COOK Et Al 2016... Part Deuce. 97% lie shown fraud.. AGAIN!

[Crick]

Love the attempts to justify the lie...

You cant make this stuff up.. Its hilarious.... 'Ignore the 11,647 other papers that say no.. our 77 papers out weigh them all and are true...'

Speaking of ignorant posters on the internet.... Why should i believe the ones posting up hyperbole in an effort to make their claims of consensus true?

So, you think Legates refutes the dozen or so other studies that show he's a simple sellout to the fossil fuel industry. A review of the literature like Legates' and Cook's (and Naomi Watts', Anderegg's and Powell's) is open to intentional misuse. Legate's insistence that the studies include specific statements and counting every paper which did not make it, as rejecting the statement, was a ridiculous effort to bias the results. But, anyone can pull up a paper and claim that it says anything. What they cannot do, is survey the authors of those papers and determine whether or not they agree with the characterization or classification the surveyors made. Legates did not do it. Cook did. Cook wins. The results of every study that has asked climate scientists what they think has agreed with the results of literature surveys. NO survey of climate scientists has EVER found numbers within orders of magnitude of what Legates claims to be the case.

Legates is a fool and no one will ever again trust him to provide objective, quality information on anything.

 

[jc456]

Lots of people care about it. He has no evidence that no one cares, he simply hopes that's the case. Skooker the Asshole has been running that same line here for years. What no one cares about is him. He's the most ignored poster on the internet.

dude, he's posted those polls over and over in this forum. have you never seen the 30% numbers he has posted? Again, the search tool here is great for finding that kind of information. Go look.

The world is moving on AGW. Get used to it.

The OP, which claims that 97% is "a fraud" is demonstrably incorrect. The numbers of climate scientists that hold AGW to be an accurate description of the behavior of our climate is very close to unanimity. That is what matters most because that is to whom those in charge listen.

how many of them is that? I have 75 out of 77 to make up 97% what's your count?

 

[jc456]

Love the attempts to justify the lie...

You cant make this stuff up.. Its hilarious.... 'Ignore the 11,647 other papers that say no.. our 77 papers out weigh them all and are true...'

Speaking of ignorant posters on the internet.... Why should i believe the ones posting up hyperbole in an effort to make their claims of consensus true?

So, you think Legates refutes the dozen or so other studies that show he's a simple sellout to the fossil fuel industry. A review of the literature like Legates' and Cook's (and Naomi Watts', Anderegg's and Powell's) is open to intentional misuse. Legate's insistence that the studies include specific statements and counting every paper which did not make it, as rejecting the statement, was a ridiculous effort to bias the results. But, anyone can pull up a paper and claim that it says anything. What they cannot do, is survey the authors of those papers and determine whether or not they agree with the characterization or classification the surveyors made. Legates did not do it. Cook did. Cook wins. The results of every study that has asked climate scientists what they think has agreed with the results of literature surveys. NO survey of climate scientists has EVER found numbers within orders of magnitude of what Legates claims to be the case.

Legates is a fool and no one will ever again trust him to provide objective, quality information on anything.

sure!!!!!!

 

[Crick]

how many of them is that? I have 75 out of 77 to make up 97% what's your count?

You're both being fools. You've been told repeatedly of multiple surveys with thousands of participants.

 

[jc456]

how many of them is that? I have 75 out of 77 to make up 97% what's your count?

You're both being fools. You've been told repeatedly of multiple surveys with thousands of participants.

that wasn't the question though, the stats out there is 75 out of 77. How many represent your 97%? with names.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No peer review. No contact information for the single author. That isn't a paper, it's a fucking blog. And she brings up nothing new. That is, she hasn't got shite. The consensus is approaching unanimity. Your ridiculous desperation moves are not going to change the fact that AGW is very widely accepted science.

If it was a lie, one of you would be able to conduct your own poll and find different results. But that hasn't happened. Ask yourself WHY NOT? Or stop pushing what you KNOW is a lie.

Moonbat needs a peer review to validate that science is not a Democracy.

 

[Crick]

This thead is worthless. There is no evidence of fraud or deception from anyone save Legates.

 

[jc456]

This thead is worthless. There is no evidence of fraud or deception from anyone save Legates.

That's what losers say. Tsk tsk

 

[Crick]

Losers, like you, say nothing, like you.

You ignore surveys of thousands of scientists and thousands of papers - which is to say, you're a liar. And your continued comments about 77 out of 79 show only that you understand nothing about probability and sampling. Nothing.

 

[jc456]

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

snippet:

"The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."

 

[Crick]

And their explanation for Cook et al's results when they asked 1,189 authors of 2,142 papers to self-rate their papers and got an IPCC endorsement rate of 97.2%. So, how many authors did Popular Technology speak with? Five? And every one of them famous deniers. Tol? Soon? Morner?... yeah.

 

[jc456]

And their explanation for Cook et al's results when they asked 1,189 authors of 2,142 papers to self-rate their papers and got an IPCC endorsement rate of 97.2%. So, how many authors did Popular Technology speak with? Five? And every one of them famous deniers. Tol? Soon? Morner?... yeah.

Well that's probably more than cook

 

[Poptech]

And their explanation for Cook et al's results when they asked 1,189 authors of 2,142 papers to self-rate their papers and got an IPCC endorsement rate of 97.2%. So, how many authors did Popular Technology speak with? Five? And every one of them famous deniers. Tol? Soon? Morner?... yeah.

Why did Cook et al. falsely classify papers by well known skeptical scientists?

Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

 

[polarbear]

The 97% thing is only popular anymore on internet blog sites like this one. In 2016, its like a relic of a former era.......it moves nobody anymore.

Where are the surveys, polls or studies that show 97% to be false?

If you think it moves no one, where do you think the "settled science" viewpoint comes from?

Are you just pretending that you don`t know that this 97% cooked Cook consensus is bogus or are you really still totally unaware that it was indeed a totally fraudulent claim.
How can you not know...that`s almost impossible unless you refuse to Google.
Here is a video that sums it up what all the studies about Cook`s 97% consensus cooking have revealed:
F.fwd. to 4:55

Cook had 2 of his enviro-activists collecting 12 to 13 000 papers that mentioned global warming and they found only 41 papers that met Cook`s 50% AG-Warming criteria and explicitly stated it.
b.t.w. the IPCC uses a much higher 90% (!!!) human caused GW criteria
Even though he could only find 41 papers that explicitly stated that the CO2 emissions due to human activity drives the climate. That`s a far cry from a 97% consensus of qualified scientists, wouldn`t you say ?

Your parroting the "97%" demonstrates exactly the same ridiculous intransigence of this Sierra club idiot:


Perhaps it does exceed your attention span or is it that you just don`t have an up to date PC or wide band Internet access to watch something like this and finally wake up and smell the coffee:


As for the rest of the more reasonable readers here I think you all would enjoy watching the videos in this posting.
The last one had over 425 000 views (and climbing) compare that to Al Gore`s crap which had only 1/10 of that to date

 

[Crick]

Are you just pretending that you don`t know that this 97% cooked Cook consensus is bogus or are you really still totally unaware that it was indeed a totally fraudulent claim.

I am aware that it is a well-established fact and that the denier attempts to disprove it have been absurd and pathetic.

How can you not know...that`s almost impossible unless you refuse to Google.

How can you hold the opinion you seem to hold unless you refuse to look at the facts. Why don't you have a quick perusal of Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and explain how you can maintain such a position in the face of that information.

Here is a video that sums it up what all the studies about Cook`s 97% consensus cooking have revealed:
F.fwd. to 4:55

There have been no "studies" about Cook's study. There was David Legates crap that attempted to refute Cook but it was absolutely laughable and accomplished nothing but destroy Legates' own career.

Cook had 2 of his enviro-activists collecting 12 to 13 000 papers that mentioned global warming and they found only 41 papers that met Cook`s 50% AG-Warming criteria and explicitly stated it.

Your grasp of the facts here is woefully in error. Cook's study is publicly available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

It is not particularly long. His results have been borne out by similar studies by Powell, Anderegg and Oreskes and by polls, surveys and studies of climate scientists by several others. Legates' is the only study that has found less than 85% support among climate scientists for the conclusions of the IPCC. And given that Legates contention, that only 0.3% of all climate studies affirmed the IPCC conclusion, was based on the presence of a specific statement (ie, if a study did not explicitly state that it supported the IPCC conclusions, Legates assumed it rejected those conclusions AND included in the rejection all studies, including those that expressed no opinion whatsoever) the logical validity of Legates work is absolutely nil.

b.t.w. the IPCC uses a much higher 90% (!!!) human caused GW criteria

Please explain what you mean by this statement. What criteria are you claiming the IPCC uses and to what purpose? Being just slightly familiar with the IPCC's confidence criteria I would not hesitate to suggest that you're spewing bulllshit of whose meaning even you have not a clue.

Even though he could only find 41 papers that explicitly stated that the CO2 emissions due to human activity drives the climate. That`s a far cry from a 97% consensus of qualified scientists, wouldn`t you say ?

Your statement is a far cry from anything approaching a fact. You are confusing the work of Cook et al and Legates. Cook was never looking for explicit statements. That was Legates procedure. Apparently you're unfamiliar with it as well. It may be seen (if you've a strong stomach) at Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

Your parroting the "97%" demonstrates exactly the same ridiculous intransigence of this Sierra club idiot:

Your reference to a YouTube video as if it actually had some scientific or statistical validity is the worst of desperation-driven, denier pseudo science.

I'm not parroting anyone. I am reciting what my references show to be facts. Every objective study of the consensus among climate scientists towards the IPCC's conclusions have shown very high to nearly unanimous support.

Perhaps it does exceed your attention span or is it that you just don`t have an up to date PC or wide band Internet access to watch something like this and finally wake up and smell the coffee:

If you want to criticize anyone's attention span you might take note that you've linked to nothing but videos here. You seem to lack the patience (and perhaps other characteristics) necessary to sit and read a few pages of mildly technical documentation.

As for the rest of the more reasonable readers here I think you all would enjoy watching the videos in this posting.
The last one had over 425 000 views (and climbing) compare that to Al Gore`s crap which had only 1/10 of that to date

1) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.

2) Be that as it may, his movie grossed $50 million worldwide. I believe that suggests his viewership might exceed your 425,000 views on YouTube.

 

[Crick]

No one here, or anywhere else, has ever put forward the idea that the high consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming (hereafter AGW) among climate scientists PROVES the theory is correct.

The consensus here - and every other consensus among scientists concerning the various theories and hypotheses about which their professional lives revolve - determines the LIKELIHOOD that a theory is correct. A theory with which 97% of the experts agree is far, far more LIKELY to be correct than is one with which only 1% (eg, that GW is not anthropogenic) agree.

Got it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Love the attempts to justify the lie...

You cant make this stuff up.. Its hilarious.... 'Ignore the 11,647 other papers that say no.. our 77 papers out weigh them all and are true...'

Speaking of ignorant posters on the internet.... Why should i believe the ones posting up hyperbole in an effort to make their claims of consensus true?

So, you think Legates refutes the dozen or so other studies that show he's a simple sellout to the fossil fuel industry. A review of the literature like Legates' and Cook's (and Naomi Watts', Anderegg's and Powell's) is open to intentional misuse. Legate's insistence that the studies include specific statements and counting every paper which did not make it, as rejecting the statement, was a ridiculous effort to bias the results. But, anyone can pull up a paper and claim that it says anything. What they cannot do, is survey the authors of those papers and determine whether or not they agree with the characterization or classification the surveyors made. Legates did not do it. Cook did. Cook wins. The results of every study that has asked climate scientists what they think has agreed with the results of literature surveys. NO survey of climate scientists has EVER found numbers within orders of magnitude of what Legates claims to be the case.

Legates is a fool and no one will ever again trust him to provide objective, quality information on anything.

But, anyone can pull up apaper and claim that it says anything.

I knew you agree on how cook got his results he just looked for key words....

How could anyone pull up a paper and claim it says anything? A zealot like cook and you can but a normal rational critical thinker like I couldn't.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are you just pretending that you don`t know that this 97% cooked Cook consensus is bogus or are you really still totally unaware that it was indeed a totally fraudulent claim.

I am aware that it is a well-established fact and that the denier attempts to disprove it have been absurd and pathetic.

How can you not know...that`s almost impossible unless you refuse to Google.

How can you hold the opinion you seem to hold unless you refuse to look at the facts. Why don't you have a quick perusal of Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and explain how you can maintain such a position in the face of that information.

Here is a video that sums it up what all the studies about Cook`s 97% consensus cooking have revealed:
F.fwd. to 4:55

There have been no "studies" about Cook's study. There was David Legates crap that attempted to refute Cook but it was absolutely laughable and accomplished nothing but destroy Legates' own career.

Cook had 2 of his enviro-activists collecting 12 to 13 000 papers that mentioned global warming and they found only 41 papers that met Cook`s 50% AG-Warming criteria and explicitly stated it.

Your grasp of the facts here is woefully in error. Cook's study is publicly available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

It is not particularly long. His results have been borne out by similar studies by Powell, Anderegg and Oreskes and by polls, surveys and studies of climate scientists by several others. Legates' is the only study that has found less than 85% support among climate scientists for the conclusions of the IPCC. And given that Legates contention, that only 0.3% of all climate studies affirmed the IPCC conclusion, was based on the presence of a specific statement (ie, if a study did not explicitly state that it supported the IPCC conclusions, Legates assumed it rejected those conclusions AND included in the rejection all studies, including those that expressed no opinion whatsoever) the logical validity of Legates work is absolutely nil.

b.t.w. the IPCC uses a much higher 90% (!!!) human caused GW criteria

Please explain what you mean by this statement. What criteria are you claiming the IPCC uses and to what purpose? Being just slightly familiar with the IPCC's confidence criteria I would not hesitate to suggest that you're spewing bulllshit of whose meaning even you have not a clue.

Even though he could only find 41 papers that explicitly stated that the CO2 emissions due to human activity drives the climate. That`s a far cry from a 97% consensus of qualified scientists, wouldn`t you say ?

Your statement is a far cry from anything approaching a fact. You are confusing the work of Cook et al and Legates. Cook was never looking for explicit statements. That was Legates procedure. Apparently you're unfamiliar with it as well. It may be seen (if you've a strong stomach) at Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

Your parroting the "97%" demonstrates exactly the same ridiculous intransigence of this Sierra club idiot:

Your reference to a YouTube video as if it actually had some scientific or statistical validity is the worst of desperation-driven, denier pseudo science.

I'm not parroting anyone. I am reciting what my references show to be facts. Every objective study of the consensus among climate scientists towards the IPCC's conclusions have shown very high to nearly unanimous support.

Perhaps it does exceed your attention span or is it that you just don`t have an up to date PC or wide band Internet access to watch something like this and finally wake up and smell the coffee:

If you want to criticize anyone's attention span you might take note that you've linked to nothing but videos here. You seem to lack the patience (and perhaps other characteristics) necessary to sit and read a few pages of mildly technical documentation.

As for the rest of the more reasonable readers here I think you all would enjoy watching the videos in this posting.
The last one had over 425 000 views (and climbing) compare that to Al Gore`s crap which had only 1/10 of that to date

1) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.

2) Be that as it may, his movie grossed $50 million worldwide. I believe that suggests his viewership might exceed your 425,000 views on YouTube.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.



I am only going to adress one, so you disagree Micheal "the hockey stick myth" mann was an advisor to al Gore and that movie

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one here, or anywhere else, has ever put forward the idea that the high consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming (hereafter AGW) among climate scientists PROVES the theory is correct.

The consensus here - and every other consensus among scientists concerning the various theories and hypotheses about which their professional lives revolve - determines the LIKELIHOOD that a theory is correct. A theory with which 97% of the experts agree is far, far more LIKELY to be correct than is one with which only 1% (eg, that GW is not anthropogenic) agree.

Got it?

What a steaming pile of Bull Shit.. Consensus is a political term not a scientific one..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are you just pretending that you don`t know that this 97% cooked Cook consensus is bogus or are you really still totally unaware that it was indeed a totally fraudulent claim.

I am aware that it is a well-established fact and that the denier attempts to disprove it have been absurd and pathetic.

How can you not know...that`s almost impossible unless you refuse to Google.

How can you hold the opinion you seem to hold unless you refuse to look at the facts. Why don't you have a quick perusal of Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and explain how you can maintain such a position in the face of that information.

Here is a video that sums it up what all the studies about Cook`s 97% consensus cooking have revealed:
F.fwd. to 4:55

There have been no "studies" about Cook's study. There was David Legates crap that attempted to refute Cook but it was absolutely laughable and accomplished nothing but destroy Legates' own career.

Cook had 2 of his enviro-activists collecting 12 to 13 000 papers that mentioned global warming and they found only 41 papers that met Cook`s 50% AG-Warming criteria and explicitly stated it.

Your grasp of the facts here is woefully in error. Cook's study is publicly available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

It is not particularly long. His results have been borne out by similar studies by Powell, Anderegg and Oreskes and by polls, surveys and studies of climate scientists by several others. Legates' is the only study that has found less than 85% support among climate scientists for the conclusions of the IPCC. And given that Legates contention, that only 0.3% of all climate studies affirmed the IPCC conclusion, was based on the presence of a specific statement (ie, if a study did not explicitly state that it supported the IPCC conclusions, Legates assumed it rejected those conclusions AND included in the rejection all studies, including those that expressed no opinion whatsoever) the logical validity of Legates work is absolutely nil.

b.t.w. the IPCC uses a much higher 90% (!!!) human caused GW criteria

Please explain what you mean by this statement. What criteria are you claiming the IPCC uses and to what purpose? Being just slightly familiar with the IPCC's confidence criteria I would not hesitate to suggest that you're spewing bulllshit of whose meaning even you have not a clue.

Even though he could only find 41 papers that explicitly stated that the CO2 emissions due to human activity drives the climate. That`s a far cry from a 97% consensus of qualified scientists, wouldn`t you say ?

Your statement is a far cry from anything approaching a fact. You are confusing the work of Cook et al and Legates. Cook was never looking for explicit statements. That was Legates procedure. Apparently you're unfamiliar with it as well. It may be seen (if you've a strong stomach) at Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

Your parroting the "97%" demonstrates exactly the same ridiculous intransigence of this Sierra club idiot:

Your reference to a YouTube video as if it actually had some scientific or statistical validity is the worst of desperation-driven, denier pseudo science.

I'm not parroting anyone. I am reciting what my references show to be facts. Every objective study of the consensus among climate scientists towards the IPCC's conclusions have shown very high to nearly unanimous support.

Perhaps it does exceed your attention span or is it that you just don`t have an up to date PC or wide band Internet access to watch something like this and finally wake up and smell the coffee:

If you want to criticize anyone's attention span you might take note that you've linked to nothing but videos here. You seem to lack the patience (and perhaps other characteristics) necessary to sit and read a few pages of mildly technical documentation.

As for the rest of the more reasonable readers here I think you all would enjoy watching the videos in this posting.
The last one had over 425 000 views (and climbing) compare that to Al Gore`s crap which had only 1/10 of that to date

1) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.

2) Be that as it may, his movie grossed $50 million worldwide. I believe that suggests his viewership might exceed your 425,000 views on YouTube.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.



I am only going to adress one, so you disagree Micheal "the hockey stick myth" mann was an advisor to al Gore and that movie

Wait I have another question for you if Matthew McConaughey, is not an engineer for Lincoln, does not build cars for Lincoln's, what does he know about Lincoln's ? Why is he on commercials for Lincoln's?



Could it just possibly he is a paid high profile Spokesman for Lincoln's?

Could it just possibly be Al Gore is a paid high profile spokesman for the AGW cult