From The ” GEE, NO SHIT ” File For Mar 26 2015

Finally. A piece about the so-called “97% consensus ” being the bullshit it is. We have known for quite some time that figure was as specious as the methodology by which it was arrived at.

And NOW, we have MORE proof. Prof. Richard Tol, of the University At Essex, has exposed this fraudulence once again. From Donna Rachel Edmunds at Breitbart.com

 

Institute of Physics Accused of Corruption as Climate Change ’97 Percent Consensus’ Claim is Debunked

 by Donna Rachel Edmunds  25 Mar 2015

Uhhh……not so much. Of course, the left will NEVER admit to that. Truth is anathema to them.

 

In the nearly two years since John Cook and his colleagues published their ’97 percent’ paper claiming a scientific consensus on climate change, the term ’97 percent’ has become something of a mantra for global warming advocates. President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” The Guardian runs a regular column headed “Climate Consensus – the 97%” (regular contributors include co-authors of the original paper).

The paper, published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience has been downloaded over 300,000 times and was voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters. But does the 97 percent claim stack up? (h/t Bishop Hill)

Richard Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, says no. He has penned a blog, since published in edited form by The Australian, thoroughly debunking Cook’s paper, its methodology, its results, and the way it has been used by climate change advocates.

“Climate research lost its aura of impartiality with the unauthorised release of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia,” Tol says. “Its reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann. Innocence went with the allegations of sexual harassment by Rajendra Pachauri and Peter Gleick’s fake memo.

“Cook’s 97% nonsensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.”

Firstly, Tol points out that science doesn’t depend on consensus. A scientific truth is objective not subjective; that is, it’s true whether one person adheres to it, or everybody adheres to it.

Secondly, Cook’s paper, titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not.

That aside, Tol highlights problems specific to Cook’s paper, such as the fact that, although Cook and his team sampled over 12,000 papers to reach their conclusion, they “did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.”

That wasn’t the only sampling issue – further analysis has found that their sample was “padded with irrelevant papers,” such as an article on TV coverage of climate change which has been used as evidence to support climate change. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.

Despite these and other issues, the paper’s editor praised the paper for its “excellent data quality”. Refusal to hand over data for third party analysis breaches the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet an editorial board member of the journal defended Cook’s obfuscation as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

The conduct of the Institute of Physics as the publishers of the report, and the University of Queensland, Cook’s employer, in protecting him has led the blogger Andrew Montford to accuse them of corruption.

“As an indictment of the corruption of climate science it’s hard to beat. That the Institute of Physics and the University of Queensland would stand behind such a blatant piece of politicking and deceit is almost beyond belief.

“As far as they are concerned when it comes to climate science there is no study too fraudulent, no conduct too reprehensible, no deception too blatant,” he said.

THIS is more like the truth.

 

 

~

While this is, indeed, good news, my belief is the climate change criminals would just deny deny deny it.

This 97 % consensus crap is just like the REST of the scam, in that it won’t die the death it richly deserves.

It also is too bad the leftist lying loons do not want to debate this issue. It certainly is one that SHOULD have open, HONEST debate, especially if the consequences are as dire as the left says they are.

It is my contention that the left, as with all things they do, it is simply about whatever money they can scam, or control over the people they believe they can exert. And THAT is what absolutely MUST be stopped.

~

CLYDE. Damn the leftist lying loons all to hell.

Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to From The ” GEE, NO SHIT ” File For Mar 26 2015

  1. captbogus2 says:

    It all reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon.
    Lucy is lecturing Linus on some scientific subject, getting the facts totally wrong..
    Charlie Brown interrupts her, correcting her with the actual facts.
    She looks at Charlie Brown for one square and turns and continues lecturing Linus with her totally false ‘facts’.

  2. Kathy says:

    “As far as they are concerned when it comes to climate science there is no study too fraudulent, no conduct too reprehensible, no deception too blatant.”

    That statement pretty much says it all – they don’t care so long as the money keeps pouring in.

    • clyde says:

      Exactly, Kathy. Shut off the money spigot, this issue, (which, according to the latest Gallup poll, less than 2% of those surveyed said was a problem), will disappear, and the drive-by leftists will move on to the NEXT manufactured “crisis”. Good comment, thanks.

  3. Uriel says:

    And yet these idiots are pushing ahead according to leftists articles to imprison, fine, and or both anyone especially scientists who Disagree with them. Unbelieveable.

  4. Hardnox says:

    Good post bro.

    Sadly the lemmings will never learn about this fraud. They are too focused on air pressures in footballs.