Bjorn Lomborg comments at Facebook on the Cook 97% survey. Has climate science gotten so bad that it is now resorting to utterly phony claims? Cook confirms that indeed it has.
Here’s what Lomborg writes (my emphasis, links shortened):
Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted?
Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data.
It has always been a dodgy paper (iopscience.iop.org/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)….
The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, notalotofpeopleknowthat/).
It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position. They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.
Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors haven’t released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantative assessments).
Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards (by Obama and many others).
Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.
Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: ‘the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.’ (www.uq.edu.au/
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
2013/08/ open-letter-to-vice-chancel lor-of.html.