of AGW without quantification

    6.1 Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming without putting a figure on it.
    7. Explicit Rejection of AGW with quantification

    7.1 Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming with a specific figure
    Categories

    C1 Methods:

    C1.1 Examines technical aspects of measurement/modelling.

    C1.2 If a paper describes methods but no actual results, assign it to methods. If it goes on to results, then assign it to whatever the results are relevant to (eg – impacts/mitigation/paleoclimate)

    C2 Mitigation

    C2.1 Explores ways to reduce CO2 emissions or sequester CO2 from the atmosphere

    C2.2 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) research

    C3 Paleoclimate

    C3.1 Examines climate in periods predating the instrumental period (eg – around 1750)

    C4 Impacts

    C4.1 Papers on the effect of climate change or rising CO2 on the environment, ecosystems or humanity

    C5 Not Related To Climate

    C5.1 Non-mitigation/impacts paper that contain no actual climate science.

    C5.2 Eg – social science papers on education/communication/historical analysis.

  20. plazaeme

    Willard, you say:


    -You need to login (via the left margin) to rate papers. Click here to register a new account.

    -Your instructions are not replicable.

    Teasing, or what? What is the problem with: Click here to register a new account.?

  21. willard (@nevaudit)

    plazaeme,

    Thank you for your clarifications. Just needed to confirm it was the proper link. Now I went finding back my password, which I keep in a paper notebook elsewhere.

    So I can confirm that you’ve just copy-pasted the instructions which follows:

    The guidelines we followed are listed below:

    ***

    Now, please tell me how these guidelines help you make your point, instead of simply reading Table 2 from the main article. I’m not sure why you have not quoted the introductory paragraph, from which has been excerpted the above quote. Here it is:

    Each climate abstract was rated in two ways – the level of endorsement of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the category of research. The level of endorsement of AGW ranged from explicit endorsement with quantification (e.g., saying humans have caused most of recent global warming) to explicit rejection with quantification (e.g., stating humans have caused less than half of recent warming. The 4 main research categories were Methods, Paleoclimate, Mitigation (research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and Impacts. We also eliminated some abstracts from our analysis by categorising them as “Not Related to Climate”.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=rate_papers&a=guidelines

    I emphasized the word “abstract”, because this detail has the tendency to get lost in discussions. I also emphasized what I think is the answer to your question.

    ***

    Now that I have replicated your procedure, corrected it a bit by emphazing an information that sometimes gets lost and, and added a missing paragraph which seems to answer to your question, what’s your point again?

  22. willard (@nevaudit)

    plazaeme,

    I now see that you have quoted the introductory paragraph, I should have double-checked. Sorry about that.

    But then, I don’t understand why you’d quote the answer you’re looking for. Why is that?

    What were you saying again about teasing?

  23. plazaeme

    Willard, you may as well read it again by yourself. And don’t forget the question to your answer. If the consensus is the A of AGW, we are all consensus, and consensus is exactly nothing.

  24. plazaeme

    Willard, if you want to play around, I suggest you look for a better pal. You asked for questions, and you have five or six, very understandable ones. Is up to you what you want to do with them. Good night (is too late over here).

  25. willard (@nevaudit)

    plazaeme,

    Thank you for making your point:

    > If the consensus is the A of AGW, we are all consensus, and consensus is exactly nothing.

    If we are all consensus, the consensus could also be everything.

    Alas, the authors of Cook & al did not find that all the ABSTRACTS could be classified that way. There are for instance ABSTRACTS that do minimize or rejects the A in AGW. The same applies to the authors of the PAPERS themselves.

    All this can be seen by reading Table 2 and Table 3 of the paper:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    Many thanks!

  26. willard (@nevaudit)

    plazaeme,

    Thank you for your suggestion:

    > [I]f you want to play around, I suggest you look for a better pal.

    If I can borrow your own words you said to Wott, I am not here to please you.

    Many thanks!

  27. plazaeme

    No, Willard, so sorry. *You* can think so, apparently. Who knows why.

    What this shows, really, is the paper is stupid. Among other things because consensus does not have a clear meaning (read the guidelines again). And read them a third or forth time, if you need it. When will they be enough readings for you? Easy: when you get what I am saying.

    It also means you have some problems. Your brain, I mean. Any one, a child for instance, may understand consensus has not meaning if it is (any amount of) A in AGW. Tell you what? All climate scientists that I have heard of (a lot) being quite critic with IPCC’s findings, who – by the way – are also called “deniers” by the most vocal IPCC claque scientists, are consensus by this definition of consensus. So, this definition of consensus is not adequate at all to quantify the consensus.

    The fact you don’t see a problem with this, is not my problem. It is your problem. A big one, if you ask me.

  28. willard (@nevaudit)

    plazaeme,

    You do seem to have the power to interject comments: well played, sir!

    Repeating that “consensus does not have a clear meaning” won’t make it true all by itself. You asked me to read the guidelines. I did. And yet you pay no diligence to the text. You pay no diligence to the relevant sections in the paper, where about the same is being said than in the guidelines. In fact, you do not even pay due diligence to table 2.

    Ad hominems and villainous monologues won’t help you read texts to which you’re supposed to pay due diligence. Nor does it answer for your untrue claim that “we’re all the consensus” that you just made, whatever you try to mean by that.

    You should start to ask Shub for advice here, for if you’re to pursue with your irrelevant smears, you might have a hard time to cope with what’s coming. But as Richard said:

  29. plazaeme

    Good Morning, Willard. Beautiful day. Almost first one in the spring.

    Let me tell you I am not asking you to please me, nor any one. I am asking you to keep a minimum of rationality.

    You see, so far you have not answered any of my questions. And that’s after you bragged with: – Any other question?. Try to get a mirror Willard, and have a look. But, be cautious.

    This may be an ad hominem, my friend, but it is not an argument ad hominem. So, no logical fallacy, no problem here.

    Repeating that “consensus does not have a clear meaning” won’t make it true all by itself. You asked me to read the guidelines. I did. And yet you pay no diligence to the text. You pay no diligence to the relevant sections in the paper, where about the same is being said than in the guidelines. In fact, you do not even pay due diligence to table 2.

    I am not just repeating the lack of meaning, I am showing it to you with quotations and reasons. Just what you never provide. You make statements, yes, like something happens in some text. So what? What is the problem you have to understand this obvious problem?

    Now, you tell me consensus, in the paper, is just the A of AGW. A is any percentage of W. Well, this would be plain stupid because we are all consensus in such case, but many quite critic with IPCC assessments. So, your consensus has no meaning.

    (1/2)

  30. plazaeme

    (2/2)

    OK, let’s try with an example. The best method for someone with difficulties for abstraction. A picture, so to speak.

    You read in an abstract something like: We conclude CFCs are causing at least for 30% of the global warming since 1970s, and therefore CO2 attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought, as CFCs where not taken in account.

    Now remember the guidelines. You can say this paper is an explicit endorsement without quantification (2,1), because it “mentions climate change as a given fact”. This, as I said, is plain stupid because this paper has nothing to say about CO2 – is not it’s matter of study. The paper just mentions what other papers say, without studying whether it is true or not. But, you can also thing this paper is neutral because it (4.1) “merely mentions global climate change or global warming”, without the A part on AGW. And, you can also think it is an implicit rejection because it minimizes CO2 from “previously thought”, without quantifying.

    Wrong methodology to quantify an undefined consensus.

    Moreover. What is the point of quantifying a consensus which includes – say Lindzen or Spencer. They have no problem with some A in AGW. Nor the others, as far as I know. But they get the press saying exactly the opposite. So, it is not only stupid, it is a lie. Which, apparently, you support.

    Have a good day, Willard. Try to be happy.

  31. plazaeme

    Just one more thing. Imagine you had only one paper working on attribution of warming to CO2. Only one in the whole literature. And, nearly all the rest of the literature on climate change quoting this one paper, to go on working on other parts of the problem – say impacts. Do you have a 97% consensus in the literature about CO2 causing most of the warming? No, you have just one paper saying so, and a lot of papers mentioning a paper that says so.

    So, no need to read Cook’s paper, Willard. With the guidelines and the result, and some thinking, you have all you need to tell the idiocy. You may not agree, of course. But only addressing the argument, not with hand waving and mentioning some text without a single quote.

  32. Shub Niggurath

    The nesting is a pain in the a**. I took it off for now. The comment stream looks largely ok. If you want it back on, please let me know

  33. neverendingaudit

    > You see, so far you have not answered any of my questions.

    I answered the first one, and referred to a discussion at Bart’s. That I did not answer any of plazaeme’s question is untrue.

    ***

    > Now you tell me consensus, in the paper, is just the A of AGW.

    This misrepresents plazaeme’s first question, i.e. what the consensus was about. I did not say that the consensus was the A, I said it was about the A. Another untrue claim.

    ***

    > A is any percentage of W.

    That is not exactly how the IPCC defined the A in AGW, so this is another untrue claim. Interested readers will have to read a the discussion at Bart’s cited above. Let’s accept plazaeme’s interpretation for expedience’s sake.

    If the A is an indefinite percentage of W, then it must be inserted into a statement S. This S should at the very least qualify the importance of this indefinite percentage in the economy if all sources of W. Such S could then be endorsed, disputed, minimized, etc. That everyone accept an indefinite amount of A does not imply that they hold a similar position about S. While it is possible that there’s an overwhelming consensus about that S, there are still people who can dissent from it nevertheless.

    So plazaeme’s claim that we should all be included in the consensus has no merit, even on logical grounds alone. And Cook and al’s analysis suffices to falsify that claim on empirical grounds.

    ***

    To see how the consensus has been defined, whatever that means, one has to read the paper. Saying “look, guidelines!”, making untrue claims, and offering logical arguments that have no merit do not mix very well with ad hominems.

    (1/N)

  34. plazaeme

    Come on, Willard.

    If you say consensus is “about” A in AGW, you are not telling us what the consensus says. And you are still not willing to tell us.

    From the methodology (the ratings) I can’t tell. And I provided an example. The ratings overlap, extreemly. Can you tell us what your consensus says? If you can, are you going to keep on playing around and not telling us? Or are you not able to explain it, in a couple of sentences, with your own words?

    I am happy as it is. You have a secret and formidable consensus which says something so mysterious you have to point us to many places over the internet to try to find it out.

    But, yes, I think you have shown very clearly you are going to believe whatever you fancy. Which is quite OK with me. I would never interfere with your freedom.

    Be happy.

  35. Pingback: Pachauri’s great expectations (July 2009) vs reality (June 2013) | The View From Here
  36. neverendingaudit

    > If you say consensus is “about” A in AGW, you are not telling us what the consensus says.

    The question I answered, to repeat, was this one:

    tell me what the consensus is about.

    Answering the question does not imply I need to go fetch with the site’s jester.

    ***

    > And you are still not willing to tell us.

    That is false. One simply does not mix demands with ad hominems.

    But to answer plaezeme’s pleasantries, and to honor Shub’s practice of copy-pasting an abstract the other day, pleazeme might be well advised to start with Cook & al’s abstract:

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    Meditating on the emphasized bit should help pleazeme identify what is the consensus that the authors are studying. Then there is the body of the paper itself. There are strategical points where one can find such information. Perhaps Shub could help his jester here, since he seems to have some experience reading technical papers.

    ***

    That said, if reading the guidelines, Cook & al’s paper, and Bart’s thread is not enough for pleazeme, then we could say, like Shub did the other day:

    Well, Shub did not said exactly this, but I can’t find back his tweet mentioning a thirsty horse.

    ***

    > I think you have shown very clearly you are going to believe whatever you fancy.

    Ain’t we all. Regarding Cook & al, I don’t recall having shown my beliefs about Cook & al. All I did so far was to pay due diligence to some of the concerns regarding it. I’d like to see some evidence of the beliefs that could transpire from my comments.

    Nor has Wott took position for Cook & al, for that matter, contrary to what pleazeme untruly claimed in his comment #8747. What matters to Wott clearly seems to be more constructive criticicisms than anything else.

    This would be unsurprising, as the public crave for constructive criticisms.

    ***

    Shub’s jester might need to acknowledge his untruths to give more weigth to his coaxing. He might profit from taking example on bender, who was the jester’s at Steve’s for a good while.

    I miss bender.

  37. plazaeme

    Willard, by “believing whatever you fancy” I am talking about your extravagant thought that you address the problems / questions.

    Al last, we know what this consensus is supposed to say: humans are causing global warming. The problem is you cannot get there from the ratings and their guidelines.

    5. Implicit Rejection of AGW

    5.1 Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW

    This does not mean humans are not causing global warming.

    6. Explicit Rejection of AGW without quantification

    6.1 Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming without putting a figure on it.

    This does not mean humans are not causing global warming.

    7. Explicit Rejection of AGW with quantification

    7.1 Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming with a specific figure

    This does not mean humans are not causing global warming.

    Thanks. This was my point. The definition of consensus is not telling you humans are “the” cause of global warming, nor that it is a problem. The ratings can never achieve the goal of quantifying any consensus about what everybody cares. But that’s not what the press and the public think.

    As I told you, and you probably know rather well, every non-consensus in the field of climate things humans are causing global warming, and says so. I don’t know any of them saying ECS to CO2 is zero, or negative. This would be “non causing” GW. The definition you provide (from the abstract) is nonsense. The result should be 100% instead of 97, if the the rating’s system was adecuate for the task of quantifying such a consensus.

    As for what you think about the paper, I don’t really care. The paper (with the definition of consensus and guidelines) is crystal clear.

  38. neverendingaudit

    > Al last, we know what this consensus is supposed to say: humans are causing global warming.

    This claim is untrue. I did not say nor imply that this was enough to understand what “this consensus is supposed to say”. What I said is that this was a starting point.

    Also, this claim is wrong-headed. One does not simply try to falsify a paper by looking at every little bit of its content and see each of them implies the abstract. It’s the other way around: one uses an abstract as an outline of the content of the paper. Reading an abstract never suffices. This might explain some part of the discrepancy between the ratings of the ABSTRACTS and the self-ratings of the PAPERS.

    ***

    What matters is that the abstract is somewhat compatible with what the authors say and do in their paper. I say “somewhat” because strict compatibility can only be achieved by near-perfectly written technical documents. Judgement should rule over parsomatics. See for instance the first paragraph:

    An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

    When the authors speak of “the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”, chances are that the authors are referring to “the fundamental cause of global warming” or “that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW”. This disproves the claim that

    > This [pick category 5 to 7] does not mean humans are not causing global warming.

    Reading the first paragraph suffices to show that plazaeme’s analysis have no merit. Proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    His concerns regarding Table 2 are already met: the authors did not have in mind cases where the authors endorsed AGW the way he says.

    ***

    Now, what is it that the authors determined exactly? Should we accept what they say at face-value in the abstract, or in the first paragraph? Should we insist in having a strict definition? The only way to know is to RTFP.

    (3/N)

  39. omanuel

    Consensus government science is another form of tyranny:

    Agree with these approved models or lose government funding:

    1. BBM (Big Bang Model) of hydrogen creation at the birth of the universe,
    2. SSM (Standard Solar Model) of hydrogen-filled stars heated by H-fusion,
    3. AGW/AGC Models of Anthropologic Global Warming and / or Cooling,
    4. Models of neutron stars as dead nuclear embers of burned-out stars, and
    5. The BHM (Black Hole Model) for storing imaginary stellar end products.

    On this subject, I agree with the candidate for Lt. Governor in Virginia:

    http://www.jacksonforlg.com/the-speech-that-rocked-virginia/

    It is time to throw off all government tyranny.

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

  40. plazaeme

    Willard, this is becoming grotesque. The more you say, the more you make my point.

    So, we are again in the situation we don’t have a definition of consensus. We have just a “starting point” of a definition. Wouldn’t you think that before you begin to rate papers you need an “arrival point” of a definition?

    I am not trying to falsify a paper, don’t be so pompous. I am trying to see what the heck they were trying to do before they began the task. I am not looking for “after the facts” justifications.

    What do we have?

    When the authors speak of “the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”, chances are that the authors are referring to “the fundamental cause of global warming” or “that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW”.

    Chances? Seriously? A probabilistic definition of consensus? Chances are it means such and such, but you have chances it means something completely different, but maybe somewhat compatible?

    In the rubbish you bring, you show what the authors think about consensus in society. What we need is their filter to quantify a consensus in the literature. The only filter we have is what we see in the guidelines. And, as I showed you, there is no way this filter provides something with some sense. You can’t go from the filter to the known starting point of the definition. I can’t tell if you can in the case of the unknown arrival point of a definition.

    Reading the first paragraph suffices to show that plazaeme’s analysis have no merit. Proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    Absurd. Non-A as dominant (meaning biggest, or just strong enough?) does not exclude A as a likely cause (among others). It does not even exclude one A as the dominant cause. Imagine a paper showing two or three natural forcings causing 60% of the observed warming, and not quantifying greenhouse gases (or other A). This does not exclude A being a likely cause of warming. Quite the contrary, it suggests so. Nor it excludes a dominant A forcing (say the biggest forcing). But it may mean “minimizing” A. It depends on your starting thought, is quite subjective.

    If your filter is “dominant”, or 50%, you have to say so in all rating categories, not just one. And, you have to define dominant (say strongest, or among the strongest, or more than X%, etc).

    5.1 Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW

    So, “dominant” may not be a single one (not just the strongest).

    I begin to understand your way to “read a scientific paper”. Verbal gymnastics to justify nonsense. But it is fun, thanks.

  41. omanuel

    No, plazaeme, five consensus models became grotesque distortions of reality after the internal composition of the Sun was changed abruptly, without debate or discussion in 1946, when Fred Hoyle adopted the nebular model for the formation of the Sun from an interstellar cloud of hydrogen and published two papers [1, 2] that became the foundation of false public-financed scientific dogma for the next sixty-seven years, despite being repeatedly falsified by measurements and observations:

    o Hoyle’s 1946 Standard Solar Model of H-filled stars heated by H-fusion
    o Yukawa’s attractive forces between neutrons generate dead neutron stars
    o BBM (Big Bang Model) of hydrogen creation at the birth of the universe
    o The BHM (Black Hole Model) for storing imaginary stellar end products
    o AGC/AGW Models of Anthropologic Global Cooling and/or Warming

    [1] Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-259 (1946).
    [2] Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-383 (1946).

  42. willard (@nevaudit)

    > The more you say, the more you make my point.

    This does not acknowledge plazaeme’s untrue claims or the wrong analysis he offered us. Proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW. Reading the first paragraph alone suffices to show that plazaeme’s analysis above has no merit.

    The latest untruths about “a probabilistic definition of consensus”, whatever plazaeme means by that, misinterprets yet again what Cook et al said and did. (Hint: I underlined two descriptions in the first paragraph.) Something like this has discussed at Bart’s almost one month ago.

    It is time Shub either distances himself from plazaeme’s intellectual misdemeanours or sends in better [s].

    (4/N)

  43. plazaeme

    What the hell is this stupid BS about Shub and distances. Who has told you anyone “sent” me here,[s]?

    I did not and I am not going to read this clown’s paper. Why do I know is nonsense? Because I read the guidelines (and rated some papers with them), read the press release, and read the abstract. And from them, as I have demonstrated you too many times, you cannot quantify a no non-nonsense consensus. There is no theoretical possible definition of consensus, with this guidelines, able to tell you how many papers are critic with the basic assumptions of IPCC. That’s why I am trying to get from you the working definition of consensus you think the paper is using.

    The only one you provide (first paragraph from the guidelines, with your emphasis) is not at all consistent with the detailed ratings. And, worse, you can have a paper rated both, rejection or endorsement, with this guidelines. As I showed you.

    What else do you need to recognise a clown paper?

    Proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    Obviously not, but do you mind using my example, and put it to work?

    Any case, thanks. For me works fine if the defense of the paper is what you show. Just great.

  44. plazaeme

    I don’t know what you mean with contrarian’s concerns, nor what concerns are you talking about.

    Maybe you need some explanation about your own terminology. Non-A.

    Proposing non-A as a dominant influence …

    You must be saying the sum of all A. Otherwise, you should have said Proposing a (non-A) dominant influence.

    So, if this is your problem, we have:

    – Non-A as dominant (all non-A, two or three in the example)

    does not exclude

    – one A as the dominant cause.

    All non-A together are dominant. As a single influence, the A one is the dominant. Using dominant as single strongest influence, which we still don’t know if it is needed.

    Is this your problem, or what is it? Are you going to use my example, to see it can be classified either as endorsement or as a rejection? What has it anything to do with what contrarians concerns?

    See you.

  45. plazaeme

    Let me bring you another example of this stupidity. Quite a common example in climate literature.

    – A paper finds stratospheric WV is responsible for 30% of the observed warming since 1975. It says (1) nothing about CO2. Or maybe mentions (2) most of the rest (70%) *must* be CO2, as others say.

    How do you rate it?

    (1) Neutral.

    (2) Endorsement.

    – A paper finds 30% of this warming is caused by natural oceanic cycles. And (1) and (2) as in the first paper.

    So, you have, depending on (1 and 2), two neutral papers, or one neutral and one endorsement, or two endorsements.

    But, looking at the two papers together, what you have is two rejections. 60% of non-A.

    Isn’t it a marvelous methodology to know what the literature says?

  46. plazaeme

    And once here, Willard, it is very difficult you keep on your hard task of not seeing the problem. Because now, even a 10 year old with a mean intelligence will see the outstanding elephant in the room. The methodology is BS, and anyone can see it at first glance. So, why the hell are so many supposedly adults playing around as if they weren’t seeing the elephant? Up to you.

    I have only mentioned one of the many problematic points of the rubbish. Well, now two.

    1. The guidelines have way too tenuous barriers.
    2. Their idea of “implicit endorsement” is rubbish — about 75% of the 97%.

    I have showed it to you with very clear examples. But you don’t want to talk about the inner workings of the methodology, and keep on playing ridiculous verbal gymnastics. So, I don’t see any further purpose for the conversation. As far as I am concerned, I made my point quite visible. You never addressed it.

    But, if you want to dream yourself as the smart guy, by means of quite irrelevant semantics, that’s also ok with me. It’s fun. Keep on this childish counting of yours – (5/N) and so on -; keep on your pompous verbal diarrhoea; and I will keep on showing what an (choose your word) you are playing. Everybody happy.

  47. willard (@nevaudit)

    For plazaeme,

    (1) Proposing non-A as a dominant influence

    should be corrected to

    (2) Proposing a (non-A) dominant influence.

    unless I’m referring to the sum of all A. Whatever he means by that is irrelevant to the fact that one does not simply propose both A and non-A as dominant influences in the same PAPER or the same ABSTRACT. That does not mean it’s logically impossible to express such absurdity. It just looks silly.

    ***

    After an algebraical possibilium, plazaeme concludes:

    > Non-A as dominant (all non-A, two or three in the example) does not exclude “one A as the dominant cause”

    For this sentence to make any sense (notice the emphasized word), the first occurrence of “dominant” cannot have the same meaning as the second one.

    If A is the dominant cause, non-A can’t be the dominant cause. That does not prevent non-A to be a “dominant” cause in another sense, say like a local optimum. In our case, I’d rather say a categorical optimum.

    ***

    Also note that plazaeme’s possibilium relies on being an ordering among causes. This usually implies some kind of quantification. It is not logically impossible for an author to try to order causes of GW without trying to quantify it. But if that author implicitely or explicitely assumes quantities, she must refer to some quantities elsewhere.

    Therefore, to even be relevant, plazaeme’s possibilium should apply to abstracts that either mention quantities, defer to quantities we know (e.g. in the AR4), or express concerns regarding these quantities. All these cases have been distinguished in Table 2 of Cook and al.

  48. plazaeme

    For this sentence to make any sense (notice the emphasized word), the first occurrence of “dominant” cannot have the same meaning as the second one.

    And it does not. This is the problem. In-definition. Sometimes “dominant” refers to the duality (A / non-A). Sometimes to single influences. Sometimes they are saying “consensus” is (all) anthropogenic being stronger than (all) natural. In direct contradiction with IPCC. (ie Pielke).

    1.1 (Endorsement) Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or …

    (By the way, if it has caused most of the warming, then it is *the* dominant, not *a* dominant).

    Sometimes they say, “consensus” is GHG (or just CO2) being the strongest influence.

    4.4 (Neutral) Anthropogenic impact studies about direct human influence like urban heat island and land use changes (eg – not about GHG emissions)

    So, to avoid contradiction between 1.1 and 4.4, “human influences” in 1.1 must be GHG. And, CO2 would be *the* dominant influence in my example. But, who knows what they are talking about?

    Any case, what is your problem in using the examples to see if they are (1) multy-rating and, (2) nonsense? You would understand your (imaginary) problem with quantification.

  49. plazaeme

    Now that we are at it, we may highlight:

    Endorsement with quantification:

    -1.1 (Endorsement) Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or …

    IPCC’s main assessment: GHG are the cause of most (>50%) of the observed warming …

    Cook’s consensus is not IPCC’s consensus.

  50. willard (@nevaudit)

    Let’s review the play by play. First, plazaeme argues for this possibility:

    Non-A as dominant (all non-A, two or three in the example) does not exclude “one A as the dominant cause”.

    Second, when shown that this possibility rests on an equivocation, plazaeme replies:

    And it does not. This is the problem. In-definition. Sometimes “dominant” refers to the duality (A / non-A). Sometimes to single influences.

    When being shown that his own interpretation rests on an equivocation, the response is to blame the paper. It’s Cook & al if plazaeme came up with an interpretation that rests on an equivocation.

    ***

    This play-by-play underlines a stronger argument: according to plazaeme, this equivocation is necessary. In other words, there are no other possible interpretations of Cook & al. Such conclusion does not follow from what plazaeme did, which was to construct one case. The inductive step is quite steep. While this observation suffices to show the limitation of plazaeme’s argument, let’s see if we can’t refute it.

    To that effect, providing an interpretation that does not rest on equivocation should suffice to disprove plazaeme’s stronger claim. Recall that plazaeme’s case purported to refute this claim:

    Proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    According to plazaeme’s interpretation, there is no entailment, but it costs an equivocation. What about considering that there is an entailment? That is, what if minimizing or rejecting A as a fundamental cause of GW was really incompatible with the proposition that non-A is a dominant influence on GW? If all we have against this entailment are equivocations, so much the worse for equivocations.

    How could we tell if that interpretation is possible? The only way to know is to RTFP.

    ***

    TL:DR — One does not simply negate an antecedent by affirming its consequent.

    (7/N)

  51. plazaeme

    Willard, not much time right now. Particularly for nonsense. So, I will address only the very first part now.

    Is obvious dominant has a different meaning if trying to distinguish between two possibilities (the dichotomy), or when looking for influences which are the strongest among many. It’s a different way to look at the problem. And it’s obvious they don’t tell what they are doing (or are doing different things in the same paper).

    It is obvious …

    Non-A as dominant (all non-A, two or three in the example) does not exclude “one A as the dominant cause”.

    A + B + C may be stronger than D, and their group is dominant, while D may be stronger than any of (A, B, C), and so the dominant influence.

    There is no way to tell what are they doing. 1.1 is incompatible with 4.1. If they just wanted to look for endorsement / rejection of IPCC thesis, they would have used IPCC’s wording: GHG >50%. It’s very clear, with no need for interpretation. But they chose not to.

    But it’s really very easy to tell what *you* are doing.

    See you later.

  52. willard (@nevaudit)

    > A + B + C may be stronger than D, and their group is dominant, while D may be stronger than any of (A, B, C), and so the dominant influence.

    The two uses of “dominant” lead to different types of relation: the first compares groups of forcings, while the second compares individual forcings. This is what is called an equivocation. One does not simply provide a counterexample by using an equivocation.

    Also note that the expression “A + B + C” clearly shows that plazaeme presumes some kind of quantification. But this is supposed to be a counterexample to a non-quantitative category! One does not simply provide a counterexample by using the wrong framework.

    ***

    > There is no way to tell what are they doing. 1.1 is incompatible with 4.1. If they just wanted to look for endorsement / rejection of IPCC thesis, they would have used IPCC’s wording: GHG >50%.

    The first sentence is easily answered: RTFP. The second sentence is the opposite of plazaeme’s argument, which was that by equivocating two senses of “dominant”, one could make an ABSTRACT compatible with both 1.1 and 4.1. Yet again, another commenter whines that Cook should have reviewed attribution studies.

    Had plazaeme RTFP, he might have seen that the authors do use the IPCC statement:

    We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    This is the 7th paragraph of the article, the 8th if we include the ABSTRACT. We emphasize the two relevant expressions. Only two categories deal with quantification. One does not simply quantify an ABSTRACT void of quantification.

    ***

    All this are footnotes to what has been said at Bart’s:

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/

    (8/N)

  53. plazaeme

    So, what else are you saying Willard? Did you take the examples to see how the rating system works (or doesn’t work)? No way. Willard is entertained with his childish (8/N) thing. Which shows, without any doubt, Willard’s lack of understanding. There are not eight points over the table. There is only one, with maybe a couple or three of subpoints.

    Point: Has the system meaning?
    – subpoint: is the consensus well defined?
    – subpoint: Are the ratings clear, or overlapping?
    – subpoint: WTF is this “implicit endorsement”?

    But, here mr. Smart Guy won 8/N, without there being eight points at stake. My congratulations! If Willard tried to understand, he wouldn’t be playing table tennis. But, not being understanding his goal, childish plays are his entertainment.

    RTFP.

    Sorry, Willard. but the paper was written after the ratings were done. And I am not interested in a clown paper, if I see what they did is nonsense. What they did was put the guidelines to work. Nonsense, as we have indeed seen.

    UYFB.

    You thing the raters used IPCC’s statement. Really? What for? Can’t you even understand what you quote?

    Explicit endorsements were divided into

    – non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution)
    and
    – quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

    Just to make it easier for you:

    – non-quantified (e.g. blablabla)
    – quantified (e.g. consistent with IPCC’s statement)

    You get it? That’s all the fuss about. There can not be “non quantified” endorsements, because the assessment is a quantification. But this would produce a small amount of papers. Nothing spectacular enough for a big PR operation. They needed thousands and thousands of papers endorsing a consensus. And, they ended with a load of nonsense about a meaningless consensus. With 75% of their endorsement comming from the very scientific idea of an “implicit endorsement”, which, when you look at it, may perfectly be a rejection (as shown).

    UYFB.

    (N/Match)

  54. plazaeme

    A further explanation for mr Smart Guy.

    They could have use IPCC’s assessment as a guide to decide between rejection and endorsement. They chose otherwise.

    They added to the system the idea of “dominant influence”. Which looks more or less similar to IPCC’s assessment … untill you read the whole guidelines.

    They used the “implicit” category in such a way that an endorsement comes from something which is not studied in the paper. It is just the assumption that other papers / authors are right. And, in such a way that two different papers rated as two different (imaginary) endorsements may mean (if taken together) a very clear rejection (e.g. two non GHG influences adding up to 51%, and the assumption is wrong).

    But this is not a clown paper. No, no, no.

    Thanks for the conversation.

  55. plazaeme

    Had plazaeme RTFP, he might have seen that the authors do use the IPCC statement:

    Oh, but you are quite right, Willard. They used it to bring in 65 of 3932 endorsements. They used it for a whopping 1.7% of the task. So, Cook’s consensus is IPCC’s consensus … 1.7% of the times.

    Your logic, my friend, is … hmmm …notoriously hilarious?

  56. willard (@nevaudit)

    (9/N)

    > So, what else are you saying Willard?

    One does not simply ask questions after spouting ad hominems and expect being answered. So far, here’s what has been gained:

    – An answer to what the consensus is about, i.e. the A in AGW.

    – The procedure to reach John’s “guidelines” is now replicable.

    – Two refutations of “we are all consensus”, both on logical and on empirical grounds.

    – An implicit acknowledgement that am not here to please plazaeme.

    – A meditation on the abstract, where where the consensus position is stated that humans are causing global warming

    – An unmet challenge for evidence that I’m defending Cook and al, whereas I think I’m not playing defense hereunder.

    – A clarification that “humans are causing global warming” does not define the consensus position (both untrue and wrong-headed), but helps identify it in a very rough and steady way.

    – Shub distanced himself from his [s].

    – A demonstration that plazaeme’s interpretation of Cook’s classification rests on an equivocation.

    – A consequence of this refutation: proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    – An argument to the effect that one does not simply quantify an unquantified ABSTRACT, however clearly definite it may sound.

    – An illustration of the importance of RTFP.

    – An howto deal with insults, Gish gallops, and other intellectual misdemeanours.

    – Congratulations.

    What is being done with our words might matter more than what is being said.

    ***

    > There are not eight points over the table.

    As we can see, there are more than that. So yet another true statement. This untruth rests on a misinterpretation: “(8/N)” means this was my 8th comment of N, like when “(1/2)” meant the first our of two comments. It seems that this was the first pair of plaezeme’s comments. His comments do seem to often come in rashes.

    I can endorse interpreting “N” as “match”. When the match will be completed, I’ll pay due diligence to all the ad hominems hurled in the thread. Even jesters should beware that everything they say could be used against them under the trial of reason.

  57. plazaeme

    – An answer to what the consensus is about, i.e. the A in AGW.

    * So what? We are not interested in A, but in GHG.

    – The procedure to reach John’s “guidelines” is now replicable.

    * It always was. You can perfectly replicate:

    a) A consensus that is not IPCC’s consensus.

    b) Papers which can reject or endorse consensus.

    – Two refutations of “we are all consensus”, both on logical and on empirical grounds.

    * I didn’t bother to answer the rubbish. Non quantified AGW means we are all consensus.

    2.1 (explicit rejection without clarification) Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change as a given fact.

    Means: we are all consensus. May mean rejection of IPCC, if the fact given is different from GHG.

    – An implicit acknowledgement that am not here to please plazaeme.

    * Who asked, and who cares?

    – A meditation on the abstract, where where the consensus position is stated that humans are causing global warming

    * Means we are all consensus.

    – An unmet challenge for evidence that I’m defending Cook and al, whereas I think I’m not playing defense hereunder.

    * You are doing an extraordinary attempt to avoid seeing the nonsense. Name it as it suits you.

    – A clarification that “humans are causing global warming” does not define the consensus position (both untrue and wrong-headed), but helps identify it in a very rough and steady way

    * Wonderful, since non-consensus say exactly the same.

    – A demonstration that plazaeme’s interpretation of Cook’s classification rests on an equivocation.

    * Yeah, the equivocation that (1) Cook’s consensus is not IPCC’s consensus (2) papers can go to many categories (3) same papers can both reject or endorse consensus

    – A consequence of this refutation: proposing non-A as a dominant influence of GW, rejecting or minimizing AGW, with or without figures, contradicts both the idea that A is a fundamental cause or that A is a likely cause of GW.

    * Let’s get this straight.

    5.1 (implicit rejection) Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW

    Implies “dominant” is not the strongest, but among them (plural).

    1.1 (explicit endorsement) Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

    What do you understand? It seems to mean it is either one of the strongest influences, or has caused >50%.

    So, proposing AMO (non-A) as a dominant influence (eg AMO 50% GHG 60%) does not contradict the idea that A is a fundamental cause, or that A is a likely cause. Even if you had AMO 50% GHG 40%, A would be a fundamental cause, and certainly a cause of warming.

    So, no, so sorry, but you must UYFB, apart from RTFM. Which, in this case, are the guidelines.

    – An illustration of the importance of RTFP.

    * Wrong illustration. Don’t you read the answers?

    – An howto deal with insults, Gish gallops, and other intellectual misdemeanours.

    Sort of a way to not to deal with self stubbornness. By the way, look up the first [s], and remember what was sniped.

    – What is being done with our words might matter more than what is being said.

    Sure, as trying to understand how the system works, or trying to play table tennis.

    – (8/N)” means this was my 8th comment of N

    That’s what I thought the first time, which was your 13th comment. But, coming to understand you were fun and playful, I made the mistake. My bad.

    – Shub distanced himself from his [s].

    I don’t see the relevance, but look up the first [s].

    For nth time. Any problem using the very clear examples I provided, and the guidelines, to see how the system works?

    Once more:
    – What is being done with our words might matter more than what is being said.

    Yes, it does. And normally, even more what is not being done.

  58. plazaeme

    Willard, I don’t know anything about you. (Nor about Shub, by the way). So, worried with your lack of understanding, let me try to help. In case you knew, excuse me.

    You have both, a consensus and a non-consensus. The consensus is not “about AGW”. IPCC’s consensus, I mean. Nobody knows the net effect of non-GHG anthropogenic influences. The consensus is about radiative properties of GHG. They warm.

    The non consensus is about the final quantification of human’s GHG influence in the system. After feed-backs. So to speak, the most probable range of climate sensitivity. And, yes, a more or less good measure is the 50% limit. But for human GHG alone, not for all anthropogenic influences.

    So, with this in mind, I suggest that you think all over again. In case you were not aware. If you were, then it is table tennis.

    Cheers.

  59. plazaeme

    We wouldn’t need to play tough if we were trying to understand, instead bragging. I, particularly, always try no to, if possible. But I adapt to circumstances.

  60. Shub Niggurath

    Plazaeme’s comments show that the classifying abstracts like this is not straightforward. If you try to make up too many subcategories, it doesn’t get any better. In fact, it gets worse.

    Anyone arguing it is ‘clear as the sky’, is deluded. The abstracts in the literature are not a mass of text from which you can extract the kind of categories the Cook group tried to.

  61. plazaeme

    I don’t know if it is obvious just by reading the guidelines. I think so, but if you get a bunch of abstracts, and you try to rate them, the difficulty becomes apparent.

    Then, you only need to think in some hypothetical papers (but very “normal” ones), and you realize what I have been saying. It is nonsense.

    But this in not the game Willard wants to play. Understanding how the system works. His “logic” is not from this world.

    Consensus? Yea, but what is agreed by this consensus?

    – A > 50%
    – GHG is “dominant” (but non-A may be > 50%)
    – GHG > 50%
    – A warms
    – CO2 warms

    You choose, but only one of them is IPCC’s consensus. And, the rest are irrelevant.

    Now, what is it that the authors determined exactly? Should we accept what they say at face-value in the abstract, or in the first paragraph? Should we insist in having a strict definition? The only way to know is to RTFP.

    This is the “logic” of Willard. I don’t know what the heck he was trying, I just know what I proposed him. Understanding what the raters were doing. But the raters could not use the abstract, even less TFP, because it was not written yet. Capisci, Willard? How about UYFB?

    No, Willard doesn’t understand. Understanding is not his aim.

    QED

    This is without even looking at the obvious majority. The joke of the “implicit” endorsement.

    Any case, not being a fan of IPCC, I am very happy seeing pro-IPCC scientists and journalists, and Willard, defending this BS.

  62. willard (@nevaudit)

    (10/N)

    > [C]lassifying abstracts like this is not straightforward.

    Indeed. This explains why Cook & al validated this result with authors themselves, and why if we compare ratings of the ABSTRACTS with self-ratings of the PAPERS, the ratings of the ABSTRACTS show conservativeness.

    ***

    > You thing the raters used IPCC’s statement.

    I’m not sure where I said that they used it. Note that in this sentence, the term “IPCC statement” is unclear: this statement changed between 1991 and 2012. What matters is the commitment to the assumption that AGW is real (contrary to its denial) and is not insignificant (contrary to its minimization).

    We should expect that both the raters and the self-raters know the IPCC position of the time, and that if they are talking about AGW, the IPCC position serves as background knowledge. Therefore, we should presume that the authors mentioning AGW are committed to the working hypotheses of the field. This hypothesis is implicated by a great deal of scientific work; this implicature helps recognize an endorsement by the raters, which is validated by the self-raters.

    ***

    > The consensus is not “about AGW”. IPCC’s consensus, I mean. Nobody knows the net effect of non-GHG anthropogenic influences. The consensus is about radiative properties of GHG. They warm.

    Vintage May 18, 2013 at 14:48 (EDT):

    Here is a typical statement of AGW:

    There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2

    http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html

    And that’s notwithstanding small details like what we can read in the
    next paragraphs:

    Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic
    carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling
    effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1]
    W/m2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of 0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W/m2. Aerosols also influence precipitation. {WGI 2.4, 2.9, 7.5, SPM}

    AGW is the position according to which we are mostly responsible for dumping the extra CO2 or else, which resulted in warming, not that this dumping caused more than 50% of the warming we observed.

    We should not be lukewarm to consult the relevant lichurchur if need be.

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18744

    The SPM claim about the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century has been quoted and analyzed a bit later, circa May 18, 2013 at 23:05 (EDT). Yes, Virginia, that claim is that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

  63. plazaeme

    I’m not sure where I said that they used it. (IPCC’Sstatement)

    How about the “search” facility?

    Had plazaeme RTFP, he might have seen that the authors do use the IPCC statement:

    https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i/#comment-8880

    And, yes, they did use it. Exactly in 65 of 3932 endorsements. You want to begin this part all over again?

    the term “IPCC statement” is unclear: this statement changed between 1991 and 2012. What matters is the commitment to the assumption that AGW is real (contrary to its denial) and is not insignificant (contrary to its minimization).

    How many times need I tell you that “AGW is real”, and, it may be not insignificant (subjective term), are both endorsed by a majority of “deniers”?

    Say you think doubling CO2 would produce 0.7K of warming. Is this significant? You tell me; that’s the difference between 19th and 20th centuries. Is this a problem? Not many think so. Last time it happened, it was for good. Is it outside the probable range of IPCC? Certainly so, and quite. Is being a “denier” if your work shows such a small warming for 2100? You bet, it is the kind of results of papers from über mega deniers like Spencer and Lindzen.

    The term “IPCC statement” is unclear if you want it unclear. If you want to know whether IPCC *is* right, you use his latest assessment. If you want to know whether IPCC *was* right, you are doing history. But, if you mix up papers from 1991 to 2012 in a “consensus”, either you think the science has not advanced in 21 years, either your consensus has not any merit by any rational meaning. You may think both, though. But you also may be doing a PR operation, and need thousands and thousands of nonsense.

    So, you have problems with the difference between AGW and GHG-GW. No problem, I’ll show you. They say a picture is worth thousand words. Look the classic AR4 forcings graphic. I made it easier for you. Conclusion: IPCC does not claim to know the sign of the net effect of non-GHG A.

    Yes, I know they play a lot with the words. Tip: They try to get you to think there is more in their statements than there really is.

    Yes, Virginia, that claim is that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Oh, great! You got it. May I think you understand this is the only meaningful consensus? If it is a consensus, and not a simple big majority. Cook’s work didn’t show us.

    So, back to the beginning. Cook’s consensus is not IPCC’s consensus.

    Are you going to use my examples to try to understand how the ratings worked?

    Ah, yes:

    Cook & al validated this result with authors themselves

    ¿Are you serious? 14% response, from 75% emailed. Those less motivated, and selected from the most probable “deniers”, I suppose. What did they use for rating? The same useless guidelines? Don’t be so stubborn. If the guidelines are nonsense, and they are, there is no further motive to speak about the nonsense.

    Let me try again, helping you with your understanding skills, Imagine there is, say 10% or 15% of this bunch papers rejecting the idea that >50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by GHG emissions. Single papers, or adding non-GHG influences from some papers. This is the question everybody cares about. Do you really think you will find this 10-15%, from 14% of responses of 75% emailed? Or, do you really think Cook’s rating system may capture such situation? I don’t think you think so. Very difficult to believe. But you can tell us.

  64. plazaeme

    Correction:

    Imagine there is, say 10% or 15% of this bunch papers rejecting the idea that >50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by GHG emissions.

    10-15% Among the small amount of papers dealing with attribution.

  65. plazaeme

    Please, please, Willard. Let me know if I have been able to make you understand:

    1) Cook’s imagined consensus is not about what everybody cares.
    2) Cook’s rating system cannot say anything about our worries with climate.
    3) Cook’s rating system may consider as endorsement papers rejecting GHGW > 50%.
    4) Cook’s paper is BS, for anything we could care about.
    5) Willard is somewhat stubborn, and fan of table tennis. But, as an inteligent person, he is beginning to understand.

  66. plazaeme

    OK, just another try. Willard..

    IPCC and his groupies tend to be ambiguous with his wording. Consciously, I guess. They say AGW, to conclude we have to stop GHG emissions. But a paper finding >50% of warming due to land use changes, plus soot, plus CFCs, is finding:

    – AGW is real.
    – AGW is very significant.

    Consensus? Hard to think so since stopping GHG emissions would not be the solution. It may not even be a problem. And, this paper is finding GHG warming 50%), not any amount. Do you think Cook’s rating system will find those papers with results that what we are interested in, and only those?

  67. plazaeme

    I messed the last comment. It should be:

    OK, just another try.

    IPCC and his groupies tend to be ambiguous with his wording. Consciously, I guess. They say AGW, to conclude we have to stop GHG emissions. But a paper finding >50% of warming due to land use changes, plus soot, plus CFCs, is finding:

    – AGW is real.
    – AGW is very significant.

    ¿Consensus? Hard to think so since stopping GHG emissions would not be the solution. It may not even be a problem. And, this paper is finding GHG warming 50%), not any amount. Do you think Cook’s rating system will find those papers with results that what we are interested in, and only those?

  68. willard (@nevaudit)

    (11/N)

    Let’s recall the exchange about the IPCC’s statement for those who have problems with how pronouns work.

    [plazaeme, on 2013-06-19] If they just wanted to look for endorsement / rejection of IPCC thesis, they would have used IPCC’s wording: GHG >50%.

    [willard, on 2013-06-19] Had plazaeme RTFP, he might have seen that the authors do use the IPCC statement.

    [plazaeme, on 2013-06-19] You thing the raters used IPCC’s statement. Really? What for? Can’t you even understand what you quote?

    [willard, on 2013-06-20] I’m not sure where I said that they used it. Note that in this sentence, the term “IPCC statement” is unclear: this statement changed between 1991 and 2012. What matters is the commitment to the assumption that AGW is real (contrary to its denial) and is not insignificant (contrary to its minimization).

    [plazaeme, 2013-06-21] How about the “search” facility?

    Indeed. The emphasized words show how the pronoun they shifted from authors to raters.

    ***

    The authors do use the IPCC’s statement when they say:

    We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

    This paragraph has already been quoted in (8/N). The authors do not mention the exact statement from the IPCC. But they clearly use it when they identify their paraphrase of it as the 2007 IPCC statement. One does not simply conflate any IPCC statements with a working hypothesis about AGW.

    The predicate “is consistent with” indicates that the raters did not use the exact statement from the IPCC. They did use something that looks like it, but only for for attributions studies, i.e. papers that fall into (1) or (7):

    1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification

    1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
    1.2 Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement – that would be implicit.

    This is not the IPCC’s statement. Even then, the raters did not use the IPCC’s statement, only a mundane approximation of a claim about AGW consistent with that statement. The raters and the self-raters might see that the guidelines’ paraphrases are consistent with the IPCC’s statement, but only because they have the background knowledge of AGW and the works of the IPCC.

    The guidelines are no algorithms; the raters and the self-raters were not peanut sorters.

    ***

    > They used it to bring in 65 of 3932 endorsements.

    Here would be a more appropriate way to express the authors’ findings:

    [O]f those abstracts making a statement about the quantitative contribution of human activity to the warming, 87% (65/75) endorsed dominant human causation. And of those abstracts expressing an explicit position on the cause of global warming, 97.6% (999/1024) endorsed human causation.

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers

  69. plazaeme

    Willard, you really are incredible. How many times did I tell you, you are just playing table tennis? Didn’t you understand the metaphor? Why didn’t you ask? How do you want to improve your understanding skills if you don’t ask?

    – Table tennis: concentrating in a small white ball in such a manner you are not able to see the elephant in the room.

    Indeed. The emphasized words show how the pronoun “they” shifted from authors to raters.

    Willard, Willard. The meaning did not shift. The problem did not shift. Both, the authors and the raters should have used IPCC’s rating. The authors, when thinking and writing the guidelines. The raters, while using them to do the ratings (if they had it).

    How many times need I repeat the problem I am talking about.

    – absurd guidelines –> absurd consensus
    – No IPCC’s consensus in all the categories –> 97% is not IPCC’s consensus.
    – IPCC’s wording used by the authors to write the guidelines = raters using IPCC’s wording
    Authors = raters (if we talk about IPCC’s statement used to extract consensus from the papers)

    But you are not following the reasoning, you are only looking for pronouns where you might dream to smash them. And what happens? Well, I guess you have seen it right now. Table tennis, and an unseen elephant in the room.

    You see why I may seem angry at times? I am investing quite a lot of time in your education, trying to teach you to UYFB. Normally, one would expect you to be thankful.

    So now, what else? More funny pronouns? No, the usual absurd gymnastics. And with a term particularly classic in climate science. “consistent with”.

    only a mundane approximation of a claim about AGW consistent with that statement.

    Willard, I just showed you it is also “consistent with” what they (very stupidly) call “climate change denial”. So, a mundane approximation of a claim about AGW consistent with IPCC’s statement, but also consistent with the opposite of IPCC’s claim, is about the most exact definition of nonsense I ever met.

    Here would be a more appropriate way to express the authors’ findings:

    Quite appropriate. It’s what I am saying. Only 65 papers (among three thousand and some) used the only meaningful definition of consensus, if consensus is we have a problem with GHG emissions. Of course you have a lot of possible results “consistent” with it, and consistent with its contrary. Playing table tennis is not the best way to understand it. Maybe, apart from UYFB you need to OYFE.

    By the way, thanks. I hadn’t realised it (I haven’t RTFP as you know):

    [O]f those abstracts making a statement about the quantitative contribution of human activity to the warming, 87% (65/75) endorsed dominant human causation.

    By any rational meaning this would be an 87% of consensus (according to IPCC’s statement) … if, and only if, “human activity” is only GHG in all the 65 papers. So, we can say their finding is “climate science consensus” is less than 87% in this bunch of papers. Non-consensus is more than 4 times what we thought. I would have expected a bigger consensus, but who knows? Maybe Cook has found something interesting, after all.

    Willard, I do think the show has come to an end. Pronouns or not pronouns.

    The end:

    – If GHG warming <50%, we don't have a CO2 problem. Nothing urgent, anyway, and it may be a blessing.
    – Everything in Cook's nonsense not dealing with the relative amount of GHG warming may have of academic interest for historians of science (and for the study of human collective irrationality), but not for the general public.
    – Stop the table tennis. Look ahead. Smell the elephant. You may end seeing it.

    Cheers.

  70. plazaeme

    Error:
    – the most exact definition of nonsense I ever met.
    should be:
    – the most exact example of nonsense I ever met.

  71. omanuel

    Dear friends,

    Comments would be appreciated on a paper in progress, “Neutron repulsion: Source of life.” 

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Neutron_Repulsion-Source_of_Life.pdf

    I will be on vacation next week but able to receive comments sent to omatumr@yahoo.com

    Comments on personal bias or distortions would be especially helpful.  I hope to complete and submit the completed paper for publication when I return.

    Thanks for your assistance.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel

  72. plazaeme

    I’ve been having a more general look at our problem, Willard. You would have a critic against my position by pointing other studies have also used the weak (nonsense) wording of “human caused” without quantifying.

    The difference is other studies only tried to get an idea of the opinion of scientists, while Cook is pretending to show what the science itself (the literature) says. Which is quite more interesting, had him tried to get some knowledge instead of doing a PR blitz.

    I made another graphic to help you. A way to get some perspective, in case you have any interest in the problem (apart from playing table tennis)

    I have a question for your consideration. Is it fair they use the word “consensus”? What would be the reason in not using “wide majority”, or even “huge majority”, instead of “consensus”?

    Oxford ALD:
    Consensus: an opinion that all members of a group agree with

    I’ve found other definitions quite less clear.

    Do you think they may be trying to hide a quite legitimate scientific debate with the word “consensus”?

  73. willard (@nevaudit)

    > The meaning did not shift. The problem did not shift. Both, the authors and the raters should have used IPCC’s rating.

    The first two sentences are untrue. The meaning clearly went from “those who wrote a paper about the ratings, the self-ratings, and all that jazz” to “those who rated the abstracts”. This makes the objects of inquiry shift from the PAPER to the GUIDELINES and the PAPERS to the ABSTRACTS. It also removes from discussion all the authors who did rate their own papers.

    The third sentence perhaps expresses what plazaeme wished to convey all along. But this is not what was discussed, i.e. the fact that the authors did use the 2007 IPCC statement, which refutes the insinuation that they did not. Arguing about what Cook & al should, could, or ought to do is an independent question from clarifying what they in fact did.

    Also bear in mind the absurdity of using the 2007 IPCC statement to evaluate papers from 1991 onward.

    ***

    > No IPCC’s consensus in all the categories –> 97% is not IPCC’s consensus.

    If “->” is a logical implication, that claim is indeterminate, as the antecedent is false. Since the predicate used by Cook & al “is consistent with” preserves truth, it is not difficult to anyone who RTFP to reconstruct the IPCC’s consensus in all the categories. As already been argued at Bart’s, the classification can be interpreted via a quasi-procedural semantics which proves how plazaeme and others play a pea and thimble game which leads them to misunderstand what the authors, the raters and the self-raters did.

    ***

    Also note the missing inference:

    (Plazaeme’s Missing Implication) 97% is not IPCC’s consensus => ???

    Without that inference, plazaeme’s reasoning falters. One does not simply use logical operators while dog whistling inferences.

    Cook & al only measured the extent of the consensus on AGW, which goes beyond the IPCC consensus. They surveyed authors that did not write for the IPCC. The IPCC itself is a consensus: there is no need to prove that it exists.

    That the consensus measured by Cook & al is not the IPCC consensus is of little relevance. What matters is if the classification used by Cook & al is consistent with the IPCC consensus. Wondering if the classification (used or worse is) the IPCC 2007 statement does not help settle that question.

    Instead of losing patience, plazaeme should mind his logical connectors. We’ll get in the classification in due time. As we already said many, many, many times now, it has already been discussed at Bart’s. The impatient reader should RTFBP.

    ***

    > You see why I may seem angry at times?

    I could not care less, as long as plazaeme does not blame me for his apparent anger, which was witnessed before I commented:

    Your rhetoric is sufficiently unpleasant that you deserve to be ignored. If you think this is the appropriate way in which to engage in a serious discussion, you have a lot to learn. If you think people stop engaging with you because your argument has more merit and they can’t think of a suitable response and hence run away, you’re deluded.

    https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i/#comment-8754

    ***

    > If GHG warming <50%, we don't have a CO2 problem. Nothing urgent, anyway, and it may be a blessing.

    Citations might be needed here.

    And what about 49%?

  74. plazaeme

    This is beginning to be very stupid, Willard. What do you want, to piss at a longer distance? Be my guest.

    You don’t want to understand we have an alleged problem, the problem is CO2 warming, and it depends on the amount of warming CO2 produces? You don’t want to understand the only thing that matters (to the public) is an alleged consensus on this problem? You don’t want to understand the problem is defined by the quantity, because there is no problem without x% warming by CO2? You don’t want to understand that the use of IPCC’s statement about this quantity is done (in two steps) by authors and raters, in the same process? You don’t want to understand using it for only 75 papers, in more than three thousand, is not using it to get the 97% consensus from thousands of papers (the message)? You don’t want to understand the evidence I provided that your “consistent with” (problem) is also “consistent with” (no-problem)?

    OK. You are right. I do solemnly declare you are right. By definition of human irrationality, you are right, you were right, and you always forever will be right.

    Be happy.

    Bye.

  75. willard (@nevaudit)

    (13/N)

    > Plazaeme’s comments show that the classifying abstracts like this is not straightforward.

    The claim was stronger than that, e.g.:

    absurd guidelines –> absurd consensus

    https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i/#comment-8904

    I stated many times that I agreed with that classifying abstract is not straightforward, e.g. on 2013-06-04 at Eli’s:

    It’s as if Richard was expecting that raters were peanut sorters:

    http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/06/thrashing-tolism.html?showComment=1370352797903

    Minimizing what plazaeme purported to show by reducing it to a claim on which I would agree is one thing. Not recognizing that most of the statistical tests offered so far have little merit because of this fact is another. Please consult your local machine learning guru or your psychophysicist for more information on how to test inter-judge reliability for non-peanut sorters.

    ***

    That the guidelines are absurd has yet to be shown. Here’s the main example so far offered as a reductio ad absurdum:

    You read in an abstract something like: We conclude CFCs are causing at least for 30% of the global warming since 1970s, and therefore CO2 attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought, as CFCs where not taken in account.

    Procedurally applying the guidelines, we must exclude this ABSTRACT as either (1) or (7), as no direct quantities of AGW are being offered. Does it contain something explicit? Yes, this: “attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought”. This excludes (3)-(4)-(5). To claim that it can be an implicit rejection, as plazaeme argues by assertion, does not take into account that what is explicit is not implicit.

    So it’s either a (2) or a (7). Which is it? The choice is not that tough to make: it’s a (7), since it explicitly minimizes the impact of AGW. To claim that it could coherently be classified as a (2) misrepresents what to minimize means. The only reasonably relevant referent for “what we usually think about AGW” needs to be the consensus position on AGW when that abstract is being written.

    Finally, the fact that could be a review paper does not change the fact that what is being endorsed is the minimization of AGW. As already said at Bart’s, an endorsement is not a claim. An author that reviews some papers to construct an argument is still responsible for his own conclusions. If the conclusion is that “AGW should be less than what we thought” in his ABSTRACT, the author himself minimizes AGW.

    One does not simply endorse AGW while minimizing what we “usually think” about it.

    ***

    At this point, a way out for plazaeme or Shub would be to claim that the ABSTRACTS are not representative of the PAPERS. This is an important limitation of the methodology: Cook and al’s raters must assume that authors know how to write abstracts. This assumption is at least doubtful for Scafetta’s work. To check for such an effect, the ABSTRACTS ratings have been validated by the authors of the PAPERS themselves. The data show that the ratings were quite conservative.

    ***

    If what I said so far is true, all that remains to express concerns are the issues of selection and of representativeness. My own intuition would lead me to question representativeness, and by “questioning”, I don’t mean disputing, but offering constructive criticisms. The issue of selection is also interesting, but it leads to double edge play.

    Best of luck in your due diligence,

    w

  76. plazaeme

    Willard, this is perfectly absurd. As an exercise, and fun, may be worth some time. But using absurdity as a strategy, ad infinitum, makes no sense whatsoever. Not for me, anyway. About you, you should know your inner workings, not me.

    Ok. I’ll address all your nonsense. But one at a time. No more than some minutes a day. And I will not close one item as far as you don’t. It may last months, but so seems to be your game.

    My proposition you claim wrong:

    You read in an abstract something like: We conclude CFCs are causing at least for 30% of the global warming since 1970s, and therefore CO2 attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought, as CFCs where not taken in account.

    Now remember the guidelines. You can say this paper is an explicit endorsement without quantification (2,1), because it “mentions climate change as a given fact”. This, as I said, is plain stupid because this paper has nothing to say about CO2 – is not it’s matter of study. The paper just mentions what other papers say, without studying whether it is true or not. But, you can also think this paper is neutral because it (4.1) “merely mentions global climate change or global warming”, without the A part on AGW. And, you can also think it is an implicit rejection because it minimizes CO2 from “previously thought”, without quantifying.

    And you see two reasons for it’s wrongness. It can’t be implicit rejection, and “needs to be the consensus position on AGW when that abstract is being written”.

    In the first problem you are right. But obviously not trying to understand. Table tennis. It is a writing error, and you can see it when it says, “without quantifying”. Quantifying is impossible for an implicit case, and I meant explicit, without quantifying (which makes sense). But more, it is indifferent one or the other, the question is having more than one possible rating.

    The second doesn’t have any meaning. You don’t need the consensus position on AGW when that abstract is being written. You just need to know CFCs warming was not a considered forcing (or not so much) untill that paper. And, it doesn’t minimize AGW, it minimizes CO2. CFCs are both, natural (they change naturally -possible 4.1-), and anthropogenic. You see the problem in using AGW when you mean CO2 warming?

    If they had use CO2, or GHG, instead of AGW, it would be a clear position about the problem or no problem we may have. They preferred muddy waters, and got nonsense.

    You end:

    Finally, the fact that could be a review paper does not change the fact that what is being endorsed is the minimization of AGW. As already said at Bart’s, …

    When do you think the raters rated the papers; before or after the discussion at Barts? So, they may have not known what was going to be written there, don’t you think? And, not, the example abstract did not endorse the minimization of AGW, but CO2. As you may understand any year, hopefully.

    As I told you, this is absurd.

  77. plazaeme

    Error. Going fast. CFCs are A, not natural. I was thinking in the ozone hole, wich is related. Doesn’t change the argument. The example clearly minimizes CO2 warming, but clearly does not minimize AGW.

  78. plazaeme

    Just one more thing on the same point Willard. I’ve been telling you from the very beginning two very obvious details.

    1. AGW ≠ CO2W
    2. There are no poisons, there are dosis.

    (1) is directly related with the case we are dealing now. We will talk about (2) later. The consequence of (1+2) is that you immediately know, not only that this example we are talking about is true (1), but that there are a load of imaginable examples. And, indeed, if you had read some papers on climate change, you would easily realise there are a lot of real life examples. Not as much as to be a majority, for sure, but enough to change quite significantly the results.

    And that’s the problem with you. An interested person unavoidably thinks: If (1) is true, yes, Virginia, we have a problem. We have to decide if we want to address A, and mix a hell of a lot of different questions, or we prefer to address the drama we are 40 years talking about (CO2). You, instead of seeing the dilemma, go looking for little white balls. Dreaming that a pompous way of explaining them may change the minutiae into something relevant.

    Absurd, as I said, but not only. It is also ridiculous.

  79. plazaeme

    With interest for the discussion, and for the point raised by this example. Monckton, who unlike me has RTFP, finds three different definitions of consensus. Of course, all three may be “consistent with” something you may have in mind. The problem is this is no way to tell what the happy consensus says. And, none of the three is IPCC’s main statement (the definition of the problem). (2) is closest, but not enough.

    – Definition (1): “the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” (in the paper’s abstract);

    – Definition (2): the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)” (in the introduction);

    – Definition (3): that our enhancement of the greenhouse effect will be dangerous enough to be “catastrophic”; (implicit in the introduction, in discussion of the need to raise awareness of scientific consensus to justify a “climate policy”, and explicit in Table 2 of Cook et al., in a quotation from a paper opposing “the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect”).

  80. willard (@nevaudit)

    (14/N)

    > [I]t doesn’t minimize AGW, it minimizes CO2.

    My mistake. I read “attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought” as applying to AGW in general, not only in CO2. My quote chopped the expression “CO2 attribution” in half, causing my misinterpretation of the hypothetical abstract.

    This kind of misinterpretation is quite possible when it involves human raters. It is plausible that it happened during Cook & al’s research. This is why they create a double-rating step (with arbitration) and a self-rating step in their method.

    ***

    There seems to be an accounting problem with the possibility of having forgotten about CFCs:

    CFCs are causing at least for 30% of the global warming since 1970s, and therefore CO2 attribution of global warming must be less than usually thought, as CFCs [were] not taken in account.

    No position has been put forward regarding the overall attribution of A in GW. The redistribution proposed by the hypothetical authors begs the question: why not consider the possibility that, if we suddenly include CFCs, A is even more than we thought? The overall percentage of GW caused by A is dependent upon the attributions of all the different sources of A: if we get more sources of A, this might also change the overall share of A in the attribution of GW.

    This possibility should be considered by these hypothetical authors.

    ***

    We can stand that aside, as the hypothetical case is only there to create some kind of pea in thimble game:

    Now imagine paper B saying the same thing without numbers. The warming was caused by CO2 with a significant help of oceanic cycles and CFCs.

    https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i/#comment-8747

    This kind of argument is quite common in the philosophical literature: all one needs is to construct an example where input-output function can be obtained via two different processes. We could even call this a bisimulation argument:

    > Intuitively two systems are bisimilar if they match each other’s moves. In this sense, each of the systems cannot be distinguished from the other by an observer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation

    In our case, plazaeme claims that his hypothetical PAPER A is bisimilar to this other PAPER B, while their respective ABSTRACTS are not. Both ABSTRACTS could be classified differently. Therefore, plazaeme claims absurdity.

    No absurdity obtains from such an argument: at best we could speak of indetermination. As if we needed such Gedankenexperiment to realize that it is quite possible for a PAPER to contradict what is said or implied in its ABSTRACT. In fact, this possibility immediately follows from one of Cook & al’s result:

    Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    The emphasized sentence seems like a knocked-down argument to any kind of bisimulation argument. If this debate is to last for months, somebody, somewhere should be prepared to meet it. Good luck with that.

    ***

    Instead of imagining an hypothetical abstract void of a proper technical wording, why not delve into Cook et al’s database? Here’s the search term for ABSTRACTS mentioning “CFC” in PAPERS classified as methods:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=CFC&a=&c=4&e=&yf=&yt=

    It seems that are 43 of them. Should not be that tough to prove an absurd result out of them. I’ve not checked: I would applaud a reductio out of them. Note that not one of them minimizes or rejects AGW. All of them are either (3) or (4). Looking at these should help distinguish these two types of cases.

    Here would be my two bets. First, these examples should demonstrate the conservativeness of the raters’ ratings. Second, the classification seems to rest on three binary exclusive decisions.

  81. plazaeme

    This kind of misinterpretation is quite possible when it involves human raters. It is plausible that it happened during Cook & al’s research.

    No, you just don’t want to understand. If they were machines, instead of humans, they would not avoid the misinterpretation; they would stop working at all. Does not compute. This is exactly the problem, does not compute.

    No position has been put forward regarding the overall attribution of A in GW. The redistribution proposed by the hypothetical authors begs the question: why not consider the possibility that, if we suddenly include CFCs, A is even more than we thought?

    You cannot know anything about A, without knowing about
    non-A. A is simply what is not non-A, the unexplainable with non-A.

    I will not read your philosophical blablabla. There is no need. The case is too simple.

    1. AGW ≠ CO2W

    This is either true, or no true. If not true (as it is the case), the definitions of consensus may be OK for some kind of not relevant consensus you have in mind, but it is not valid for the problem stated by IPCC, nor for the problem the whole Galaxy thinks it is “the” problem.

    You think CFCs are not relevant in the literature? Table tennis. It’s an example, shows a possibility. You accept now the possibility, I guess. Then, forget CFCs. It just came to my mind remembering a new paper by Qing-Bin Lu. His third on the same subject, if I remember well.

    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

    These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades.

    Is it an explicit endorsement? No doubt.

    Is it an explicit rejection? It depends. It is an explicit rejection of “the problem” as stated by IPCC. A clever rater should say rejection, but a rater inclined to take words literally may think otherwise.

    Apart from CFCs, you have aerosols, soot, land use change, changes in the hydrological cycle, geo-chemical changes, changes to the atmospheric boundary layer; and I may not have heard of them all. An example is only provided to help thinking, not to play table tennis.

    You will not find thousands of papers on these subjects because we have got a massive carbon-phobia. But you don’t need many to change the results. Remember: only 75 papers or so deal with quantified attribution. A couple of them give you some 2,5% more non-consensus. So much for robustness.

    More. You are dismissing the effect of the in-definition by looking at the results, and trying to minimize damage. This may be your problem, but it is not mine. My position is: this is a clown paper, even before the work started. My reason for not reading it. A very good reason.

    Don’t change the subject, don’t try to muddy the water. We have already addressed the problems with self raters. We may come back later. Now we are with the problems showed by the example. Any other anthropogenic influence seen as bigger (or lesser, if negative) as previously thought has the same problem. Minimizes CO2 without minimizing AGW. Minimizes “the problem”, but literally should be an endorsement. Plain stupid.

    Each step has its timing. Do you agree with the problem (multi-rating, in-definition), or not. If not, why not?

    Cheers.

  82. plazaeme2

    This kind of misinterpretation is quite possible when it involves human raters. It is plausible that it happened during Cook & al’s research.

    No, you just don’t want to understand. If there were machines, instead of humans, they would not avoid the misinterpretation; they would stop working at all. Does not compute. This is exactly the problem, does not compute.

    No position has been put forward regarding the overall attribution of A in GW. The redistribution proposed by the hypothetical authors begs the question: why not consider the possibility that, if we suddenly include CFCs, A is even more than we thought?

    Because you cannot know anything about A, without knowing about non-A. A is simply what is not non-A, the unexplainable with non-A.

    I will not read your philosophical blablabla. There is no need. The case is too simple.

    1. AGW ≠ CO2W

    This is either true, or no true. If not true (as is the case), the definitions of consensus may be OK for some kind of not relevant consensus you have in mind, but it is not valid for the problem stated by IPCC, nor for the problem the whole Galaxy thinks is “the” problem.

    You think CFCs are not relevant in the literature? Table tennis. It’s an example, shows a possibility. You accept now the possibility, I guess. Then, forget CFCs. It just came to my mind remembering a new paper by Qing-Bin Lu. His third on the same subject, if I remember well.

    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

    These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades.

    Is it an explicit endorsement? No doubt.

    Is it an explicit rejection? It depends. It is an explicit rejection of “the problem” as stated by IPCC. A clever rater should say rejection, but a rater inclined to take words literally may think otherwise.

    Apart from CFCs, you have aerosols, soot, land use change, changes in the hydrological cycle, geo-chemical changes, changes to the atmospheric boundary layer; and I may not have heard of them all. An example is only provided to help thinking, not to play table tennis.

    You will not find thousands of papers on these subjects because we have got a massive carbon-phobia. But you don’t need many to change the results. Remember: only 75 papers or so deal with quantified attribution. A couple of them give you some 2,5% more non-consensus. So much for robustness.

    More. You are dismissing the effect of the in-definition by looking at the results, and trying to minimize damage. This may be your problem, but it is not mine. My position is: this is a clown paper, even before the work started. My reason for not reading it. A very good reason.

    Don’t change the subject, don’t try to muddy the water. We have already addressed the problems with self raters. We may come back later. Now we are with the problems showed by the example. Any other anthropogenic influence seen as bigger (or lesser, if negative) as previously thought has the same problem. Minimizes CO2 without minimizing AGW. Minimizes “the problem”, but literally should be an endorsement. Plain absurd.

    Each step has its timing. Do you agree with the problem (multi-rating, in-definition), or not. If not, why not?

  83. plazaeme2

    Error:

    – seen as bigger as previously thought

    Should be:

    – shown bigger than previously thought

  84. plazaeme

    Let’s center the question, Willard.

    You want to know something and you prepare a method for the task. You want to know whether there is a consensus on something in the literature. And, you prepare some questions to find it out.

    Before going any further, you must decide:

    1. Is it clear what I want to know?
    2. Will my questions answer what I want to know?

    That’s the way you can tell apart, beforehand, an absurd paper from a possible serious paper. The example (among many possible similar cases) is a way to learn about (1) and (2). You could (and should) use other kind of examples. Unless the first example you use tells you (1) or (2) are inadequate.

    In a second stage, you can try to explain a (beforehand) absurd paper has merit because such and such terrific gymnastic arguments. We will see it in due time.

  85. willard (@nevaudit)

    (15/N)

    > If there were machines, instead of humans, they would not avoid the misinterpretation; they would stop working at all. Does not compute. This is exactly the problem, does not compute.

    As we already said many times, the raters are not peanut sorters. The task is a semantical problem and machine learning has not yet reached a level where we’d be able to sort out pragmatic commitments out of PAPERS, let alone ABSTRACTS. So we must presume that the raters, the self-raters, the authors, the readers, the critics, ALL THE AGENTS that are concerned by this study are able to do something that (silicon-based) machines are not able to do yet.

    As we already said, the misinterpretation must occur among two different raters to go undetected while the study is conducted. A posteriori, it’s possible to look at a sample and see for oneself how the raters fared in ALL THE CASES, as the database is now made public. This does not seem that easy to provide a strong counterexample, i.e an overinterpretation, since both Richard and Shub failed to do so. And that’s notwithstanding the fact there must be enough counterexamples as to invalidate that the ratings of the ABSTRACTS were less conservative than the ratings of the PAPERS.

    ***

    As we just said, it’s easy to show that the classification rests on three (perhaps four) binary decisions. Let’s show them:

    (D1) Either an ABSTRACT or a PAPER takes position on AGW, or not.

    If it does, GOTO D2; if not, it goes into (4).

    (D2) Either an ABSTRACT or a PAPER offers quantities, or not.

    If it does, it goes into (1) or (7), and then GOTO D4; if it does not, GOTO D3.

    (D3) Either an ABSTRACT or a PAPER offering no quantities has an implicit or an explicit position.

    If the unquantified position is explicit, it goes into (2) or (7); if not, it goes into (3) or (6). GOTO D4.

    (D4) Either an ABSTRACT or a PAPER endorses AGW, or not.

    This last decision should make all the PAPERS or the ABSTRACTS go into 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 or 7.

    ***

    This simple procedure shows the plausibility of using the classification to rate or self-rate ABSTRACTS or PAPERS that exist in the relevant literature.

    That does not mean it might not be possible to imagine a paper that could resist such classification. Nothing prevents scientists to write abstruse ABSTRACTS. But even in that case, if no clear position can be read of an ABSTRACT, I myself would be tempted to rate it as a (4). It is safe to classify an ABSTRACT with no clear position as ‘no position’.

    So plazaeme’s argument for possibility has not much bite. It does not seem to have any bite to the 43 ABSTRACTS of methods PAPERS that mention the word “CFC”. It does not apply to Shub’s example, which he misread. It does not apply to Richard’s PAPERS, most of which he himself misclassified. It does not apply to plazaeme’s own hypothetical case, once he clarified what he meant by it.

    As long as the classification did an OK job for the ABSTRACTS needed to be rated, and which were validated by self-rating, there’s not much point in trying to devise hypothetical cases of indeterminate ABSTRACTS that could be adjudicated as taking no position anyway.

    ***

    Oh, and I asked John Nielsen-Gammon what he thought of plazaeme’s hypothetical case. He agrees with me (I have not told him so beforehand):

    [S]imply finding stronger CFC doesn’t tell you whether (a) your understanding of 20thC changes were erroneous because you underestimated forcing and therefore overestimated sensitivity, or (b) you have some other error in a different forcing (but it wouldn’t necessarily be CO2). [John Nielsen-Gammon, private correspondence]

    In other words, the most plausible reason why the hypothetical case would be indeterminate is because that ABSTRACT would have been badly written.

    TL;DR — please mind that scientists are reading this as we speak.

    ***

    This looks like a QED to me. But since plazaeme is such a pleasant chap, I think I will pay due diligence to other spitballs he threw at me.

    Thanks for playing,

    w

  86. plazaeme2

    Willard, what is your problem understanding these two phrases of a real abstract y provided?

    -These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades.

    Do you think it says global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases? It does. So, you have to think it is an endorsement, literally, by the guidelines.

    Do you understand that if a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 is predicted, this is a rejection of any the problem with global warming? Yes, you do.

    So, do you understand a paper may be an endorsement, according to the guidelines, and at the same time a rejection of any problem related to global warming? Apparently, you prefer to change the conversation.

    Whatever authority you say you talked to, you cannot change this fact. And, this was a very probable problem, beforehand, with many anthropogenic forcings. If you have less cooling from aerosols (and this seems to be the case in some recent papers), you have less warming from CO2, with the same anthropogenic global warming. Same problem.

    You may change the perspective. Do you think we could have this discussion, had they used CO2 warming – instead of AGW – in the guidelines? Nope. Other way to tell apart public relations from science.

    But, they had quite an easy way to avoid all these problems. Asking for CO2, when they are looking for a consensus about a problem caused by CO2. They preferred not to ask directly about the alleged cause of the problem. Clown paper. I will not speculate about their motive. But I do think not many reasonable people will have any doubt about the reason.

    You are not able to recognize an obvious and demonstrated problem. QED.

    By the way. Please, ask Nielsen-Gammon his opinion on Cook’s paper. I do have a great opinion of him, but it may change if he considers this BS is serious. I don’t know his opinion on Climategate, but this paper is as much a red line as CG was. What I don’t understand is why “climate activists” don’t realize they will not convince any one more with this BS, but they will probably make even more sceptics.

    Other by the way. Nielsen-Gammon argument is: doesn’t tell you whether (a) your understanding of 20thC changes were erroneous, or (b) you have no idea of what is happening. Looks like a rather peculiar way of endorsing a consensus. And, problem: You don’t have so many warming influences, to accept so easily that “it wouldn’t necessarily be CO2”. Choose one:

    Ending. Seeing you are not a fair player, I don’t think it’s worth the next step. Which would have been: there is no CO2 problem without quantification. Third would have been the joke of “implicit” endorsement. I was interested in seeing how were you going to make your points. Now I now. Not too interesting, if I may be sincere.

    Be happy.

  87. Shub Niggurath

    Willar, you have no clue what a classification exercise is. You haven’t done it. It is what I do, everyday, for my livelihood. You don’t know the issues that can arise, and the problems there can be. Because, from day one, with no demonstrated study of the data yourself, you are willing to accept a classification scale devised based on a pre-concieved notion of what a mass of text literature contains, with no formal tests performed beforehand on it..

    It is a clear recipe for things to go wrong, if anyone were to embark on such exercises in public health or other epidemiological studies. Only in crappy climate social studies are such ventures, not only possible, but also glorified and feted.

    The literal meaning of the little rules Cook’s team set up to guide classification are useless, for instance, in the hands of anyone unfamiliar to the present state of the lay climate debate. This is a major flaw, which yet, you count as a feature (raters are not mindless semantic bean sorters). A good classification would have to be devised to be as much of bean-sorting as possible. Anyone should be able to walk in and do it. If that is not possible, there is no filter or barrier to raters imprinting their own prejudices on to the material.

  88. Eli Rabett

    1. AGW ≠ CO2W or even AGW = CO2W

    is the usual all or nothing idiocy. In a situation with multiple drivers, you ask binary questions and you get unitary idiocy. WRT to AGW CO2 increase is the thing that has had the greatest effect.

    Lu is a clown, he may have published 3 papers but there are about five very negative comments on each.

  89. plazaeme2

    OMG! Eli Darling, nothing less. And, with the usual line of argument.

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/climate-skepticism-comes-in-many-shades-of-grey/#comment-6269

    Yea. Tu madre. Just “tu madre”, alone, as a single and complete reason. Eli.

    – is the usual all or nothing idiocy. In a situation with multiple drivers, you ask binary questions and you get unitary idiocy

    Eli, you understand? …

    1. We have / no-have a problem with X.

    Let’s be generous, and think you understand. And now, you understand? …

    2. We have / no-have a problem with X + something.

    So, which do you choose (1 or 2) as the question to learn about X?

    Lu is a clown, he may have published 3 papers but there are about five very negative comments on each.

    Yes, sure, yes. Pure Rabett way of thinking. Thanks for showing it. The problem is the clown paper wasn’t investigating climate sci quality, but climate sci consensus on something I can’t really get, nor Willard tell, which is independent on paper’s merit. Suffice to say they didn’t read the papers.

    WRT to AGW CO2 increase is the thing that has had the greatest effect

    You seem not to realise this was exactly my argument. Any paper with a different greatest effect (or with any non-CO2 combination of effects being greatest), minimizes CO2, but not necessarily AGW. I think they call it logic. But it may be the case they call it climate science nowadays.

  90. Shub Niggurath

    “…is the usual all or nothing idiocy. In a situation with multiple drivers, you ask binary questions and you get unitary idiocy”

    Somehow, I think Cook and his people are the ones doing this. 😉

  91. plazaeme2

    Somehow, I think Cook and his people are the ones doing this. 😉

    Shub, that’s what I was trying to say … without saying it directly. An experiment, so to speak. A way to know whether Eli is able to understand the implication without help. You ruined my little experiment. 😉

    Other example. Any of McKitrick’s papers showing warming rate is related to socioeconomic growth.

    Is it an endorsement? Sure. Takes AGW for granted.

    Is it a rejection – or minimization – of CO2GW? You bet.

    And, no, Eli, no; the question is not what you happen to think about McKitrick. We don’t really care. Your opinions are free and … irrelevant. As much as our own opinions about you. The question is Cook’s clown paper used rating guidelines where an endorsement of AGW may mean a rejection of CO2GW. And, the problem is anyone would see this absurdity beforehand. By “anyone” I mean the authors, the raters, the reviewers, Eli, Willard, and all the happy band.

  92. Shub Niggurath

    All along I examined Cook’s data assuming that at least the ‘explicit’ category would be alright. That is not true.

    Take a look yourself: put ‘a’ as search term and pull up papers for rating ‘2’, for year 2008 (start 2008, end 2008). Read their titles and abstracts. You’ll see what I mean.

  93. willard (@nevaudit)

    > So, do you understand a paper may be an endorsement, according to the guidelines, and at the same time a rejection of any problem related to global warming?

    The paper only covers the endorsement of the AGW hypothesis, not its implications. There are lots of people who accept AGW but minimizes its effect. Minimizing the A in GW is not the same as minimizing AGW as a problem.

    In the classic model of the denial mechanism, minimisation is a mix of denial and rationalization:

    simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether

    minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)

    projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility by blaming somebody or something else.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

    There are many ways by which someone may rationalize inaction. In any case, what matters, as far as we’re concerned with Cook et al, is the fact of AGW, not the implications of AGW. No, not everyone agrees about AGW being a fact, not even those doing attribution studies. This is freaking point of Cook & al 2013.

    I have no idea why plazaeme would think that nobody would notice his strawman: it’s quite easy to spot. The smell suffices. It’s eating a red herring.

    Accusing me of changing the topic of the conversation won’t cut it.

    ***

    Shub,

    I thought I inserted enough technical terms for you to take the hint of where I’m coming from. You already said at Jeff’s where you’re coming from. Your main problem is a cultural one: this ain’t an epidemiological study, nor is it the same problem as classifying protein structures.

    There is not one classification problem. There is no such thing as a classification problem. There are lots of different classification problems, in many different fields. There’s even a field called formal ontology; plazaeme should check it out, there are Italians that lead the field. And that’s notwithstanding all the empirical studies on classification tasks for non-bean sorters.

    You can’t dissolve problems that pertain to natural semantics by making it “as bean-sorting as possible”, whatever that really means. You just can’t reduce semantics to syntax. Or if you try to claim so, you better bring better reasons on the table than “I am Shub, an anonymous contrarian and I do bean sorting all day”. Authority and anonymity don’t mix well anyway. And by “reasons”, I mean a formal proof, or at the very least a formal specification of the quasi-bean sorter you have in mind.

    Anyway. I readily admit that reading is hard and that raters need to put their background knowledge to the task. This is also true of the self-raters, which you do seem to forget in your comments, me, you Shub, and everybody else. There are ways to pad ourselves from such an imperfect predicament.

    Cook et al 2013 did pad themselves by asking the authors themselves. Is that bullet-proof? Certainly not, see Richard’s ridiculous rationalizations. Is that contrarian-proof? So far, we do not even have a remote idea of what would satisfy contrarians. All you do is to jump around and point at potential weaknesses for a mere dogwhistling effect.

    You’re supposed to be a professional, Shub. This behaviour ain’t enough for you. We should expect it from plazaeme, but not from you. If you do classification every day, show us how it should be done. Lead us to a design that would satisfy you, with all the V&V tests you’d need. Only then will we see if you are in it for real or are just armwaving from your armchair or purity:

    In other words, please bring constructive criticisms.

    Thank you so much for your concerns,

    Due diligence,

    w

  94. plazaeme

    The paper only covers the endorsement of the AGW hypothesis, not its implications. There are lots of people who accept AGW but minimizes its effect. Minimizing the A in GW is not the same as minimizing AGW as a problem.

    But my examples do not minimize A at all. They:

    1: support A
    2: minimize CO2
    3: reject the problem alleged by IPCC consensus.
    4: reject basic statement of IPCC

    Willard, there is only one question. Do you think they endorse or they reject the consensus, according to the guidelines? That’s all. Don’t waist our time.

  95. plazaeme

    There are many ways by which someone may rationalize inaction. In any case, what matters, as far as we’re concerned with Cook et al, is the fact of AGW, not the implications of AGW. No, not everyone agrees about AGW being a fact, not even those doing attribution studies. This is freaking point of Cook & al 2013.

    Are Lindzen and Spencer “the” example of mega “deniers” and anti consensus in the literature? Yes

    Do they support AGW and (some) CO2GW? Yes

    What the heck are you talking about, Willard

  96. Shub Niggurath

    Nice comment Willard. (seriously).

    Your last comment shows the defects in the classification exercise of Cook. From what I’v heard and read, the raters tried to be ‘true to the abstract text’, i.e, be literal. This is necessary, from one perspective, because you want to read just what’s there and no more. But as you accept, and point out yourself, this alone may not yield the correct class. So you have to read and reflect as well.

    What do they do in a given instance? Do they just read, or do they think as well? Well, it turns out, they did both. Not only that, they *decided* in advance to do both.

    The end result is peculiar: If you look at the explicit accepts (without quantification), they decided to ‘read the text’, but not think. How else would a literal explicit acceptance from people not qualified to be making explicit statements count? In the implicits acceptance, they are only thinking (as in, the abstract doesn’t say anything outright, the rater has to make up the reason for categorizing). In the explicts accepts with quantification, they don’t have to do either because the abstract is clear. Then there are ones where they could have thought about it carefully, but instead decided to get cute, i.e., like the skeptics’ papers classified as ‘endorse’.

    Not only that, because they pre-determined there would be an implicits category, where the rater would have think and evaluate to decide a class, they appear to have foregone the same evaluatory process with papers of the exact same kind but making explicit statements. In other words, the classification categories interfere with each others’ working. This especially can worsen with fatigue.

  97. plazaeme

    So, Shub, I have the feeling you are surprised with the search of papers you mention. I guess you are because the endorsements (level 2) are (mainly) not endorsements in the way you thought.

    Let me try:

    You thought the meaning of a scientific paper endorsing something, is that the results of the paper are in line with this something. But, you found that for Cook and the happy band of climate alarmism, it means mentioning this something as taken for granted because other authors / studies say so. That is, you thought they were talking about scientific results, but in reality is about the opinion of some scientists accepted without questioning by others.

    Am I right?

    Well, I am really sorry with your disappointment, but you should have (1) read the guidelines — looking for “tricks” (© climate sci) — and (2) know beforehand who are you playing with.

    Welcome to climate science.

    Note: One of the ten papers, I would have rated 1 instead of 2. The others (all of them if I remember well) are neutral, of course. But the system is absurd from the beginig. It can not have any meaning, and certainly not the meaning they pretend. So, why care?

  98. plazaeme

    This one is particularly funny. Willard style. It doesn’t mention CO2 or any GHG. It does mention “global warming”, and says black carbon must be the cause of 10 – 15% of it. It doesn’t mention AGW, apart from this 10 – 15% due to black carbon. As far as the abstract goes, all AGW could perfectly be just this 10 – 15%. But it is rated: Endorsement Level: 2. Explicitly endorses, but does not quantify or minimize! Endorses … what? Willard will have a nice fairy tale to tell you, for sure.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009398/abstract

  99. plazaeme

    Willard. In case you forget your questions (not that I think you would do it on purpose):

    A) Examples.

    Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    B) “Deniers”

    Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    I will repeat you the questions until you give a yes, endorsement; or a no, rejection. So you can rest, and stop your gymnastics.

  100. Shub Niggurath

    well, plazaeme, I was surprised, but not by a lot. If you want to quantitatively query the data, you have to stop at some point looking at the quality of the classification work.

    Assuming the classification itself does what it says (or thinks) it does – that is the first step required to go and examine the data.

    Of course, once you peek behind the curtain, the skeletons start tumbling out. For instance, Richard Tol and others came to one conclusion – i.e., trends (and therefore the absolute quantities) of ‘endorsements’ are due to mitigation and impacts papers. If you look at explict accepts (‘2), they suddenly swell up right around 2007 or so. ( Here it is: 17 19 17 21 16 17 29 23 29 27 22 20 31 33 42 54 68 81 120 108 128)

    Now, with the stuff I previously showed was going on, i.e., with the numbers of implicits shooting up around 2005 onwards, I can see what this would do to the overall ‘endorse’ numbers as Cook and group calculated. Why on the other hand should the same thing affect the ‘explicit’ group, a group defined by ‘explicitly endorse consensus’?

    Explicitly endorse consensus, as in work something out that shows specifically an increased human-driven influence (leave alone the quantities for a moment)?
    Or, explicitly endorse as in give a ‘shout out’ to the consensus?

    They might as well have gone on a celebrity signature collection campaign

    (I know this is all been said on this thread ; ) )

  101. omanuel

    Dear friends,

    When I return from vacation next week, I hope to finish and submit a manuscript showing that:

    Well-intentioned international agreements to save mankind from the threat of nuclear annihilation – by obscuring the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of atoms, planets, stars and galaxies -instead destroyed credibility in post-1945 world governments and government-sponsored science.

    Recent government spying on citizens is like the action of a drowning person.  It will hasten the end.

    Only acceptance of reality can restore sanity to society, and destroy our delusion of power over Nature.

    I regret that I was so slow to decipher this post-1945 web of pseudo-science.

    Oliver K. Manuel

    PS –

    A. These post-1945 discoveries will likely be confirmed:

    1. Two forms of one fundamental particle – the neutron and its expanded form, the hydrogen atom – comprise the whole universe.

    2. Self-sustaining reactors operated on the early Earth.

    3. Nuclear reactors are in cores of some planets.

    4. Local synthesis of elements occurred in the Sun.

    5. The Sun’s core is an energetic pulsar.

    6. “Cold” fusion is an energy source.

    B. These consensus models of reality will likely be falsified:

    1. The Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.

    2. Yukawa’s model of all attractive nuclear forces.

    3. Models of pulsars as dead embers of ordinary stars.

    4. Theoretical black holes.

    5. Sub-particles of neutrons & protons: quarks, gluons, etc.

    6. Oscillating solar neutrinos, and

    7. AGW/AGC models of global warming & cooling induced by humans.

    Oliver K. Manuel
    27 June 2013

    Sent from my iPhone

  102. plazaeme

    Let’s play Willard.

    -The paper only covers the endorsement of the AGW hypothesis, not its implications.

    Willard doesn’t say, but implies: AGW hypothesis is not necessarily what IPCC describes, but anything you may call man-made, and warming, independently of the origin and the effect. For instance, troglodyte’s campfires. I suppose.

    Paraphrasing Willard:

    In the classic model of religious demonizing, accusing of sin is the way to avoid an explanation or demonstration of the thesis.

    – no stating of the problem, just naming: It’s evil, it’s heresy, it’s anthropogenic warming, etc.
    – never quantify, so there’s no need to show a real problem.
    – point to the sinner by simple name calling. The Jew, the infidel, the climate deniers, and so on.

    Of course, demonizing is not only used in a religious context. Other social pathologies have learned the trick (© climate sci).

    According to Willard, this is not a change of topic. But I agree it’s fun.

    So, I will not ask Willard the working of the logic of endorsing a consensus and rejecting the consensus at the same time, but whether he thinks the examples provided are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    Do we have a consensus on the meaning of the question?

  103. willard (@nevaudit)

    (17/N)

    Thank you for the kind words, Shub.

    You say:

    > From what I’v[e] heard and read, the raters tried to be ‘true to the abstract text’, i.e, be literal.

    I believe that it may be more appropriate to interpret being true to the text as being faithful. After all, implicit endorsements take literal meaning out of the question. Even a literal “no position” would be tough to find, except in cases where the authors stated in their ABSTRACTS what should not be read out of their PAPER.

    This faithfulness from the raters has been validated by the conservativeness of their results when compared to the self-ratings. Or, if you think that faithfulness is too strong, we could simply say that the raters tried to limit themselves to conservative reading of the ABSTRACTS.

    ***

    You also ask, somewhat rhetorically:

    > How else [than reading without thinking] would a literal explicit acceptance from people not qualified to be making explicit statements count?

    The answer to your rhetorical answer is simple: they rated endorsements, not authoritative claims. You yourself ridicule that possibility when you ask, this time rhetorically:

    > [E]xplicitly endorse as in give a ‘shout out’ to the consensus?

    That’s nonetheless the possibility that should be taken into account. Asking for any scientist who mentions “global warming” if he’s authoritatively making a claim about AGW would make little sense. In fact, if Cook & al were really looking for authoritative claims on AGW, they’d stick to attribution studies. In fact, they would only need to handwave to the study that did such review not so long ago.

    All this has already been said at Bart’s, e.g.:

    TL;DR – **Endorsing** a claim C is not the same as **claiming** C.

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18771

    In a nutshell, your reading of Cook & al rests on a concept of endorsement that nullifies the very idea of the study. Chances are that the absurdity you are claiming to see is injected by your own expectations. Relaxing your concept of endorsement might help make sense out of Cook & al.

    This is not the first time I’m telling you all this. There’s also a sentence in Cook & al that could help you out. I’ll let you find it.

    Thank you for your concerns.

    ***

    Let’s dispatch these other rhetorical questions:

    > Do they [Lindzen and Spencer] support AGW and (some) CO2GW?

    See for yourself:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=&a=Lindzen&c=&e=&yf=&yt=

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=&a=Spencer&c=&e=&yf=&yt=

    > What the heck are you talking about?

    I’m talking about all of those who do not endorse the AGW hypothesis, which is not an empty bag. I’m talking about all of those who claim to disprove the AGW hypothesis, which is not an empty bag either. I’m also talking about all of those who disbelieve that “we’re all the consensus”:

    Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    Skydragons may not be a big bunch, but they still exist. Making them disappear when one sees fit goes beyond the limits of justified disingenuousness. More so when those who make them disappear in our current discussion use them to portray themselves, by Overton magic, as being the middle ground.

    Thanks for playing.

  104. plazaeme2

    Willard, you are not going to keep the fiction that we should know, maybe by God’s inspiration, what a consensus you are talking about, with you not needing to define it. Your simulations are over. If you pretend someone to think you answered the questions, sorry to tell you your mixing didn’t work.

    I repeat:

    A) Examples.

    Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    B) “Deniers”

    Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    What we know, so far:

    I am trying to understand Cook’s system. You say you understand it, and it’s OK. But, when I ask something as simple as “Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?“, you simulate to answer, a lot of blablabla, but you don’t answer. How do they call your attitude in your book? In mine, with a not very nice word.

    I am also trying to understand your idea of consensus. Thence, Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    So far, there is also no answer. But you choose to simulate an answer to a previous question. And, indirectly – like a coward – with a link. Letting others interpret what you try to say. If something, because you are not even answering the question you selected.

    Do they [Lindzen and Spencer] support AGW and (some) CO2GW?

    Well, the answer is very simple: Obviously yes. But that is not what you say. You provide (y repeat, quite cowardly) a link which cannot address this answer. It says:

    Lindzen (1993, 1994, 1997, 1997):

    – 1X Endorsement Level: 3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
    – 1x Endorsement Level: 5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
    – 2x Endorsement Level: 6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify

    Spencer (1991, 1991, 1993, 1997, 2007):

    – 4x Endorsement Level: 4. No Position
    – 1x Endorsement Level: 5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW

    We could not know with your link whether Lindzen and Spencer support AGW and (some) CO2GW or not. Your link only tells us about the ratings given to some very old papers, and the ratings are not at all descriptive of their position. But being by far the most known climate scientists criticising IPCC consensus, their stance would be a good check on what consensus we are talking about. Apparently, this is precisely what you don’t want us to know. You prefer to simulate answers.

    We don’t know what consensus Cook or you are talking about, and we don’t know how the rating system may be considered rational by anyone. But we do know what your play is. It’s plainly visible. Thanks.

    By the way. Yes, there are some “Dragons Slayers”. I didn’t think they had anything peer-reviewed published. And, Chillingara (I forgot about him). What is your point? Dragon Slayers are outside the consensus, and all others are in, or what? Why are you so afraid of speaking clearly? I don’t bite.

    A completely absurd attack. I said, “all” critic climate scientists accept some CO2W (or something alike), so some CO2W cannot define consensus. You need more.

    I did remember the H&T paper, and forgot Chillingara, but they are not climate scientists. And it doesn’t matter; the argument works exactly the same with “all”, “almost all”, “a majority of them”, or even just “many”. The point was the “consensus” on AGW has not meaning without quantification. It has no meaning if you bring into the consensus all the big names of the “deniers”. It’s plain stupid. So, you mention Chillingara, or Dragon Slayers, exactly what for? A nonsense as absurd as I’ve ever seen. Maybe a “trick”. Try again.

    I don’t get this other (nth) nonsense of yours:

    – those who make them disappear in our current discussion use them to portray themselves, by Overton magic, as being the middle ground.

    Can you quote, so I know what the hell you mean? Any one not being in an extreme is in a relative middle ground. You don’t need any magic; it’s the most probable place to be. By definition: you have two extremes (or so) and a lot of middel points.

    As far as I know I never made an argument of being in any short of middle ground. Middle ground does not mean being right, it demonstrates nothing. Provide a quote. Don’t put in my mouth a stupidity which is only in your mind.

    In case you haven’t realized, the very informative questions you are so afraid to answer — but don’t want us to notice –, are:

    A) Examples.
    – Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    B) “Deniers”
    – Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    Cheers.

  105. plazaeme2

    Willard, this is not to convince you, or to help your understanding skills. You are above reasoning. Religion. And, I don’t think there is any one more reading this absurd thread. But I like to see you sweating.

    Even with all your cheating to the public (I mean your happy band of alarmists), sooner or later they will understand that you need to draw a line between consensus and not consensus, if you want to pretend such an idiotic idea has any meaning. And, explain the line. Exactly the case you fear.

    For your training. (I didn’t check the numbers are OK, but the drawing shows the idea).

  106. Shub Niggurath

    “This faithfulness from the raters has been validated by the conservativeness of their results ”

    No…. Of the 11944 papers, only ~7% expressed an opinion. They could be as non-conservative as they wished with the remaining 93%. They would still appear conservative. That is the whole point.

  107. willard (@nevaudit)

    (19/N)

    > I repeat.

    These wants are none of my concerns. One does not simply mix questions with verbal abuses, plazaeme’s latest being the ad superbiam. Most, if not all of his questioning are irrelevant for our current matters anyway. For instance:

    > Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    I have no idea how to entertain an opinion on a typical paper. I could have a general opinion on the overall scientific work of Lindzen or Spencer, but I don’t. That opinion would be irrelevant to what has been measured by Cook & al anyway. Also note that the authors’ names were not presented to the raters.

    One could certainly entertain an opinion on a specific ABSTRACT. We can see that there are papers written by Lindzen and some other by Spencer. Let the readers see how the raters fared. I don’t think they did that bad. Were these ABSTRACTS misrated, we might have heard contrarians cringe by now.

    What we can see from reading the ABSTRACTS from the PAPERS authored by Lindzen and Spencer is that they quite seldom endorse the consensus on AGW. They either formulate their ABSTRACTS to take no position AGW, or they reject AGW, either implicitely or explicitely. Those who disagree with these ratings should raise specific issues and mention specific ABSTRACTS.

    In other words, RTFA.

    ***

    > Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    There were more than forty real examples of methods papers mentioning “CFC”. There are enough examples there. There’s no need to imagine an underspecified, badly written, and tortuous ABSTRACT. For this kind of ABSTRACT, Scafetta could do just fine:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=&a=Scafetta&c=&e=&yf=&yt=

    Scafetta provides a perfect example of an author who got quite conservative ratings. But then, paying due diligence to the way the ABSTRACTS were written clearly shows why raters played safe.

    Neither is there any need to handwave McKitrick’s name. Handwaving is not the same thing as showing an example. To that effect, let the readers know that McKitrick also has some guest appearances in the database:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=&a=McKitrick&c=&e=&yf=&yt=

    In other words, RTFA.

    ***

    > As far as I know I never made an argument of being in any short of middle ground.

    Perhaps plazaeme should stop to take things personally and start to RTFA. As far as I’m concerned, this is Shub’s blog. This remark was a general one, and applied to all of those who would lukewarmingly analogize the Sky Dragons with opposite people they would then portray as extremists.

    On this rhetorical trick I do have an opinion:

    http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/lukewarming

    Interestingly, the lukewarming gambit often comes with discussions of climate sensitivity.

  108. willard (@nevaudit)

    (20/N)

    > Of the 11944 papers, only ~7% expressed an opinion.

    Our emphasis. The authors do seem to disagree:

    A direct comparison of abstract rating versus self-rating endorsement levels for the 2142 papers that received a self-rating is shown in table 5. More than half of the abstracts that we rated as ‘No Position’ or ‘Undecided’ were rated ‘Endorse AGW’ by the paper’s authors.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    See also Table 5.

    Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing [1].

    [1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31268600509

  109. plazaeme2

    Not only a coward, Willard, but a coward without shame. Still not answering, still trying to hide your cowardice. I told you to use your own words, If you want to look like non-coward. Up to you.

    Do you think the provided examples of CFCs and McKitrick are endorsing or rejecting consensus, according to Cook’s guidelines?

    You, Willard, you; that is: you. Do you …, etc. So that we know your rationale on the use of the guidelines in this case.

    I have no idea how to entertain an opinion on a typical paper. I could have a general opinion on the overall scientific work of Lindzen or Spencer, but I don’t.

    Twisting the question again, valiant Willard?

    Read:
    Q: – Do you think the typical “denier” paper (a la Lindzen or Spencer), finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback), is an endorsement or a rejection of your interpretation of consensus?

    A: -I have no idea how to entertain an opinion on a typical paper. I could have a general opinion on the overall scientific work of Lindzen or Spencer, but I don’t. That opinion would be irrelevant to what has been measured by Cook & al anyway. Also note that the authors’ names were not presented to the raters.

    But I gave you the reason for the question, noticing your understanding problems. I do think it was simple enough for you:

    – I am also trying to understand your idea of consensus.

    – Even with all your cheating to the public (I mean your happy band of alarmists), sooner or later they will understand that you need to draw a line between consensus and not consensus, if you want to pretend such an idiotic idea has any meaning. And, explain the line. Exactly the case you fear.

    I guess you know what “your idea of consensus means”. I guess you understand what “a line between consensus and not consensus” means. But it could be the case you don’t really understand (and you are not a coward). Theoretically, it could. You need some help? Some more drawings? Tell me.

    And I do think I am not asking for a generic and unknown kind of paper, but quite a specific and explicit case:

    – finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 1.2K (negative feedback)

    I even drew a simple graphic to help you, as I would when talking to a child, to explain you need a line between consensus and not consensus.

    But you answer:

    I have no idea how to entertain an opinion on a typical paper. (Conviniently forgetting the very specified case). I could have a general opinion on the overall scientific work of Lindzen or Spencer, but I don’t. (Great; you answer about the overall scientific work and not to the specific question). That opinion would be irrelevant to what has been measured by Cook & al anyway. (Incredible answer for a rational adult, when I am not asking in this question about what was measured, but about your idea of consensus). Also note that the authors’ names were not presented to the raters. (Yea, and what does this tell me about your idea of consensus?)

    Oh, but you mix up specific case with specific abstract.

    – One could certainly entertain an opinion on a specific ABSTRACT. We can see that there are papers written by Lindzen and some other by Spencer. Let the readers see how the raters fared. I don’t think they did that bad. Were these ABSTRACTS misrated, we might have heard contrarians cringe by now.

    I see. In spite of this almost infinite conversation, you are still not able to understand the difference between a previous check on the logic of the rating system, his logical structure, and checking “how the raters fared” in 12.000 results. But I’ve said probably a dozen times I am still not in the later stage.

    Willard, you don’t give us many possibilities. Either your brain works in a rather peculiar way, either you fake you don’t understand. I don’t expect you to tell us.

    McKitrick. You showed my point and you call it “hand waving”?

    A warming all over the world due to economic growth is an anthropogenic global warming … until you provide a “gymnastic definition” of AGW to prove otherwise. But Willard and definitions are close enemies. Religion.

    Scafetta. I don’t know what a “conservative rating” means. You mean the raters had a bias and they counteracted it? But Scafetta addresses (in these papers) the problem sun / others, not the problem A / CO2. By the way, the first abstract in your link to Scaffeta shows the irrationality of the rating system.

    – As he only looked at sun / others, you don’t know whether A is CO2.- He says sun is 25 -35%, and A might have progressively played a dominant role. Doesn’t say A > 50% (there are other natural influences apart from the sun).
    – If you add to the models 25% – 35% of sun – which they didn’t have -, you need to reduce other influence on the models. Your only candidate is CO2, thus, minimizing CO2.

    This is exactly the problem. They mix different measures which will be contradictory in a percentage of cases. The examples you bring show what I say. They are only a few among 11.000, and chosen by you.

    But, as I said, I am not in the stage of looking at thousands of papers. I don’t need to, since I showed the system is crazy. And, I showed also what you are doing.

    In other words, UYFB.

    > As far as I know I never made an argument of being in any short of middle ground.

    Perhaps plazaeme should stop to take things personally and start to RTFA. As far as I’m concerned, this is Shub’s blog. This remark was a general one, and applied to all of those ..

    Are you sure, Willard? Do you read what you write?

    – More so when those who make them disappear in our current discussion use them to portray themselves, by Overton magic, as being the middle ground.

    So this was a general remark, applied … not personally to me? A drawing for the children: There are two (apart from you) “in our current discussion”. Shub didn’t mention attribution, or anything related. Willard, you really expect someone might take you seriously? You are quite a phenomenon. Quite a show.

  110. Shub Niggurath

    willard
    I don’t give much credence to author ratings. When you have no control over what you are doing, why bring in other people?

    Do you know of something called responder bias?

    If the raters themselves were unaware of the effects of the rating system chosen on their final result, why would individual not authors be?

    The author ratings are not useful as independent confirmation if the ratings system is broken

  111. Shub Niggurath

    willard
    I didn’t fancy you as someone getting affected at a personal level. I’ll ask plazeme to go easy, but your comments can appear infuriating as well. It is a common reaction when you feel your main points are not being addressed.

  112. Shub Niggurath

    willard
    In general, *any* classification system designed to divide a mass of text into groups:

    (1) without examining what groups there actually are in the text,
    (2) without examining whether such text expresses characteristics of said groups
    (3) without understanding how agreement or disagreement over a concept operates in scientific literature.
    (4) without examining whether the venue is one where such views are expressed

    is useless.

    Cook’s amateur classification scheme fails squarely on these counts. His is a naive attempt to transplant popular prejudice and read it off academic literature.

  113. willard (@nevaudit)

    (21/N)

    > There are two (apart from you) “in our current discussion”.

    I’m not sure “our current discussion” takes place here, as our pleasant’s comic reliefs a conversation do not make. Even here, we should not forget about Wott, Eli, NG, etc.

    As an instance of the Overton window in action “in our current discussion”, read Richard’s draft comments. Other commenters at Bart’s also used that gambit when discussing Cook & al. There are also related comments at Lucia’s, Eli’s, Wott’s NG’s, etc. It would be hard not to find the lukewarm gambit played when discussing Cook & al.

    ***

    It’s been a while now since our pleasant jester excluded himself from the discussion. But his tasteless pleasantries are now getting juvenile. Repeating his silly ad superbiam ad nauseam to coerce me to eat red herrings about which I have no commitments is a tired trick:

    http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/debate-in-the-blogosphere-a-small-case-study/

    Our current discussion is not about climate sensitivity or climate impacts. Climate sensitivity or climate impacts are beyond the topic of Cook & al, which was about the consensus on AGW.

    ***

    The point of playing the “reasonable, middle ground” man is not to be right. To claim that it would be fallacious misses the point of a rhetorical trick that has currency in political discussions. The point is to stretch the window one’s way to win votes, not to be right. It also adds value to one’s INTEGRITY ™.

    To that effect, insisting on Lindzen’s work eo ipso plays that card. As the pope of the Lukewarm church, Lindzen represents the limits of justified disingenuousness. That is, from what we can read in his multifarious op-eds, Lindzen stretches his argument to low as to become the marker of what is reasonably arguable.

    Some may even consider that he goes beyond that maximin. Only when Lindzen’s reasonableness is questioned do we see “yes, but Scafetta or Chillingara” spring up. As Auditors ought to ask: wonder why?

  114. Shub Niggurath

    I did not understand a single word of that. Just throw away all that baggage how various players behave. It has no bearing on this poor paper.

  115. willard (@nevaudit)

    Shub,

    I’ve already answered our pleasant chap’s question about his hypothetical case. I could not care less if he missed it. I’ve also questioned his hypothetical case, something he never addressed except by issuing ad superbiams. I’ve also showed that this hypothetical case his unnecessary: we have real cases.

    I’ve also explained why I can’t answer his questions about Lindzen and Spencer and McKitrick. I can’t apply Cook & al’s rating system without having real ABSTRACTS to rate. I’ve even shown him the relevant ratings in Cook’s database. But he won’t bite at these.

    This answer shows him a model of an indeterminacy proof, BTW. So I hope you do get the irony of his repetitious requests. One does not simply ask to rate an undefined abstract.

    You know that my work under my name is my honor. That he challenges that only shows poor gamesmanship, lack of experience, or else. While I’m trying to remain constructive and abide to Love and Light, I am tempted to restrict myself to post one abstract after another from Cook’s database until plazaeme behaves.

    That ought to be enough to tame him. If plazaeme does not RTFA, readers will.

  116. Shub Niggurath

    Why is the McKitrick and Michaels abstract hard to find?

    The Scafetta paper misclassification is a wrong thing to do.

    The Cook group plays a dodge-and-weave routine between literally reading the text of an abstract, and reading and inferring what it says.

    Plazaeme’s point is simply that, unless you involve in the exercise in a scientific manner, which a proper review article or even a well-written IPCC style chapter can do, it is impossible to properly determine the influence of a given paper to the putative consensus that man is doing something bad/something to the climate. The point itself is quite uncontroversial.

    You seem to want readers to accept Cook’s exercise for what it is. That seems to be their overall response too.

    But the Cook classification system is a mongrel. It cannot be taken to have accomplished any one thing well.

  117. willard (@nevaudit)

    > I did not understand a single word of that. Just throw away all that baggage how various players behave. It has no bearing on this poor paper.

    Sorry you did not understand any of this, Shub. Not the first time you get lost when the conversation becomes about the conversation. Our failures to communicate are mainly due to a clash in cognitive styles. Since I know you don’t like meta, I try to remain topical.

    What is on the table, right now, is that you can’t say anything about the 11k PAPERS, since you had no access to them. All you could say is something about the 11k ABSTRACTS. Representativenes issues cut both ways. If you claim that the study is unrepresentative, you have no business using percentages when using their data. If you do, you’re begging the questions you’re raising.

    And even when considering the ABSTRACTS, the only relevant data shows that the raters’ “no position” is very conservative. It does seem to indicate that the directionality of the implicature strength is preserved. I.e., while you can’t even trust the raters’ “no position” as not being an endorsement, the 50% figure clearly indicates that you can trust that the raters did rate very few “no position” as being endorsements.

    I don’t think you can make a strong semantical argument: it would your armchair take on what “to endorse” means versus the authors’s votes. If you want to argue that “anything goes”, you have to make a plausible argument regarding specific ABSTRACTS. Which means that sooner or later, you will have to come up with constructive criticisms.

  118. willard (@nevaudit)

    > Plazaeme’s point is simply that, unless you involve in the exercise in a scientific manner, which a proper review article or even a well-written IPCC style chapter can do, it is impossible to properly determine the influence of a given paper to the putative consensus that man is doing something bad/something to the climate. The point itself is quite uncontroversial.

    This point has been answered a long time ago, Shub. “The influence of a given paper” is irrelevant to Cook & al’s exercise, which was to measure the extent to which the AGW could be traced in the literature as a working hypothesis. This extent too should be uncontroversial. At least, Richard Tol agrees that the level of endorsement should go 90% and up. His beef is about the statistical proof of the pudding, some of which do seem to warrant an answer. You and Richard at least try to play by the Auditor’s playbook; our pleasant chap simply plays parsomatics game, as if one month of the same kind of crap at Lucia’s was not enough already.

    The level of endorsement of AGW has nothing to do with the traceability of specific papers’ influence. But again, to show that we’d need to take papers’ influence into account, you’d need to present an a priori jusitifed specification that would satisfy contrarians. Even if your argument ain’t right, I’d still like to see what you have in mind. And no, “look up any IPCC chapter” ain’t something I would confidently expect as a protocol that would please contrarians.

    One does not simply raise ad hoc concerns while trying to remain constructive.

  119. plazaeme2

    Shub,

    Mind your troll, or I will slay it.

    Of course there is no point in asking Willard for his definition of “troll”, to see whether (1) it corresponds with my doings, and (2) whether there is some problem with being what he means by “troll”. Would you call “troll” to someone who uses a strong wording, if needed, to address a strong wrongdoing? Never mind, Willard will never give a definition – he hates them – and will bring pompous statements made out of thin air. Or arguments addressing a different question than the one being discussed. A cheap trick (© climate sci) to fool his cheerleaders. (And no one else).

    Replay:

    > tell me what the consensus is about.

    The A in AGW. Cf. Cook & al 2013 and all versions of Tol.

    Any other question?

    Oh, yes, Willard. Certainly. I’ve been asking you a couple or three of questions during days and days. I’ve been explaining you the meaning of these questions during days and days. As you seem somewhat hard at understanding, I’ve even been drawing some graphics to help you. And we came to the situation where you left us none other alternative than thinking you cheat with your apparent lack of understanding. Any name you can think of to describe briefly what you are doing is offensive. Unavoidable, as you are offending any conceivable rule of debating.

    You may answer or not answer. But there is something you may not: not to answer, and continue cheating. Your game is uncovered. Do you want to dream I am a troll? Be very welcome.

    – Any other question?

    Yea, but what for, Willard? I would suggest that you stop asking for questions when you have no answers. And, I most certainly do suggest that you stop pretending you are answering, when you are so obviously not.

  120. plazaeme2

    Oh, I didn’t realize you continued.

    I can’t apply Cook & al’s rating system without having real ABSTRACTS to rate.

    No? Why not? You don’t use “what ifs” when thinking in a new system? Well, I can believe it from you, for sure. And you don’t use “what ifs” to understand how something works. Verboten. It may be perfectly nonsensical, but Willard has to read 12000 abstracts, and only then will he know. But you think we should take you seriously. Sorry, you are wrong.

    Short answer: You have no answer for these “what ifs”, and you imagine you repair the damage with a pompous (and quite absurd) statement. Can apply only to real abstracts. I told you, you need to learn to UYFB (or quit cheating).

    I see. You accuse me of forgetting the Dragon Slayers. With no sense because it didn’t affect the argument. And then, you refer to “those who make them disappear in our current discussion”. We learn that when Willard speaks, our current discussion is any discussion he may be thinking of, occurring wherever he chooses, among whoever he decides. And this is not, say, “the” climate discussion, or “the” discussion with sceptics, but “our current” discussion. It looks rather clownish to me, but let’s accept what you say. Can you provide a quote from those who make the DS disappear, so we can understand what an effect it has to what argument? It does look like one of your known rubbish and distracting arguments. Changing “all” critic climate scientists with “most” of them does not change the argument. But you insist with nonsense, in spite I already told you the “disappearance” makes no point. How would you call your attitude?

    It’s fun, but it is late, and I am tired. Maybe tomorrow I’ll get one more look at the clown’s show, in case I missed something. Or the day after.

  121. willard (@nevaudit)

    (22/N)

    > Why is the McKitrick and Michaels abstract hard to find?

    Not at all. I did not think it’s my job to quote it, since it was not my question. But since that satisfies a commitment I just made, here it is:

    ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 individual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector of trends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity (income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial pattern of trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the corresponding Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlations appear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in the data are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitude will require further research. Erratum.

    http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v26/n2/p159-173/

    Please note the Erratum.

    The first part of the sentence emphasized provides some justification for this ABSTRACT to be classified as a (5). To claim a warming bias in surface monthly temperature records does seem to imply a minimisation of AGW. Nothing in this ABSTRACT shows any evidence of AGW endorsement. Nor could we say that no position regarding AGW has been taken: the uncertainty pertains to the magnitude of the bias, not its significance.

    This reading presumes that the authors claim a significant result. If this warming bias was insignificant, it would not count as a minimisation of AGW. Should we assume that authors present insignificant results? Even after issuing a troublesome Erratum, the authors still claim significance. Classifying such ABSTRACTS into (4) would only strenghten the consensus.

    Let’s recall that this rating applies to ABSTRACTS, which are deemed to represent PAPERS. These ratings are unrelated to what McKitrick or Michaels could have said elsewhere, for instance in their multitude of op-eds bashing the IPCC. It is also quite possible that, in their inner selves, both do endorse the consensus on AGW. But that’s not what this ABSTRACT shows.

    ***

    Still waiting for that citation about “any classification system”, Shub, like I’m still waiting for this “crowd-sourcing method that would roughly replicate the survey methodology”, viz.:

    http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/comment-page-1/#comment-745

  122. plazaeme2

    The point of playing the “reasonable, middle ground” man is not to be right. To claim that it would be fallacious misses the point of a rhetorical trick that has currency in political discussions. The point is to stretch the window one’s way to win votes, not to be right. It also adds value to one’s INTEGRITY ™.

    To that effect, insisting on Lindzen’s work eo ipso plays that card. As the pope of the Lukewarm church, Lindzen represents the limits of justified disingenuousness. That is, from what we can read in his multifarious op-eds, Lindzen stretches his argument to low as to become the marker of what is reasonably arguable.

    Some may even consider that he goes beyond that maximin. Only when Lindzen’s reasonableness is questioned do we see “yes, but Scafetta or Chillingara” spring up. As Auditors ought to ask: wonder why?

    So, you insist you don’t understand the need of a clear definition of the meaning of AGW to be able to have a rational discussion. When I ask you for your idea on AGW, or when I try to grasp what is generally understood by AGW, you answer me with “a rhetorical trick that has currency in political discussions”. Pardon me?

    I don’t think Chilingara is a climate scientist, and certainly Scafetta is not. Even more, the incompatibility between Scafetta and Lindzen you are lying about, simply doesn’t exist. Scafetta’s predictions leave room for CO2 to have a warming enough effect to be as strong as proposed by Lindzen, and more.

    I am not “insisting on Lindzen’s work”. This is pure cheating on your part. Once more. I am only using the most known critic climate scientist, who is also the one (cc) who comes up with the lowest climate sensitivity of those who have done quantified attribution studies. (Ferenc Miskolczi is an astrophysicist).

    OK, if you insist you don’t understand what I am asking, maybe you will not dare to say you don’t understand Science of Doom. (By the way, you could learn from him how to defend IPCC’s orthodoxy without being a rhetorical vandal).

    What is the theory of AGW?
    If we are going to consider a theory, then at the very least we need to understand what the theory claims. It’s also a plus to understand how it’s constructed, what it relies on and what evidence exists to support the theory. We also should understand what evidence would falsify the theory.

    AGW usually stands for anthropogenic global warming or the idea the humans, through burning of fossil fuels and other activities have added to the CO2 in the atmosphere, thereby increased the “greenhouse” effect and warmed the planet. And the theory includes that the temperature rise over the last 100 years or so is largely explained by this effect, and further increases in CO2 will definitely lead to further significant temperature rises.

    So far on this blog I haven’t really mentioned AGW, until now. A few allusions here and there. One very minor non-specific claim at the end of Part Seven.

    And yet there is a whole series on CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? where the answer is “no, it’s not insignificant”.

    Doesn’t that support AGW? Isn’t the theory of “greenhouse” gases the same thing as AGW?

    The concept that some gases in the atmosphere absorb and then re-radiate longwave radiation is an essential component of AGW. It is one foundation. But you can accept the “greenhouse gas” theory without accepting AGW. For example, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and many more.

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/

    So much for your “insisting on Lindzen’s work” theory.

    Maybe you should read SoD once more:

    If we are going to consider a theory, then at the very least we need to understand what the theory claims.

  123. Shub Niggurath

    “The first part of the sentence emphasized provides some justification for this ABSTRACT to be classified as a (5). To claim a warming bias in surface monthly temperature records does seem to imply a minimisation of AGW.”

    Ok. But, the paper’s premises are an implicit acceptance of AGW. This is evident from the abstract. Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, and even some 5, 6 and 7 implicitly accept AGW.

  124. plazaeme2

    Willard’s show is something to remember.

    If he says: our current discussion is something which happens all over the internet since – say -2007, and with almost infinite participants; what expression does he reserve for the discussion we are having here, right in this thread? Who is “we”? In any case, as he uses as argument against my position something (he says) someone said, somewhere, sometime, without a quote, I guess his idea of “our current discussion” is very similar to what we are dealing in this very thread.

    Very difficult to play. I do have a rough idea about what I think. I even have a general idea of what I said. But certainly I do not know what has been said by all of those who our phenomenon may consider “in my side”.

    Imagine this guy as a policeman.

    You have the right not to declare. Whatever has been said by any person in the world, whom I may consider relevant to your position, may be used against you. So, it doesn’t really matter what you say

    Now, tell me we are not having some fun here, with our friend Willard.

  125. willard (@nevaudit)

    (23/N)

    > But, the paper’s premises are an implicit acceptance of AGW. This is evident from the abstract.

    What is evident from the ABSTRACT is that there is some warming, since they claim that there is a warming bias.

    Are you suggesting that to minimize the A in GW is just another way to endorse AGW, Shub?

    You better come with a good response, Shub. Not only the lukewarm gambit is at stake here, but most of the auditing products. In fact, the whole line of business of raising concerns is in jeopardy. Are you sure this paper is worth it?

    ***

    > [E]ven some 5, 6 and 7 implicitly accept AGW.

    Sure, and by the same token one has to implicitly accept unicorns to deny their existence, right?

    I warned you against formal ontology:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meinong/#ObjTheOntBeyBeiNonBei

    Spoiler: Meinong lost, in the end.

    The consensus on AGW is not merely that AGW exists. I’m not sure that some paper in (7) which claims that A is responsible for no more than 0,00000000000000000001% warming endorses the consensus position on AGW. And yet it obviously endorses some A…

    It’s arguments like these that make up most of the concerns raised by contrarians.

    ***

    Still waiting for that citation about “any classification system”, Shub, like I’m still waiting for this “crowd-sourcing method that would roughly replicate the survey methodology”

  126. omanuel

    Shub, the scientific community has been floating in bunkum since the end of the Second World Warm when fear of nuclear energy persuaded world leaders to form the United Nations and to deceive the public about the nature of Earth’s heat source, the Sun. Dee an open message sent today (2 July 2013) to the Committee on Space Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives:

    The United States House of Representatives
    Committee on Space Science and Technology
    Washington, DC, USA

    Greetings,

    RE: Open Message on the Corruption of Science:
    The Destruction of Inalienable Rights of Citizens

    Concern for our increasingly unstable society and for those trying to prevent it’s violent eruption by destroying basic constitutional rights of citizens would benefit from your active investigation and support, if confirmed, of one indisputable fact

    1. Supported by the best available scientific measurements and observations on rest masses, abundances and half-lives of atoms and elements in the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, meteorites, Mars and Jupiter;

    2. Consistent with the spiritual teachings of every major religion; and

    3. Hidden from the public after 1945 out of fear this information might be used to destroy life on Earth by nuclear annihilation:

    The core of the Sun is a pulsar that made our elements and gave explosive birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago. Its source of energy – neutron repulsion – is the same energy that vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 6 and 9, 1945 (and frightened world leaders into forming the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 to save the world from nuclear annihilation). The Sun’s core is made of neutrons (n). An expanded neutron form – hydrogen atoms (1H) – pours from its atmosphere. Hydrogen and Helium are by-products of the production of solar energy. The most abundant atom in the Sun, iron-56 (56Fe), is the most stable combination of neutrons and hydrogen atoms. Other mixtures of neutrons and hydrogen atoms comprise every atom in the Solar System, as shown on the front cover of the Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System organized with help from the late Nobel Laureate Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg:

    http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Elements-Solar-System-Implications/dp/0306465620

    Half-life measurements at Purdue suggest that other than gravitational, electrical, nuclear and magnetic force fields invisibly connect every atom to the pulsar and to each other over vast regions of space (greater than the combined volume of ten billion, billion Earths) that filled with debris from the explosive birth of the Solar System five billion years ago.

    Our fate and Earth’s constantly changing climate depend entirely on the pulsar that government scientists hid from the public after 1945.

    Copies of this message will be sent to individual members of Congress and to others concerned about the tension between US citizens and the US government, the corruption of government science, and the loss of basic constitutional rights of US citizens.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics

  127. plazaeme2

    The abstract from McKitrick and Michaels you are talking about shows part of the rating system problem.

    – As far as it reduces GW, it suggests quite less of a (imaginary) problem with AGW. But, is it really “quite”? The rating system doesn’t tell you.

    – As far as it doesn’t change the percentage of A in the observed GW, its indifferent to consensus. The observed warming may be less, but may be still a big problem. Or not, you don’t have a clue.

    – As far as it measures a warming where people live, it measures an anthropogenic warming (you may call it global, or global – land).

    So, you may think it endorses AGW (non CO2GW), it minimizes AGW (a la IPCC), or it is indifferent.

    Had they choose to do a scientific work, they would have specified CO2GW (this is the question), and they would have specified a level for CO2GW to be “consensus level”. Be it as a percentage of observed warming, be it as a calculated / measured warming effect, be it as climate sensitivity to CO2.

    The case is they were doing other thing. Apparently, cheating: trying to bring a huge number of irrelevant papers as “endorsing”, and trying to simulate an endorsement by science when is (largely) an endorsement by scientists.

    Note: If the confusion in this case was in favor of rejection, this does not mean the consensus is stronger than the results. It means the system is a bad system. As anyone can tell by reading the guidelines.

  128. Shub Niggurath

    “Are you suggesting that to minimize the A in GW is just another way to endorse AGW, Shub?”

    Yes. Can you say the effect of something is less than what was thought, if begin by arguing the effect doesn’t exist at all?

    The scientific method consists of accepting pre-existing premises and then showing they don’t hold under certain circumstances, or they don’t explain newer observations.

    The acceptance of previous theory is a pre-requisite in the demonstration of its flaws.

    A paper that shows data that contests the orthodox position, need not question its fundamental validity at all. It would still accept ‘AGW’, would still minimize ‘AGW’, be a ‘skeptical’ paper and should have been counted as one, in a proper Cook-like survey.

    Instead, under Cook rules, you could get literal, in both the textual and the interpretive sense, and count them as ‘accepting the consensus’ and still be technically correct. Score one for the consensus (!)

    The same holds for papers on biofuels. These papers may ‘say’ they accept the consensus, but they bring no data that either support or reject the orthodox position.

    Again, under Cook rules, you could get literal, and count them as ‘accepting the consensus’ and still be technically correct. Score another one for the consensus

    [minor edit]

  129. plazaeme2

    I don’t think anyone who matters believe in Thermaggeddon. They would do something about it if they did. The real problem is if you call science this crap, you are extending the bad name and reputation to science as a whole.

  130. willard (@nevaudit)

    (24/N)

    > Can you say the effect of something is less than what was thought, if begin by arguing the effect doesn’t exist at all?

    Sure, if what you’re saying is an euphemism to say that it does not exist at all, say for all practical purposes. Or if your job is not really to reject anything, but simply to raise concerns, e.g. for the sake of Sound Science ™. And in a more formal setting, an advocate of free logic may help you quantify over objects without assuming their existence:

    Classical logic requires each singular term to denote an object in the domain of quantification—an “existing” object. Free logic does not. Free logic is therefore useful for analyzing discourse containing singular terms that either are empty (have no referent or refer to objects that do not exist) or might be.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/

    ***

    But suppose we agree that to minimize AGW implies that AGW exists. Does it mean, ipso facto, that you endorse AGW? Only if that “to endorse” AGW means “to accept that AGW exists”. Now, is the consensus position about the existence of AGW? I doubt it.

    Under that reading, a scientist S that claims A is responsible for no more than 0,00000000000000000001% warming would endorse the consensus position on AGW. This is where your own criteria leads, Shub. Don’t blame Cook for that.

    Stuff like this makes most of the contrarians’ concerns, for which we are thankful, as always.

  131. plazaeme2

    Now, is the consensus position about the existence of AGW? I doubt it.

    You doubt it? Thanks, this is exactly the point.

  132. Shub Niggurath

    Yes Willard, because this project looked for ‘consensus’, any paper that doesn’t explicitly reject or question the orthodox position would qualify for inclusion, irrespective of it’s actual implication.

  133. omanuel

    An open message to members of the Space Science & Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives was posted at the top of my web page today to celebrate this,

    The 237th birthday of this once Great Nation, and to seek an end to

    Sixty-eight years (2013-1945 = 68 yrs) of deceptive government science.

    Comments, pro / con, would be appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    omanuel.wordpress.com

  134. willard (@nevaudit)

    (25/N)

    > [B]ecause this project looked for ‘consensus’, any paper that doesn’t explicitly reject or question the orthodox position would qualify for inclusion, irrespective of it’s actual implication.

    An ABSTRACT or a PAPER that takes no position on AGW may not qualify as endorsing the consensus.

    An ABSTRACT or a PAPER that implicitly minimizes or rejects may not qualify as endorsing the consensus.

    Since the paper was not looking for a consensus about the implications of AGW, the emphasized bit amounts to yet another “what Cook shoulda, woulda have done” comment.

    It’s stuff like this that makes most of the contrarian concerns.

    ***

    Have you found back your citations about the guidelines “any classification system” should follow and your “crowd-sourcing method that would roughly replicate the survey methodology”, Shub?

  135. Shub Niggurath

    willard, I think you’ve had a brain sprain. When the authors of the paper assume that abstracts are fair representations of papers, those criticizing the paper can accept this, in order to show the flaws.

    As far as the ‘show citations’ things, I am not interested in playing your Alinksy-ite games. It is self evident that a classification system should divide its target subjects into categories that are meaningful.

    If I take cookie cutters of various shapes to dough, the cookies would necessarily take the shape of the cutters. No point in arguing in Kantian fashion that the shapes existed in the dough.

  136. willard (@nevaudit)

    (26/N)

    Shub,

    I think all you have left are ad hominems. This:

    > When the authors of the paper assume that abstracts are fair representations of papers, those criticizing the paper can accept this, in order to show the flaws.

    besides being glittering generalities, do not answer for your misreading of the classification. I mean, three errors in one sentence does not show a good understanding of Cook & al. But speaking of classifications, here is what needs to be supported by an authority:

    > In general, *any* classification system designed to divide a mass of text into groups [with such and such and so and so] is useless.

    This is not exactly the same thing as:

    > A classification system should divide its target subjects into categories that are meaningful.

    I’m asking for you to substantiate what would make a classification meaningful (or else) to you or any authority on which you would rely, Shub. If you don’t propose any criteria which would make a classification acceptable to you, it’s easy to raise ad hoc concerns regarding any kind of survey. By the way, that fact that authors answered the questionnaire refutes your claim that the classification is meaningless, at least in the ordinary sense of the word.

    Also note that your dismissiveness excluded the case of a “crowd-sourcing method that would roughly replicate the survey methodology”. I don’t think you can argue that this is self evident. You can’t handwave to the literature and shy away for the commitments you’re making while handwaving.

    It’s stuff like this that makes up most of the contrarian concerns.

  137. Shub Niggurath

    “[with such and such and so and so] ”

    The thing your inner Alinsky is asking citations for, is in the excerpted text, which you quote above as ‘such and such”.

    If I divide data “A, B, C, B, C, B, A, A, C, C, C, A, B, C”, into “As, Bs and Cs”, that is self-evident, and real. It has a demonstrable basis in the constituent elements of the whole data set.

    If you want to understand criticism of this type, a good starting point would be to examine the evolution and use of the CIN1/2/3 vs LSIL/HSL systems for classification of cervical pre-neoplasia. Arguably, the Pap smear has been a major force in improvement in public health outcumes and information on the two-tier Bethesda classification is easy to find.

    If something belongs to a group, its individual and group identities should both be distinct and discernible.

    The Cook system is involves both identifying existing identities *and* inferring identities.

    You should be able to agree to that?

  138. willard (@nevaudit)

    (27/N)

    > The thing your inner Alinsky is asking citations for, is in the excerpted text, which you quote above as ‘such and such”.

    Thank you for your concerns about my inner life, Shub.

    Whatever or whoever asks, what is asked is not a thing, but a property. That is, when a researcher says something like:

    > In general, *any* classification system designed to divide a mass of text into groups [with such and such and so and so] is useless.

    the “such and such” should represent a placeholder for formal properties. So please identify the formal properties that you have in mind. Armwaving about “the evolution and use of the CIN1/2/3 vs LSIL/HSL systems for classification of cervical pre-neoplasia”, while very interesting (please continue), does not answer that question.

    Also note that your example:

    If I divide data “A, B, C, B, C, B, A, A, C, C, C, A, B, C”, into “As, Bs and Cs”, that is self-evident, and real. It has a demonstrable basis in the constituent elements of the whole data set.

    amounts to classify A as a A, B as a B, etc. Which means that being trivial is a necessary condition for classification. Its “demonstrable basis” would be the law of identity holds. This has the power to dissolve most classification problems. Those problems usually appear because identity is not well-defined: what we have are similarity relations like A is like “a car”, B is like “a toy”, etc. Again, ask your local machine learning guru.

    No particular knowledge of the classification of cervical pre-neoplasia is needed to see that your example lacks clarity. Also note that your arwaving does not compensate for the lack of citation of a “crowd-sourcing method that would roughly replicate the survey methodology” you yourself mentioned.

    ***

    > If something belongs to a group, its individual and group identities should both be distinct and discernible.

    Interestingly, this wording is reminiscent of Descartes’ way to characterize an evidence. This notion also underlines the wedge you’re trying to put between identifying existing identities *and* inferring identities. The idea that we can identify an entity without inferring anything would deserve due diligence [1]. The idea that identify anything from reading an ABSTRACT without any inference whatsoever begs to be explained.

    [1] In fact, we’ve already had a similar discussion before:

    ***

    If all you really wanted to say is that one does not simply mix implicit with explicit endorsements, you could have said so, Shub. In fact, you already said so, many, many, many times. This can be inferred from your many comments: Cook and al did not do what they shoulda, woulda, coulda done. I’m not sure this identity between your many explicit wordings can be seen as an evidence that is so distinct and discernible as to bypass any kind of mental mediation.

    In any case, nothing prevents you to operate that division yourself and treat Cook & al as many different operations as you would see fit. This was Bart’s argument, BTW.

    Arguments like this make most of the contrarians’ concerns.

    ***

    TL;DR — still waiting for your formal criteria for a contrarian-proof classification, on which might rely your criticism to be constructive.

  139. plazaeme

    For Willard’s entertainment:

    Mike Hulme:

    The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

    comment at July 25, 2013 at 6:39 am