Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

97% Bullshit

That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% by Joanne Nova

Excerpt:

We’ve already found enough flaws, but Christopher Monckton analyzes John Cook’s 97% consensus paper and sharpens the scythe. He finds:

  1. It should never have been done, it’s an unscientific method — “consensus”
  2. The “consensus” was defined in three different ways. (Which hypothesis are they testing?) None of the three definitions is specific enough to be falsifiable.
  3. The paper strangely omitted the key results. (Why make 7 classifications, if they were not going to disclose how many papers fell into each category?)
  4. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong.
  5. None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.
  6. The consensus (such as there is, and it being irrelevant) appears to be declining.

The nice thing about this commentary is that Monckton provides a summary of the philosophy of science (showing Cook et al are 2,300 years out of date). Monckton has also checked Cook’s own data which was finally provided (several weeks after publication) and compares Cook to Oreskes, Anderegg, and Doran and Zimmerman and explains why they are wrong too.

Previously I’ve also pointed out the 12 reasons the paper fails, including that the number of papers is merely a proxy for funding, not evidence about the climate; most of the papers merely assume man-made warming is real, and some papers are 20 years old and the evidence has changed.

The non-disclosure in Cook et al. of the number of abstracts supporting each specified level of endorsement had the effect of not making available the fact that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the quantitative hypothesis, stated in the introduction to Cook et al. and akin to similar definitions in the literature, that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”.

Print This Post Print This Post

Lukewarmers

polar-bears-mate-at-berlin-zoo

Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm in the Wall Street Journal by Matt Ridley

Excerpt:

In climate science, the real debate has never been between “deniers” and the rest, but between “lukewarmers,” who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming. Scientists like Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Richard Lindzen of MIT MITD +47.69% have moved steadily toward lukewarm views in recent years.

Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, “for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers,” such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.

Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such change—which essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm. Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

Print This Post Print This Post

Science is Not a Democracy

from Popular Technology. Net

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Shaviv: “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.”

 

Print This Post Print This Post

Embracing Skepticism

from A Change fo Climate by Mark Steyn:

“Climate Change Not A Top Worry In US,” reports Gallup, deadpan. Washington’s Potemkin parliament can hold as manypajama parties as it wants, but Big Climate absolutism is going nowhere, and the savvier scientists – the ones who haven’t been seduced by political patrons and celebrity pals – are beginning to understand they need to figure out a different tack. Dr Judith Curry’s recent post on “positioning skeptics” (drawing on a longer essay by Ben Pile) includes the following observation by Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University:

It has been amusing to watch the apparent surprise of many climate scientists at their discovery that many “climate sceptics” are actually lukewarmers. Taking a rough and ready definition, that lukewarmers believe in AGW but doubt catastrophic AGW, one could reasonably place many of the more famous sceptics (Liljegren, McIntyre implicitly, Montford, Watts explicitly) in that camp, together with a number of “maverick” climate scientists (Curry, Lewis, Lindzen).

Mustafa Prize winner Michael E Mann doesn’t want you to think like this. In Mann’s world, there are two teams – Scientists vs Deniers – and if you don’t root root root for the home team you must be with the other fellows’. Thus, Dr Curry was a scientist until she found herself in partial disagreement with Mann, at which point he moved her on to the “#AntiScience” team. Michael Liebreich is on the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Group on Sustainable Energy and the Clinton Global Initiative’s Climate Change working group, but he linked to a piece by James Delingpole, so Dr Mann moved him into the “fan of uber-deniers” category, and for good measure added “#Damning #Unconstructive” (Dr Mann holds the Nobel Prize in Hashtags).

HKO

Science progresses by embracing skepticism, not crushing it.

 

Print This Post Print This Post

Genghis Khan and AGW

 GenghisKhanFeatureDec8_large

From The National Review Online, Alec Torres writes  Global Warming & the Mongolian Empire’s Rise:

Now a recent study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that there is a correlation between increasing global temperatures and the rise of the Mongolian empire. According to “Pluvials, droughts, the Mongol Empire, and modern Mongolia,” the “dramatic increase in temperature and precipitation in the 13th century” increased grassland production, favoring the formation of Mongolian power, which was predominantly reliant on horses.

Now a recent study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that there is a correlation between increasing global temperatures and the rise of the Mongolian empire. According to “Pluvials, droughts, the Mongol Empire, and modern Mongolia,” the “dramatic increase in temperature and precipitation in the 13th century” increased grassland production, favoring the formation of Mongolian power, which was predominantly reliant on horses.