- Joined
- 29 August 2006
- Posts
- 909
- Reactions
- 148
Look no further than Cook's own paper on the 'consensus'.If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.
The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.* This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.* This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
Tom Curtis (Comment #113458)
May 19th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Lucia, you and others continue to push the false view that the Concensus Project team put a low bar on belonging to the consensus when it is evident both from the paper, and from the hacked forum contents that they did not. Put simply, if an abstract said “the Earth is warming rapidly due to anthropogenic and natural causes” without further quantification, it would have been rated as neutral or possibly even are rejecting the concensus. If it said, “mostly due to anthropogenic causes, but also due to natural causes” it would have been rated as supporting the concensus, whereas if it said the reverse, it would have been rated as rejecting the concensus.
The tricky case is when it says something like “the rapid rise in CO2 concentration has resulted in rapid warming” which would be rated as supporting the concensus (assuming it had no other relevant content). You can argue that somebody can claim that while believing that natural forcings are the dominant forcings in recent temperature rises. Technically that claim is correct, but it is very unlikely. Unlikely both because of the way the debate is framed, and unlikely because people tend not to ignore what they consider to be the most important factors.
So, allow that the rating system can generate false positives. That is going to be a problem with any rating from abstract and does not undermine the paper. It can be demonstrated that in fact the rating system generated more false negatives than false positives; and any rating system must perforce seek a balance between the two. In fact, false negatives where generated at 2.5 times the rate of false positives, indicating the rating method was very conservative.
So according to Brandon Schollenberger (blog author of your quote) only 65 papers out of the 12,000 odd papers surveyed actually support the proposition that humans are responsible for more than 50% of global warming.
For another view on the Peter Cook research check out the following comments
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18863
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...x-prettier-than-brigstocke-but-just-as-wrong/
Prof Brian Cox: prettier than Brigstocke but just as wrong
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 5th, 2010
This year’s BBC Huw Wheldon lecture was delivered by pop star and celebrity-physicist Brian Cox, who was telling us how science should be reported on television.
Brian looks like a rebel. One of the kids. He has long hair and wears a T-shirt under his jacket. But appearances can deceive. I’ve met countless grungy greens who are every bit as censorious and freedom-hating as the most well-ironed Nazi.
And, as it turns out, Brian is about as rebellious as Captain Mainwaring.
He says it’s the job of documentary makers to relay to the public science which has been approved by the scientific establishment.
He described a film of mine – The Great Global Warming Swindle – which naughtily did not tow the line, as ‘polemical cack’. Like many censors, he starts by waving the flag for free speech. Far be it from him to stifle views which are outside the mainstream. But … There were many buts.
Professor Brian Cox has gone down in my opinion.
Professor Brian Cox has gone down in my opinion. ...
I know. These scientists have this blind spot where they prefer to follow scientific studies by other scientists that go through a review process and follow the scientific principle.
I don't know why they don't take seriously newspaper columnists like James Delingpole that are paid to trot out opposite views supporting the interests of their masters as well as giving an opportunity to get their books published and make additional money. Anyone can see he is spouting the truth while all the scientists have been corrupted.
We’ve had a new study published about the slippery slopes of Greenland. If we’re right they’re not as slippery – and therefore as worrying – as we first thought.
....
We’re the first to test this idea using models of the Greenland ice sheet, comparing the effect on sea level with the usual baseline projections that don’t include the Zwally effect. What we found surprised us – it made very little difference. Even in our worst case scenario, enhanced basal lubrication by surface meltwater added only 8mm to sea level over two hundred years, less than five percent of the baseline sea level rise. In some of our tests, it even reduced it.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...tion_is_no_longer_consistent_wi/#commentsmore
...we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.
1) Dr. Pielke, as I read Mr. Nutter’s testimony, he appeared to be trying to tell us that businesses face a disaster that is happening now. But according to a recent Lloyd’s of London survey of almost 600 corporate executives about the risks faced by their business, they ranked climate change #32 behind “piracy” but ahead of “space weather.” High taxation was ranked #1. Regulation was ranked #5. Why do you think they placed climate change at #32?
PIELKE REPLY: Human-caused climate change likely ranks low in the Lloyd’s 2013 Risk Index because the vast majority of impacts associated with such changes that would be of direct concern to global businesses in 2013 are presently small or even undetectable at present in the context of historical climate variability, as discussed in my testimony.
2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?
PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.
3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.
a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.
b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.
c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.
4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)
PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge.
Australian floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level to drop
Puzzled oceanographers who wondered where the sea level rise went for 18 months now have their answer – it went to Australia
Tim Radford
Rain - in effect, evaporated ocean - fell in such colossal quantities during the Australian floods in 2010 and 2011 that the world's sea levels actually dropped by as much as 7mm.
Rainwater normally runs swiftly off continental mountain ranges, pours down rivers, collects in aquifers and lakes and then winds across floodplains into the sea. But Australia, as any Australian will proudly claim, is different.
Rain that falls in the outback of the largest island - also the smallest continent - tends to dribble away into inland waterways and seemingly get lost, without ever making it to the coast, or to collect in shallow inland seas and stay there till it evaporates.
"It is a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is", says John Fasullo, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research. "The smallest continent in the world can affect sea level worldwide. Its influence is so strong that it can temporarily overcome the background trend of rising sea levels that we see with climate change."
... In Australia much of this water didn't make it to the sea again but replenished underground aquifers ...
[/QUOTE]"[QUOTEThat earlier 97 or 98% “study” was the same. These zealots belong to the cult, or they’re no starved for money they’ll say anything to get another easy government grant.]
Sure wayne, at the end of your excerpt a poster states:
...............and????
The fact is, the survey has knobs on it, intellectually, scientifically and morally corrupt.
Ya can't polish a turd Mr Plod
And that piece of insight comes you Mr Wayne ?
The epitome of intellectual rigour, scientific thoroughness and impeccable moral values.
What total dribble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?