Howzabout playing the ball Ms trash talker?
The irrefutable fact is that the survey is junk. You just can't get around that.
Truth stings doesn't it Wayne ?
You have zip credibility/integrity in any area of this discussion. Thats why we don't waste any energy talking with you.
You ladies attempting to defend it, albeit only tacitly by shooting at (and missing wildly) the messenger, reeks of your own credibility chasm.
So instead of once again playing the man and not the ball, I'd like to hear you either admit it is junk, or make a fool of yourselves by denying that the survey is a piece of crap.
Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland
Dear Professor Høj,
I was struck by a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters with John Cook, a University of Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.
My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail............................
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Some reporter obviously mucked up or talked to a crank to get a headline.
... how black can be turned white check out the following.
It doesn't matter if you're black or white
Wayne your takedown of Cooks analysis will not stand any inspection.
via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...w-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
bolds mine
Also in the same post, latest Cook & Nuticelli paper taken out with the garbage.
That Cook and his minions are advocates not remotely interested in proper science, is now beyond doubt.
2003: Climate Research controversy
Main article: Soon and Baliunas controversy
In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[19]
Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[20][21] There were three main objections: 1. Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; 2. they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and 3. they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[20][21] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these claims.[22]
After disagreement with the publisher and other members of the editorial board, Hans Von Storch, Clare Goodess, and 2 more members of the journal's 10 member editorial board, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[23][24] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[25]
Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[26][27][28][29
Tol's Rejected Comment
Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:
"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."
It's still peer reviewed, therefore valid. It still exposes the survey's fatal flaws, whether you do an ad hom on the authors or not.
And you have forgotten Curry, Tol et al.
- - - Updated - - -
You are a filthy liar basilio, because you have once again referred to objective viewpoints as denial.
There is no denial, however you miss the point that the survey is still junk, rubbish, trash, spucatum tauri, camel dung, whatever.
This has been shown, it is on record, Cook's credibilty at an all time low.
- - - Updated - - -
...and you have the temerity to quote SkS? Please, find something which credibility is not in tatters.
Cook has lost his skin in this came luvvy.
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?