Obama retweets Cook paper finding 97% scientists agree AGW real to 31 million followers

John Cook and his team should be congratulated:

Now that is making a difference to the public understanding of science.

John is also interviewed on CNN“The opponents of climate action have been really good at amplifying…. the voices of the 3%”

 

 

Tagged , , , ,

104 thoughts on “Obama retweets Cook paper finding 97% scientists agree AGW real to 31 million followers

  1. john byatt says:

    Well done John, Skeptical science is one of the highest regarded blogs on the internet and often referenced by many scientists around the World.

    first choice for information? google “Skeptical Science (subject)

  2. catweazle666 says:

    >>Skeptical science is one of the highest regarded blogs on the internet <<

    Lets check that, shall we?

    wattsupwiththat.com Alexa Traffic Rank: 25,753

    skepticalscience.com Alexa Traffic Rank: 137,809

    As I'm sure you're aware, smaller = better.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      Yep, pretty handy thing that Alexa. Shows that your kind are a dying breed.

      http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/readership-of-all-major-sceptic-blogs-going-down.html

      • catweazle666 says:

        But it seems from that link that alarmist blogs are going down too – not as if they were that high to start with, and are currently running at around an order of magnitude less popularity than sceptic blogs, especially WUWT.

        So it seems your kind are dying even faster.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Well done on using your trusty eyecrometer. No doubt that’s the same eyecrometer you use when misinterpreting many graphs. Perhaps if you actually try reading things you might become enlightened. By the way, quantity does not equal quality. I’m guessing that all those retired angry old white men have a bit more time on their hands to visit the denial echo chambers and have their anti-science prejudices stroked than the more discerning and scientifically literate who accept the scientific consensus do to find accurate information.

    • john byatt says:

      What is with the sceptics claiming to accept that humans are the cause of global warming yet also writing nonsense that 97% of scientists do not

      http://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/

      does cat accept that humans are the cause ?

    • Nick says:

      .SkS: “..and often referenced by many scientists around the world”, Weazle is not disputing that at least. We should be thankful…

      Whereas Watts is only referenced by behavioral scientists documenting conspiratorial ideation. Funny,that.

    • And there I was, reading how so-called sceptics maintained they were the truth because the overwhelming majority of scientists disagreed with them. Because they were in a minority they must be right. Now I realise they’re claiming they’re the truth because they get a lot of hits, as measured by one of the web’s least reliable tools. Another deniar impossible thing to believe before breakfast. Unfortunately for deniars, blog science readership isn’t the measure; peer-reviewed science is.

      I write this as an angry old white engineer.🙂 I’m Watts’ target demographic. But any old fool can see Watts is a fool.

  3. catweazle666 says:

    >>What is with the sceptics claiming to accept that humans are the cause of global warming<<

    What sceptics accept that?

    We wouldn't be sceptics if we did, would we?

    • john byatt says:

      Monckton, Watts and Jo Nova all accept that humans are the cause of global warming

      Cat must be in that very small group who do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ?

      • john byatt says:

        Both Lindzen and Spencer accept that humans are the cause of global warming,

        I would go so far as to state that 90% of sceptics accept that humans are the cause of global warming

      • john byatt says:

        Jo Nova ” feedbacks CO2 will only cause 1.2C of warming.”

        this is accepting that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the warming,

        Even eric claims low sensitivity but does not deny that humans have contributed to the warming,

      • catweazle666 says:

        >>Cat must be in that very small group who do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ?<<

        No, just one of the small group – which clearly does not include you – with a full appreciation of the limitations imposed on the effect of CO2 that result from the logarithmic relationship between its concentration and its heat trapping capability.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “…a full appreciation…” Oh weasel so wise, please do explain your full appreciation..in great detail.

      • john byatt says:

        Come on cat you can admit it

        have human emissions of CO2 caused warming,

        that is the question , Yes or No ?

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “just one of the small group with a full appreciation of the limitations imposed on the effect of CO2 that result from the logarithmic relationship between its concentration and”

        You mean like each extra molecule of CO2 added when it reaches 560 ppm (heaven forbid) will have only half the effect that they did when it was 280 ppm?

        No shit, Sherlock!

  4. john byatt says:

    What about old “my work here is nearly done” Mark

    what say you kemo sabe, have humans caused global warming or not?

    even Nova has to go off on a tangent about the IPCC,

    simply question “do you agree with the consensus that humans have caused global warming’

    as kemo sabe would say, “why is this so hard”?

    • Mark says:

      In another thread a day or so ago I wrote, in response to someone who’d said:

      “note the consensus is that humans are the cause of global warming”

      (I wrote) “Yep and the sceptic view is that humans are a cause of global warming. There is a world of difference in those articles.”

      At the time I wondered if I was being too subtle for this group but decided to leave it at that. But clearly I need to elaborate.

      The consensus view is that humans are the cause of the 20th century warming. Now I’d doubt that many in the consensus are of the view that man is the only cause. I’d opine that most would agree that natural factors play some role, if only to try to rationalise away the recent temperature hiatus. So when we say that the consensus view is that man is the cause of GW the sub-text is that man is the primary cause.

      On the other hand, the sceptic view would be that man is a cause. I’d opine that few sceptics would disagree with the idea that CO2 emissions have some effect. Every time I breathe out I have some effect on climate in the same way as every time I move from the lounge-room to the bathroom, I’m changing the centre of gravity of the universe. The question is how much of the warming is caused by the man as against nature. The sceptic view is that nature is much more important than man. But if push came to shove. I’d doubt there’d be much agreement as to the percentage of man v. nature warming. Is it 10%, 25%, 40%. But I’d think that most sceptics would say that natural overwhelms man in terms of warming and that, when nature is biased toward cooling or stability, man’s emissions are close to irrelevant.

      From this then follows the issue of the future. If you are of the view that its mostly man then you’ll assume more CO2 will lead to more warming. If you are of the view that its mostly natural then you’ll assume that natural forces will overwhelm the CO2 effect and will therefore oppose any measures (apart from no-regrets measures) to reign in emissions.

      So this is a long way of answering the question:”do you agree with the consensus that humans have caused global warming”.

      Answer no:(1) its the wrong question.
      (2) I think humans have caused some global warming.

      • john byatt says:

        whether you think that it is the wrong question or not is irrelevant

        the question is resolved as @ skeptical science

        “A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming”

        you agree with the consensus, so why do deniers find it so hard to accept that scientists also accept that humans are causing global warming, yet there are numerous blogs rejecting that consensus by trying to rewrite the question .

      • Mark says:

        John,
        I just got through explaining what I understand the consensus to be and why I don’t accept it and you then inform me that “you agree with the consensus,”

        I’m sure someone somewhere thinks that makes sense but not in the world I inhabit.

      • john byatt says:

        Mark sorry but you do not get to decide the nature of the consensus

        again “A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming”

        now do you agree with that or not?

      • Mark says:

        Do I agree with what? That they surveyed 12000 (or 10000?) papers and used some sort of criteria to determine that most of them didn’t dispute that man caused some of the warming? Yep, I agree there was survey.

        So is that it. there is a consensus there was a survey? Wow, hold the presses.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Careful, when you pretend to be stupid, people will think you are stupid….oh wait.

      • john byatt says:

        haha cannot give a straight answer

      • Mark says:

        I’ll give a straight answer to a straight question. Indeed I thought I already had done so.
        But I have no idea what you’re talking about and I strongly suspect that makes two of us🙂

        If anyone here speaks gibberish, perhaps they can translate what John is on about.

      • Nick says:

        Real sceptics–scientists– understand that natural forcings,acting on varying time scales, could overwhelm current ACO2 forcing. They also understand that at present,this is not happening. The numbers have been crunched. We know the values per m2 that need to be exerted negatively to offset or overwhelm ACO2 values,and for how long these negative forcings have to operate.

        Really it is one of the first investigations that science makes in a multi-factorial forcing scenarios. Physics demands such an investigatory process. You need to be aware of how much effort has been put into attribution study,and this list is not complete.

        Fake sceptics insist in the absence of evidence that natural forcings are playing a larger role than ACO2 in current warming. The insisting business works better with the help of evidence.

      • john byatt says:

        NO mark you had to qualify your answer to the question

        :are humans causing global warming

        it is a simple question and you have said that you believe that some of the warming is caused by humans

        so you accept that but you all find it unbelievable that 97% of scientists also believe that,

        this is the main point , monckton jo nova watts and most of the world’s sceptics will all say they believe that humans have caused warming but for some weird reason do not afford the scientists the same acceptance

      • zoot says:

        I’m sure someone somewhere thinks that makes sense but not in the world I inhabit.

        What is this world Mark? Obviously not planet earth.

      • Mark says:

        via John:

        “are humans causing global warming

        it is a simple question”

        Actually its a simplistic question. There is no correct answer.

        Its in the vein of “Have you stopped beating your wife”.

        Any answer will mislead.

        If I answer yes it implies that I think humans are the main or only cause.
        If I answer no it implies that I think humans play no part.

        Neither answer is correct.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “I’d opine that most would agree that natural factors play some role,”

        Short term oscillatory natural forcings like El Nino/La Nina play a role, but these do not add up to anything more than their short term difference over a long period of time. Unlike what we’re doing with CO2 forcing, which just keeps increasing indefinitely.

        “So when we say that the consensus view is that man is the cause of GW the sub-text is that man is the primary cause”

        of the vast majority of forcing over a long period of time. CO2 forcing just keeps adding up and up. El Nino/La Nina and other natural forcings don’t (apart from a small amount of solar forcing in the past).

    • BBD says:

      Mark

      The sceptic view is that nature is much more important than man. But if push came to shove. I’d doubt there’d be much agreement as to the percentage of man v. nature warming. Is it 10%, 25%, 40%. But I’d think that most sceptics would say that natural overwhelms man in terms of warming and that, when nature is biased toward cooling or stability, man’s emissions are close to irrelevant.

      The “sceptic” view has no coherent scientific support. A scatter of badly flawed papers is not a coherent body of work. Fact: there is no scientific evidence supporting this position but there is a very great deal of scientific evidence supporting the “predominantly anthropogenic” hypothesis for warming since ~1970. So the “sceptic” position is not sceptical at all. It is illogical and rejectionist.

      Please explain how “nature is biased toward cooling or stability”. As someone with an interest in paleoclimate behaviour I find this intriguing. Be sure to reference your response to the published literature. You can get around the link limit by simply quoting the paper eg: Hansen & Sato (2012). I will look up the reference.

      • Mark says:

        “Please explain how “nature is biased toward cooling or stability”.

        What I said was when “nature is biased toward cooling or stability”.ie depending on things like solar activity, The Chandler wobble, and all the other natural phenomena that affect climate, sometimes there is a bias toward cooling (eg LIA), sometimes there is a bias toward warming (eg post Dalton).
        You want a paper showing a time when there was a bias toward cooling – Marcott et al 2013.It says there was a 5000+yr bias toward cooling.

        Let me know if you can’t find it but it was in all the papers.
        .

      • john byatt says:

        when i read his nonsense i knew that anyone that far gone would be beyond any understanding at all, You are making the mistake BBD of believing that you are speaking to a rational person,

      • john byatt says:

        kemo sabi, you are just making a fool of yourself,

        “Biased towards stability”

        wipe coffee off computer

      • BBD says:

        Okay Mark, let’s play.

        We (that is I) know *why* there is a ~5ka cooling trend in the late Holocene. What is the cause?

      • john byatt says:

        bet you he does ,

      • Mark says:

        Hang on, before we move onto the next bit of inanity, do we now agree that there are times when we have a natural bias toward cooling?

      • BBD says:

        What I said was when “nature is biased toward cooling or stability”.ie depending on things like solar activity, The Chandler wobble, and all the other natural phenomena that affect climate, sometimes there is a bias toward cooling (eg LIA), sometimes there is a bias toward warming (eg post Dalton).

        Please don’t use “bias” when you mean “forced response to radiative perturbation”.

        If you use the correct terminology it will be easier for you to see when you are spouting nonsense.

      • BBD says:

        Why the ~5ka cooling trend, Mark?

      • Mark says:

        again:

        “Hang on, before we move onto the next bit of inanity, do we now agree that there are times when we have a natural bias toward cooling?”

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        The correct name for these morons is cynics.

        1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
        2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

        If they were truly sceptical they would apply scepticism to all sides of the alleged debate, yet they don’t. Most of them like Eric and mark in here just regurgitate the garbage fed to them by Watts, Nova et al without a single thought to whether the information is sound.

      • Mark says:

        So uknow_etc your answer to my question:
        ““Hang on, before we move onto the next bit of inanity, do we now agree that there are times when we have a natural bias toward cooling?”

        is:change the subject.

        I know why you don’t want to answer it. That’s why its fun to keep asking it.

        BTW, was the climate ‘normal’ in your neck of the woods today?

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “You want a paper showing a time when there was a bias toward cooling – Marcott et al 2013.It says there was a 5000+yr bias toward cooling.”

        We’re already aware that we’re in a period of decreasing astronomical forcing (modern global warming notwithstanding). However, what, pray tell, did you mean by “stability” in “cooling or stability”?

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “was the climate ‘normal’ in your neck of the woods today?”

        Another clown who doesn’t realise that just one day doesn’t tell you the climate.

      • BBD says:

        Mark

        “Hang on, before we move onto the next bit of inanity, do we now agree that there are times when we have a natural bias toward cooling?”

        Before we continue, you need to address your misuse of terminology. That is why I originally responded to the above with this:

        Please don’t use “bias” when you mean “forced response to radiative perturbation”.

        I then *restated* my original question to you which you have still not answered:

        We (that is I) know *why* there is a ~5ka cooling trend in the late Holocene. What is the cause?

        Now, stop being evasive and answer the question. Then we will be in a position to continue with this discussion sensibly.

        Thanks!

      • BBD says:

        In case it is not clear, the discussion is about forced climate response to radiative perturbation. We will look at the forcing mechanism behind the (predominantly NH)~5ka cooling trend characterising later Holocene and then the abrupt and significant modern warming described in Marcott et al. (2013):

        Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
        frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

        It is vital to appreciate that climate change doesn’t just “happen”. Certainly there is plenty of noise in the system but natural variability averages out over a few decades at most. Significant change, such as modern warming, requires a physical mechanism – a forcing – just like the ~5ka cooling trend that led down from the (somewhat misnomered) Holocene Climatic Optimum to the beginning of the C19th.

      • BBD says:

        And wither Mark?

        It’s so much easier to keep on trolling elsewhere than engage in a substantive discussion of forcings ancient and modern, isn’t it Mark?

        You are a coward.

  5. Mark says:

    Paul Keating once advised that when you’re in political trouble, throw a “bloody big piece of meat” in another direction to distract the press. When you look at the times he raised the republican issue, it was always when the current coarse of politics wasn’t moving his way and he needed a distraction.

    With the scandals around Benghazi,the IRS and AAP swamping the administration, the Obamessiah definitely needs a distraction. Seems he’s found a pre-Cooked piece of meat to throw.

    • Nick says:

      Oh sure,Cook’s paper will be huge for Obama….

      Meanwhile, what is the Murdoch press throwing to distract you? Manufactured controversy over AGW, neo-lib whinging aimed at dislodging more public assets for privatisation, mixed with the usual mass opiates.

      • Mark says:

        Wow Nick, a true watermelon.

        Murdoch is pushing for privatisations…where?

        Mass opiates? You’ve got all the 19th century thought-free jargon down pat haven’t you.

      • Nick says:

        And Cooks paper will be huge for Obama… idiot.

        Murdoch’s news stable [Fox,WSJ,etc,] all run the small government, ‘government must run on business principles’, pro-privatisation pabulum in their editorials and via guest and in-house opinion…. Christ,were you born yesterday? No wonder you can be manipulated by Bolt and Blair….

      • Mark says:

        Ok, you’re right. It was silly to say that Cook’s paper would be “huge for Obama”. I apologise.
        Oh wait….I didn’t say that at all. You just made it up so as to avoid the substance of the issue. As per usual.

        No I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve been around more than long enough to recognise an ideologue when I see one. My experience has shown that ideologues rarely see past their prejudices and are prepared to latch onto any and all data, good or bad, if it advances, in their mind, the ideology.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        All that can be concluded from the Cook paper is that a survey conducted by a highly partisan participant in the debate produced a predictable result. The only unexpected metric was the large number of papers which were included in the “no mention” category.

      • Nick says:

        Mark,I did not say that you said that,so don’t apologise.

        Mark…..you gave us the pleasure of the Keating anecdote about throwing a bloody big piece of meat to distract the media…then you mentioned Obama’s need for such a distraction,a distraction that he ‘definitely’ needs because he is being ‘swamped’…and amusingly mention ‘pre-Cooked meat’.

        So I figure you think a ‘definitely being swamped’ Obama needs something big. Ya know,not small…like a twitter over a literature search paper. I’m sure Obama’s Twitter Team thinks Cook’s paper has got them covered….

        Sure,Cooks paper will be huge for Obama… the substance of your issue. You asserted that Obama was needing a distraction and implied that his twit on Cook was motivated by that need. Amazingly,I scoffed.

        You keep lobbing it up,and I’ll help explain what it means to you. OK?

      • Nick says:

        I notice that Eric still has not read the methodology section of the Cook paper.

      • Mark says:

        Nick,

        I made a mildly amusing joke drawing on the famous Keating meat comment and Cook’s name. As I recall Keating talked about raw meat so it made more sense.

        I wasn’t making any deep political comment. I figured it would sail over most heads here so I did it for my own amusement.

        A bit like what you do with horses🙂. That’s another joke btw. No deep meaning.

        You guys are sooooooo serious.
        Anyone would think the fate of civilisation hung on the outcome of the AGW issue.

      • Nick says:

        Yes,I did enjoy you joining the horse mouth to my arse. Seriously! Doh,I’ve done it again…

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “You guys are sooooooo serious.”

        How do you know they’re being more serious than you?

    • john byatt says:

      eric’s recent comment that scientists are playing things close to their chest

      correct eric but for wrong reason.

      While most of the interest has been positive, Mr Cook expects some negative attention from those who reject the scientific consensus – something that some academics have found to their dismay.
      “Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.
      “There’s an increase in academic bullying where climate deniers are sending complaints to journals or the university … and this actually works.
      “I’ve have anecdotal examples of academics who are scared of that kind of reaction and who are playing things close to their chest – which is a real shame,” he said.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I never suggested that all the non mentions were “deniers”. What I disputed was the suggestion that non mentions were “obviously” because acceptance is ubiquitous.

        I think it much more likely that scientists who choose not to mention climate change are worried about being bullied.

        Consider that some alarmist scientists received death threats in the wake of Climategate (I know someone whose sister works for the WA government as an environmental researcher – he said she received death threats).

        And consider the Climategate archive also shows evidence of bullying and misbehaviour towards “deniers”. No threats of violence, except Ben Santer’s threat to “beat up” Pat Michaels (obviously just bluster), but who knows what has really happened? Certainly being accused publicly of being on the take from Big Oil, or worse, could have a detrimental effect on someone’s happiness and mental well being.

        A lot of people, especially if they have families, will have strong motives to simply stay out of it. I can certainly not blame them for making such a decision. To do anything else is to invite the risk of death threats, intellectual bullying, or to put your family at risk of abuse from the lunatic fringe of activists for whom words are not enough.

      • john byatt says:

        You do need to work on your memory app

        Eric Worrall says:
        May 16, 2013 at 1:23 am
        Not quite.

        Cook’s survey found 97% of papers which *mentioned* global warming attributed it to humans, but that was only 32% of the papers surveyed.

        Given the politicisation of the issue, its entirely possible a significant number of scientists in the large set of papers which didn’t mention global warming had different views, but decided to keep their heads down.

        You are claiming the exact opposite here

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Reading is a skill you should cultivate John.

        I never claimed that all the “non mentions” are in the “denier” camp.

        I suggested that it is possible a significant number of them did – that it is just as ridiculous to assume all none mentions are in the alarmist camp, as it would be to assume all the non mentions are in the “denier” camp.

        I developed this theme, in the comment above, by giving reasons why scientists on both sides of the debate might want to avoid courting controversy.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “alarmist scientists”

        What an oxymoron.

      • Nick says:

        Hey Chris, don’t you know the collective noun for scientists is an ‘alarm’? Which would mean that the collective for medical doctors is an ‘hysteria’…

  6. Eric Worrall says:

    Obama is getting kindof desperate on the environmental front.

    His Chicago Climate Exchange is in tatters – fell on its face.

    His efforts to get the EPA to do his dirty work have foundered, with the forced resignation of Lisa Jackson, for using false identities, in my opinion to hide from freedom of information requests (details available on request). In addition, Congress are blocking EPA efforts, with the ever present threat of withdrawing all funding for the EPA (Congress controls the pursestrings).

    Shale Gas has made a mockery of his efforts to shift America to renewables – a long cry from “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”.

    He might even be forced to approve the Keystone Pipeline, or see his party and legacy crucified at the polls for destroying jobs and prosperity.

    Even his Obamacare is in trouble – a hostile Republican Congress has watered it down, and regularly uses it as a pawn in political games.

    Finally, economic hardship has focussed people’s minds on more immediate issues than the possibility the world might warm sometime in the future – people who can’t pay their bills, whose kids are going hungry, who might lose their miserable job, don’t give a sh*t about the environment.

    What will be Obama’s legacy? A real chance it will be a BIG FAT NOTHING – any remnants of his eco-activism or healthcare will likely be torn up by the next administration.

    So he twitters on the edges – powerless to deliver any substance.

    • Nick says:

      Yep,the business of the Republicans,under the orders of their corporate masters and in blind rage at being rejected by the electorate, is to cut off the USA’s nose to spite its face…and a more unconstructive bunch of dead-eyed swindlers,God-bothering hypocrites and hired liars has rarely been seen.

    • BBD says:

      Blind links are poor etiquette and I never read them. Please summarise your point, if any.

    • BBD says:

      Here is mine to you:

      – AGW is a consequence of the laws of physics
      – AGW has barely begun to emerge from the noise
      – Paleoclimate behaviour, NOT models, sets a lower bound to fast feedback sensitivity to 2xCO2 of ~2C
      – Sff/2xC02 is most likely to be close to 3C

    • Nick says:

      Just some idiot demonstrating that he should design his own survey.

      • BBD says:

        It’s always worth remembering that Lucia, despite her superficial patina of reasonableness, attends Heartland conferences and did not excoriate HI for the billboards. It’s not immediately apparent, but over time it becomes obvious that she is far from the open-minded MOR. Over time.

      • Nick says:

        Pretty interesting thread on the previous Shollenberger post at The Blackboard… the core suggestion/accusation is that because [as hacked email communications reveal…[what is it with these people and filching correspondence?]] the reviewers discuss how to review the papers and have to modify process, then their claimed independence at the rating period is false. This is nonsense of course,and is explained by other commenters,and at the thread at SkS devoted to the survey.. The hostess at The B’board is Gish Galloping away trying to explain herself,and not very well…

        The other suggestion that the survey process could be better designed seems reasonable. Then they generally agree that the survey is unnecessary.

        Oh,and Tony Watts turns up,crows stupidly, then has a tizzy when someone upbraids him. He really should try and finish that paper…

  7. catweazle666 says:

    Meanwhile, back in the UK, The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is preparing to cut the number of civil servants working on climate adaptation from over 30 officials to just six

    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2268806/defra-prepares-to-slash-climate-adaptation-team-to-just-six-officials

  8. […] make the right call on Keystone XL, that'll cheer us up. But I ha'e me doots as the Scotsman said. Obama retweets Cook paper finding 97% scientists agree AGW real to 31 million followers | Watching t… Sign in or Register Now to […]

  9. john byatt says:

    massive amount of coverage for John’s paper

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmedia

  10. catweazle666 says:

    Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading; fails to mention they found more papers rejecting AGW than say humans are primarily responsible

    Cooking the books: John Cook’s new survey is not only meaningless, but is also highly misleading because it fails to mention that they found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily responsible! Only 65 out of a total of 12,271 abstracts endorsed the position that man is primarily responsible for climate change. That would indicate a 0.5% non-consensus on man-made global warming.

    This is how you can replicate the numbers. Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search and type just a single letter in the search term box (I used “a”). This generates the total of 12,271 abstracts. Then select the whole period 1991-2011 and just search the 7 different categories. This generates the table from the blog post above.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but.html

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      This is possibly the funniest comment yet. Denier comment of the day material I think.

      • john byatt says:

        it is obvious that catz has not looked at the papers, everyone i looked at was spot on for category it was placed in

  11. catweazle666 says:

    Seems the Germans aren’t keen either.

    Spiegel Trashes John Cook’s Survey. Man’s Impact “Remains Hotly Disputed”…Only 10% Have Faith In Models

    German flagship news magazine Spiegel Online today has an article authored by Axel Bojanowski which takes a close look at the recent John Cook survey. German alarmists like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research hailed it as proof that climate science was settled and done.

    But Spiegel draws a different a totally conclusion.

    First Bojanowski describes how a large number of Americans have serious doubts when it comes to man-made climate change, and so surveys get conducted with the aim of trying to sway public opinion. The latest was carried out by John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, and the results were published in the journal of Environmental Research Letters: 97% of thousands of papers surveyed agree that climate change is man-made, it asserted.

    But Bojanowski trashes the findings:

    There’s an obvious discrepancy between the public perception and reality. The authors speak about ‘consensus on man-made climate change’ – and thus this threatens to further increase confusion within the public. The survey confirms only a banality: Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that man is responsible for at least a part of the climate warming. The important question of how big is man’s part in climate change remains hotly disputed.

    In the draft of the next UN report that will summarize climate science knowledge in September, it is stated: ‘It is extremely likely that human activity is responsible for more than half of the warming since the 1950s.’ The estimations from scientists on the exact extent vary vastly – here the consensus ends.”

    Bojanowski then gives Spiegel readers the results produced by Cook: “About two thirds took no position on the subject – they remained on the sidelines. 97% of the rest supported man-made impact.

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/18/spiegel-trashes-john-cooks-survey-mans-impact-remains-hotly-disputed-only-10-have-faith-in-models/

    • john byatt says:

      see , it has nothing to do with sensitivity nor feedbacks nor models it is a simple question that john has resolved, do most scientists accept that humans are warming the planet with CO2 emissions ? the answer is Yes

      so far I have not found one sceptic who rejects that,

      wait, maybe you reject that?

      as i have said the only reason for the panic and idiotic posts from the deniers is that they do not want the public to find out that the majority of scientists accept the consensus position

      ,

    • john byatt says:

      allow me to correct your accidental error

      “Seems the Germans aren’t keen either.”

      to “Seems that Axel Bojanowski is not keen either”

      do you understand the difference?

      • Nick says:

        Oh,that was like Err-ic’s ‘comprehensive survey’ of the solar terrestrial physics community’s view of solar-led warming…too funny! Sample size: one,sample quality: anecdotal, sample age: 13 years, anecdote key quantity: ‘many’.

        Survey result? Current STP community view is decisively a majority reject AGHGs as source of current warming.

        Maybe that’s Eric’s new app.: Extrapo-palooza!

      • john byatt says:

        Now what about a sceptic’s contradiction app

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

      • john byatt says:

        MY pick as the best

        AGW is religion God won’t allow it.

    • Nick says:

      C’weazle,can you think for yourself? It is pretty darn obvious what the hilariously-named ‘No Tricks Zone’ will want to do with this information,so no need link.

      What do you think…provided you read the methodology section,you should be able to form an opinion independently!

      The reason why “about two-thirds of papers took no position” is because stating the obvious is not necessary.

      The percentage of papers that actively attempted argument against AGW was vanishingly tiny.

      • john byatt says:

        I read a few of the no position abstracts, things such as changing temperature and CO2 levels to see what that would do to nitrogen and water requirements of plants

        It does not say that it is warming, takes no position

        they have been very honest placing even that paper in the no position category

      • john byatt says:

        and with eric claiming that some papers did not express an opinion because they were keeping their heads low,

        just how absurd his comment was can be seen from this paper, one of those classified as taking no stance

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016699502000153

      • john byatt says:

        sks methodology to find papers to review

        The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004). We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’

    • Chris O'Neill says:

      “About two thirds took no position on the subject”

      What a shamelessly dishonest thing to say. Two thirds did not announce their position in a paper. That doesn’t mean they have no position.

Leave a 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: