New Consensus Achieved!!! Cook Demonstrates Warmist Consensus —- It’s Okay To Just Make Stuff Up!!!

image

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. 

image

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. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to New Consensus Achieved!!! Cook Demonstrates Warmist Consensus —- It’s Okay To Just Make Stuff Up!!!

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    James,
    Well I have to back you up 100% this time. With these revelations, looks like that brings it down to 96.8%.
    ( yes I know what you are going to say, I have read your previous posts on this)

  2. philjourdan says:

    Just reaffirms my decision to avoid Cook and his shenanigans like the plague.

    But as with all things, once you cross the line between science and religion, you might as well go whole hog and lie about everything. As you point out, the truth does not matter. The false declarations are all that any ghoul will remember.

  3. Me says:

    I wonder if the warmist used The Delphi Technique much? How else could they come up with their predetermined conclusions and misrepresent others so often?

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    Phil,

    All the papers are up there, This is a job perfectly suited to you. I have no doubt you could “find” that 97% of them actually supported volcanoes being responsible for all current CO2, Cosmic rays , APO, MWP and LIA all in opposition to CO2 increases and Annette Funicello beach parties on Ellesmere Island in the 50’s.

    • philjourdan says:

      Tony, I did not tell you to verify the papers. I would not expect you to since you did not make the claim (among other reasons). However when you make a claim, you are expected to back it up. Not everyone else, just you.

      I have no doubt you think it is everyone else’s job to cover Cooks arse. So if that is indeed your desire, I suggest you get to it. otherwise, shut up. It is Nunya. But like always, you want to make it yours.

      You are welcome to buy the lie. But unless you can prove otherwise, we can safely say that 97% of the papers referenced by Cook were lied about by cook. We have more evidence for that fact than you have wishes it is not so.

  5. miked1947 says:

    John Cook’s web site and actions are doing more to destroy the AGW agenda than anything sceptics could think to do. It makes me wonder if that might be his primary goal. What I have read from those on his team fall into that category also. I admit to having read about this at Lucia’s site and she had some of the comments they made while reviewing the papers.

Leave a Reply to philjourdan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s