Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors‚?? claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world‚??s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported he and his colleagues found 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming ‚??endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.‚?Ě
As is the case with other ‚??surveys‚?? alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed did not address the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and skeptics. The question Cook and his colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. Most skeptics, like most alarmists, believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue dividing the two is whether humans are causing a global warming crisis demanding concerted action.
Nevertheless, global warming alarmists have been reporting the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis.
Skeptics Classified as Alarmists
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology¬† looked into which papers were classified within Cook‚??s asserted 97 percent. The investigatiors found Cook and his colleagues classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner, and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‚??consensus‚?? position on global warming ‚??without minimizing‚?Ě the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, ‚??That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‚??consensus‚?? position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
‚??Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,‚?Ě Scafetta responded. ‚??What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.‚?Ě
‚??Not an Accurate Representation‚??
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‚??consensus‚?Ě position about human-induced global warming.
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, ‚??Nope…. It is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1¬įC).‚?Ě
‚??I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.
Skeptical Papers Discarded
Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking ‚??no position‚?Ě on human-caused global warming. In such instances, they simply pretended the paper did not exist, in regard to their 97 percent claim.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology Cook classifying one of his papers as ‚??no position‚?Ě was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as ‚??no position.‚?Ě
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,‚?Ě said Soon.
‚??I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,‚?Ě Soon emphasized.
James M. Taylor (email@example.com) is managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
This piece was first published at the Heartlander.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter