97% Consensus Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers — according to scientists who published them

PopularTechnology.net reports:

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ searched the Web of Science for the phrases “global warming” and “global climate change” then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists who’s papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW”, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Read more at PopularTechnology.net.

2 thoughts on “97% Consensus Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers — according to scientists who published them”

  1. First, we learned that the original “97% consensus” claim was based on a very conscious manipulation of data. http://bit.ly/12Tzqsf Then we have the warmists do a brand-new survey with the intention of buttressing the “consensus” claim, and they find the majority are *skeptical* instead. http://onforb.es/X3M45P So they try again, and we get yet another bogus “consensus” claim that falls apart on mild scrutiny.

    Science is not a democracy, but a consensus can still be very meaningful. When people tout a consensus that isn’t there, they’re not convincing me. In fact, they’re doing very much the opposite.

Comments are closed.