Ben D » Fri May 16, 2014 9:49 pm wrote:...and some synchro...the 97% AGW consensus claim paper by Cook et al SkS team is making news as we speak...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/#ixzz31vsm3CoRWhere Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?5:03 PM 05/16/2014
The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.
Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.
“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,’’ Cook and his fellow authors wrote in their study which was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters last year.
The university has told climate skeptic blogger Brandon Schollenberger that the data on the study he possesses was illegally obtained and they would take legal action against him if he published it.
“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” said Queensland’s acting pro-vice-chancellor Alastair McEwan.
“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity,” McEwan added. “Such conditions are not uncommon in academic research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”
McEwan said that all the data Cook used to come up with his “97 percent” consensus was published on his blog SkepticalScience.com. The school says it wants to protect the privacy of those surveyed in Cook’s research.
“That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter,” Schollenberger wrote on his blog Thursday. “Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands.”
“According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the ‘intellectual property’ (IP) I’ve gained access to,” Schollenberger added. “I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.”
“Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me,” he said.
Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.
The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
Yes, Ben very misleading, those last two paragraphs of yours. Astonishing, really, considering it's a piece written to discredit what is being claimed as misleading by Cook.
In truth, all climate researchers understand why and agree human contributions are warming our atmosphere and oceans. To what degree human impacts actually contribute to the overall warming is questioned by all.
Most climate researchers believe human contributions to be considerable enough to be significantly adding heat to our atmosphere and oceans and is contributing to the ongoing altering our climate.
Let's not forget how Global Warming research began... we were expecting a period of global cooling when it began getting warmer and warmer, prompting the question, "Why?" ('60s & '70s)
Of the few climate researchers who some have termed "AGW Deniers," (I cannot recall what the 'c' Ben's added represents nor does it matter), who've dissented from the larger consensus opinion stated above, most understand why human contributions warm our climate, but argue the degree of the impact cannot be significant enough to cause the observed overall warming of our atmosphere and oceans.
A few scientists, through their research have come to believe human contributions to be the major factor causing our present warming atmosphere and oceans when the it should be cooling.
And a very few climate researchers have determined human contributions to our atmosphere cannot possibly impact our climate or warm our oceans.
That's the entirety of the argument.
Peer review identifies most any error should any paper pass editorial review on the way to publication.
Sometimes, because of the extreme complexity of our chemical atmosphere, land and sea ecosystems something might be noticed to be missing from a certain aspect of research, such as when it was noticed that H2O molecules in our atmosphere was accounted by mass only and not its ability to magnify and concentrate sunlight, much as the fellow featured in a recent RI posting has discovered and is utilizing to produce solar power units.
This was helpful to researchers to learn but boy did the talking heads begin chattering about deception and flawed studies and models engaged in by the members of the IPCC.
We all remember how the Hockey Stick 'crisis' got played up big time by the corporatists and how the controversy over melting Himalayan glaciers. While the later was caused by a typo, the former was manufactured and neither finding significantly altered the overall findings and upheld the veracity of the research.
And that would be that our human contributions to our air and waters have altered the natural cycles of our planet.
While we cannot do much to alter natural causes for our warming climate, we can do everything necessary to alter human contributions, but we must act and act decisively and quickly.
Diversions by those who question without reason only serve to delay our taking appropriate necessary action. And that serves well only those in power, our industrial magnates, who would object to any distraction preventing maximization of profit.
Even now we may not be able to stop the warming, but we can certainly do what's necessary to preserve life and to minimize the harm to come.
Take a look at satellite images of the continents at night and notice where our population centers are. We can move these populations now.
And those wondering about state security and intelligence, whether climate change is a fraud to further enslave you --- you are in a prison of your own making, wake up!
The impacts of climate change are a friggin nightmare for intelligence and defense agencies and far more complicated than any terrorist cell might pose.
You can't write words describing survival in a primitive world because it will become beyond far more horrible than your comprehension can now grasp.
Soon enough, I fear, you will find the fitting words.
Sadly, Ben, the example you provide is as misleading as the point it tries to make.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
The last paragraph of your article is really what's funny, Ben.
How many of those 11,903 studies
explicitly state mankind has caused no warming?
I think it's time for your article's last paragraph:
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
Ben, among scientists conducting climate research, what is percentage of those who deny anthropogenic global warming contributes consequentially to climate change?
Would you please link to their research? I'd like to read it.
