What is your response to the hundreds of scientists who stated that Cook falsely classified their papers?
Do you expect every paper on the average size of crabs in the Chesapeake to automatically be assumed to support AGW?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
What is your response to the hundreds of scientists who stated that Cook falsely classified their papers?
Do you expect every paper on the average size of crabs in the Chesapeake to automatically be assumed to support AGW?
The Legate paper demonstrates conclusively how absurd Cook's methods and assertions are - that is the entire intent of the Legates paper. Criticizing the Legates paper for bring an inverse mirror of Cook's methods ("redefining the Cook paper") simply serves to demonstrate the absurdity of Cook's paper.
What is your response to the hundreds of scientists who stated that Cook falsely classified their papers (stating they support AGW when the paper has no position on AGW)
That is interesting. Can you cite a source for this report from hundreds of scientists?
That is interesting. Can you cite a source for this report from hundreds of scientists?
Go read the links I posted earlier. Go read all the previous posts on this subject for the four previous years in this forum.
Go read the links I posted earlier. Go read all the previous posts on this subject for the four previous years in this forum.
No. If you are making an assertion, it is your responsibility to source it. If you can't, I (and anyone else reading this) can only assume that you do not have a legitimate source to back your claim.
This is something that a simple Google search can demonstrate...
A simple search on - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them - brings up over 300,000 results... so have at it.
The climate change advocate strategy of always demanding other people source material to back obvious facts that have been widely detailed while never reading the material people post --- doesn't work around here.
Let's go with some quotes and you can work out the rest of it...
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? 'Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." - Dr. Morner
'I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake'" - Dr. Soon
'No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.' - Dr. Carlin
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...lin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
A simple search on - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them - brings up over 300,000 results... so have at it.
The climate change advocate strategy of always demanding other people source material to back obvious facts that have been widely detailed while never reading the material people post --- doesn't work around here.
Let's go with some quotes and you can work out the rest of it...
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? 'Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." - Dr. Morner
'I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake'" - Dr. Soon
'No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.' - Dr. Carlin
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...lin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
you do not think that is not peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming do you?
that is a paper about survey of scientists
that is a paper about survey of scientists
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
It is actually a paper about a survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed papers, and these papers showing a very strong trend of opinion among climate scientists in agreement around AGW. So, you're right, it is not a single paper on direct climate science, but a review of the literature, which itself is a common type of scientific study.you do not think that is not peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming do you?
that is a paper about survey of scientists
This is something that a simple Google search can demonstrate...
A simple search on - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them - brings up over 300,000 results... so have at it.
The climate change advocate strategy of always demanding other people source material to back obvious facts that have been widely detailed while never reading the material people post --- doesn't work around here.
Let's go with some quotes and you can work out the rest of it...
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? 'Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." - Dr. Morner
'I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake'" - Dr. Soon
'No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.' - Dr. Carlin
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...lin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
Thank you for posting the link, it facilitates the conversation.
I am a little confused; you said before that hundreds of scientists stated that Cook falsified their papers, yet the article you posted only references about 8 scientists. Maybe I missed something?
Thank you for posting the link, it facilitates the conversation.
I am a little confused; you said before that hundreds of scientists stated that Cook falsified their papers, yet the article you posted only references about 8 scientists. Maybe I missed something?
You missed the many other articles citing other scientists. All which can easily be found with a Google search.