Nonsensus: Only 65 of 12,000 papers agree with IPCC that most warming manmade, says Friends of Science

“In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper.”

Read more at PRWeb.

4 thoughts on “Nonsensus: Only 65 of 12,000 papers agree with IPCC that most warming manmade, says Friends of Science”

  1. The only reason that the Cook et al. paper gained the ‘legs’ it has is that the press is no longer educated enough to recognize that they are being used, lied to, and misled. They are hired for their ability to tell persuasive stories (rhetoric) rather that to think critically (logic).
    My Grandmother taught me that if you lie often enough you get comfortable with lies, and can no longer tell when someone else is lying to you.

  2. OK, this is funny. Who’s manipulating who?

    The Friends of Science report claims the Cook et al. paper is misleading. But it turns out that the Friends of Science did not read it closely, misinterpreted the findings, left out key details, and even misrepresented some of the original works cited by Cook et al. For example, Friends of Science didn’t 1200 scientists rated 2100 of their own papers, and their own ratings led to the same conclusions. But to get to the crux of the manipulation

    Consider this comment in the Friends of Science report. “Several of the 65 papers categorized by Cook as Endorsement level 1 in fact show that the IPCC projections of warming are wrong and grossly exaggerated. A paper by Scafetta and West states, ‘We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming.'”

    That sounds like Cook et al. misrepresented that paper, but Friends of Science cleverly quoted only half the sentence. Let’s look at all of it: “We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming” (Scafetta & West, 2006). Reading the whole sentence, one could easily conclude that humans accounted more than half of the rise in temperature.

    But that’s not all. The abstract goes on to say this: “These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted” (Scafetta & West, 2006).

    Scafetta & West state clearly that while the sun may have played a larger role that previously predicted, humans played the dominant role. Other papers are similarly misrepresented by Friends of Science, and although Friends of Science claims that the Cook et al. paper included those abstracts that make no comment on whether humans have caused warming, Cook et al. explain how those were not included.

    Ken Gregory, director of Friends of Science, was correct when he said that public policy should not be based on manipulations. True, so let’s call Friends of Science what they are, hypocrites that write manipulative articles that pretend to document some problem. It’s too bad so many ignorant suckers buy into such nonsense.

  3. Yes but 100% of the 65 papers agree with the IPCC. Hence, that 100% of relevant climate science papers agree is what the MSM will report. The context of 65 out of 12000 does not support their predetermined narrative. That information lands on the cutting room floor and gets swept up to be discarded with all the other trash.

    Unfortunately, our educational system is such that most people believe truth is determined by how often something is said to be true. What actually is true gets lost in all the 20 second sound bite jabberwokey that is presented as news.

  4. One thing that Friends of Science got right – science is not determined by “consensus”.

Comments are closed.