Well, this has already been covered. Our friends at Pop Tech have done some good leg work in debunking Cook’s latest dive into sophistry and dishonesty. Andrew wrote a few of the scientists about Cook’s classification of their papers as endorsing the AGW meme. Some of the bold is Andrew’s some of it is mine.
Dr. Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
Dr. Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous …..
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called “skeptical works” including some of mine are included in their 97%.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.”
Dr. Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).
I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.” [boom!!!!!!]
“Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”
Okay, all of that is something people with an operating synapse already knew. And, I’ll go one further and state something understood but unstated. In their never ending quest to attempt to create a false near universal agreement the warmists, regardless of their approach, regardless of the material covered or the questions asked, they will always announce a consensus agreement near or at the 97% mark. Always. Even if it means just making crap up when statistical acrobatics won’t suffice.
The most recent effort, by John Cook et al, demonstrates the same dishonesty as Lewandowsky and the rest of the amoral reprobates.
What’s funny is the warmists’ very basic lack of understanding what the arguments are and what they are not.