polar-bears-mate-at-berlin-zoo

James Taylor from Forbes, Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

Also read

Also from James Taylor, Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

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

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus

 

The rebuttal

HKO

given the huge complexity that is the issue of far distant climate predictions, the variable sources that influence climate, the limitations of climate (or any other) models, and the politicization of the debate I can not understand how such a high consensus would be real- it is most likely a classical case study in the misuse of statistics and should be used as an example of statistical manipulation in every class.

print