Cook’s 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination _ Watts Up With That_

8/13/2019 Cooks 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination _ Watts Up With That_

1/20

9/14/13 Cooks 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination | Watts Up With That?

wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/ 1

Cooks 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examinationPosted on August 28, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Bjrn Lomborg writes on his Facebook Page

Ugh. Do you remember the 97% consensus, which even Obama

tweeted?

Turns out the authors dont want to reveal their data.

It has always been a dodgy paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-

9326/8/2/024024/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 doesnt actually specify the

numbers, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/). It ditches about 8,000

papers because they dont 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

theyre 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 havent released the numbers themselves, we

have to rely on other quantitative 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 dont want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

Read Tols letter to the Peter Hj, University of Queensland: the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and

unrepresentative. (http://www.uq.edu.au/about/vice-chancellor)

It would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad.

============================================================

August 27th

Watts Up With That?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/articlehttp://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/articlehttps://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborghttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://wattsupwiththat.com/http://www.uq.edu.au/about/vice-chancellorhttp://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/articlehttps://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborghttp://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/


2/20



Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland

Dear Professor Hj,

I was struck by a recent paper published inEnvironmental Research Letterswith John Cook, a University of

Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature

on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the

headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample

contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.

My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email.

I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail.

I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that,

contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers

does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.

Furthermore, the data showed patterns that cannot be explained by either the data gathering process as described in

the paper or by chance. This is documented at

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNRllTUWlzb0ZJSm8/edit?usp=sharing

I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was

unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cooks work place, I contacted

Professor Max Lu, deputy vice-chancellor for research, and Professor Daniel Kammen, journal editor. Professors Lu

and Kammen succeeded in convincing Mr Cook to release first another 2% and later another 28% of the data.

I also asked for the survey protocol but, violating all codes of practice, none seems to exist. The paper and data do

hint at what was really done. There is no trace of a pre-test. Rating training was done during the first part of the

survey, rather than prior to the survey. The survey instrument was altered during the survey, and abstracts were

added. Scales were modified after the survey was completed. All this introduced inhomogeneities into the data that

cannot be controlled for as they are undocumented.

The later data release reveals that what the paper describes as measurement error(in either direction) is in fact

measurement bias(in one particular direction). Furthermore, there is driftin measurement over time. This makes a

greater nonsense of the paper.

This is documented here http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-consensus-project-update.html and

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/biases-in-consensus-data.html .

I went back to Professor Lu once again, asking for the remaining 57% of the data. Particularly, I asked for rater IDs

and time stamps. Both may help to understand what went wrong.

Only 24 people took the survey. Of those, 12 quickly dropped out, so that the survey essentially relied on just 12

people. The results would be substantially different if only one of the 12 were biased in one way or the other. The

paper does not report any test for rater bias, an astonishing oversight by authors and referees. If rater IDs are

released, these tests can be done.
http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/biases-in-consensus-data.htmlhttp://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-consensus-project-update.htmlhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNRllTUWlzb0ZJSm8/edit?usp=sharinghttp://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html


3/20



Rate this: 45 Votes

Share this:

Because so few took the survey, these few answered on average more than 4,000 questions. The paper is silent on

the average time taken to answer these questions and, more importantly, on the minimum time. Experience has that

interviewees find it difficult to stay focused if a questionnaire is overly long. The questionnaire used in this paper

may have set a record for length, yet neither the authors nor the referees thought it worthwhile to test for rater

fatigue. If time stamps are released, these tests can be done.

Mr Cook, backed by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and Lu, has blankly refused to release these data, arguing that a data

release would violate confidentiality. This reasoning is bogus.

I dont think confidentiality is relevant. The paper presents the survey as a survey of published abstracts, rather than

as a survey of the raters. If these raters are indeed neutral and competent, as claimed by the paper, then tying ratings

to raters would not reflect on the raters in any way.

If, on the other hand, this was a survey of the raters beliefs and skills, rather than a survey of the abstracts they

rated, then Mr Cook is correct that their identity should remain confidential. But this undermines the entire paper:

It is no longer a survey of the literature, but rather a survey of Mr Cook and his friends.

If need be, the association of ratings to raters can readily be kept secret by means of a standard confidentiality

agreement. I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to sign an agreement that I would not reveal the identity of the

raters and that I would not pass on the confidential data to a third party either on purpose or by negligence.

I first contacted Mr Cook on 31 May 2013, requesting data that should have been ready when the paper was

submitted for peer review on 18 January 2013. His foot-dragging, condoned by senior university officials, does not

reflect well on the University of Queenslands attitude towards replication and openness. His refusal to release all

data may indicate that more could be wrong with the paper.

Therefore, I hereby request, once again, that you release rater IDs and time stamps.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Tol

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

Cal fans show off their loyalty.

http://bit.ly/1g1WES9

About these ads
http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.htmlhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=email&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=digg&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=reddit&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=stumbleupon&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=facebook&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=twitter&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1


4/20



Like this:

10 bloggers like this.

This entry was posted in 97% consensus and tagged John Cook, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Richard Tol. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Cooks 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination

RC Saumarezsays:August 28, 2013 at 9:52 am

The consensus was obviously rubbish. Im afraid that no about of debunking will alter the opinion of true believers.

I doubt that any action will be taken about Cook by the University of Queensland.

dccowboysays:

August 28, 2013 at 9:56 am

This paper appears to be an example of the new post-normal science.

JimSsays:

August 28, 2013 at 9:56 am

Once that 97% consensus of scientists went out there to the public, there is no turning back, even if Cook came clean and worn

sackcloth and poured ashes over his head in full public repentance. Regardless, I admire Mr. Tols perseverance in this matter.

Truth is always more precious than lies, even though few would hold it.

arthur4563says:

August 28, 2013 at 9:56 am

I must again reiterate my objection of assuming that opinions expressed about global warming twenty five years ago can have

much current validity.

Rhoda Rsays:

August 28, 2013 at 9:58 am

Actually getting a response may be every bit as interesting as the response itself.

arthur4563says:August 28, 2013 at 9:58 am

To be clearer, if one wants to find current opinions of researchers, reading their opinions expressed twenty fie years ago is not a

valid way of doing so.

ZTsays:

August 28, 2013 at 9:59 am
http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/http://arthur4563.wordpress.com/http://arthur4563.wordpress.com/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/richard-tol/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/ove-hoegh-guldberg/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/john-cook/http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/http://en.gravatar.com/oracleoflibertyhttp://en.gravatar.com/climatismhttp://en.gravatar.com/allysoneverardhttp://en.gravatar.com/ntesdorfhttp://en.gravatar.com/oweihttp://en.gravatar.com/wwwygarthttp://en.gravatar.com/rajeshwarisopanhttp://en.gravatar.com/catweazle666http://en.gravatar.com/jericho777http://en.gravatar.com/danmillerinpanama


5/20



Theres a university in Queensland?

Willis Eschenbachsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:01 am

Richard Tol, you are a much more patient man than I which may also translate into more productive as well. [snip -policy

violation - Anthony]

Keep the heat on them

w.

Josualdosays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:08 am

Just to state the obvious, there is no use at all for consensus in science. Consensus is an evil political concept. (Sorry if

duplicate, something went wrong here.)

Resourceguysays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:08 am

Maybe there is some good science here after all. A new linkage has been revealed between low research data integrity and poor

political leadership. More followup studies are needed.

Stephen Raseysays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:12 am

@arthur4563 9:58 am

To be clearer, if one wants to find current opinions of researchers, reading their opinions expressed twenty fie years ago is not a valid

way of doing so.

It would be an easy approach to stratify the data by 8 year bands to see if there is a statistically significant time-based trend in

abstract content.

But lets face it, whatever is measured is highly conflated with time-based changes in the journal editorial practices of abstracts

and editorship of journals who are in business to sell their products. Heck, even the census of journals has changed over time.

Jean Parisotsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:13 am

Someone might want to make sure this little issue gets in the hands of the political campaign managers down in Oz, quickly.

Richard Dsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:15 am

According to Dr. Tol, John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 mates) found

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/#more-30203http://wiserways.com/http://falardotempo.blogspot.com/https://www.facebook.com/willis.eschenbach


6/20



unrepresentative/#more-30203

So the survey subject size was tiny. Apparently all of the subjects were connected to Cooks work group. Wow.

Gary Pearsesays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:16 am

I think continued international discussion of this paper gives it more influence. What has been revealed is sufficient to trash it

(thanks to Dr. Tol). As we already know, you end up generating sympathy for these guys in the face of continued badgering as

they like to say. Mann and Gleick wound up getting society medals and awards for stiffing interrogators. Lewandowski got a

professorship in the UK and a royal welcome from the Royal Society. IPCC and Al Gore got nobel prizes. Obama got one as a

bribe to get him to come to Copenhagen and surrender to the socialists. Watch for it, Cook became a published scientist, a big

step up from being a cartoonist!! He is going to get a medal of recognition for his good work.

M Courtneysays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:16 am

Only 24 people took the survey. Of those, 12 quickly dropped out, so that the survey essentially relied on just 12 people.

So thats 97% of the interpretations of just 12 people.

Just 12.

And were these dozen an unbiased jury?

Well, one of them was the author, John Cook, himself.

Not only is he clearly biased (see his website SkS) but he also doesnt get the point of double-blind trials.

Bob Greenesays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:22 am

The first clue that this paper was bogus was the 97% figure. Only in places like N. Korea can you get 97% consensus onanything. Is anyone surprised that Cook, et al, like Mann, et al, refused to provide data for the report? Does the journal have a

requirement to provide data?

Steven Moshersays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:27 am

Thanks Richard

Billsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:27 am

Why would they have to be identified by name? Why not rater #1, etc>?

Tommy Rochesays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:29 am

Ever since the (in)famous Doran Survey, this statement that 97% of Scientists agree has been thrown about by alarmists when
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/#more-30203http://greener333.wordpress.com/http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/#more-30203


7/20



faced with difficult questions, or used by journalists to pad out a scary climate story for which little or no evidence existed. There

is no doubt in my mind that from the moment John Cook came up this plan, the plan was for re-enforcement of that 97%

message. It was ALWAYS going to be the outcome. Anything else just would not do.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)says:

August 28, 2013 at 10:30 am

dccowboy said on August 28, 2013 at 9:56 am:

This paper appears to be an example of the new post-normal science.

Hopefully its something unique unto itself, an example of post-science science.

DGPsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:33 am

This reminds me of Einsteins response to A Hundred authors against Einstein, published in 1931.

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

Bob Greenesays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:34 am

I checked IOP and they say We encourage authors to make their data freely available by publishing it alongside their article as

supplementary data at no extra cost. In other words, no requirement to provide supporting data. The Journal of the American

Chemical Society goes into great details in the author guidelines specifying what data must be presented either in the manuscript

or as attachments with the submission. Id say that Mr. Cooks publication requirements were a tad less rigorous than others.

DaveFsays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:43 am

ZT Aug 28 9:59am: Theres a university in Queensland?

There was a James Cook University in Queensland when Bob Carter was there.

Richard Tol (@RichardTol)says:

August 28, 2013 at 10:44 am

@Bill

The lapse in security at SkS Forum has come to haunt us. Among that material, there is a graph that shows, after 16,000 (out of

27,000) ratings were completed, the 11 most active raters and their scores. From there, it is an easy step to say rater 1 = John

Cook, rater 2 = Dana Nuccitella, rater 3 = Rob Honeycutt etc.

Harold Amblersays:

August 28, 2013 at 10:58 am

I add my thanks.
http://talkingabouttheweather.com/https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/http://greener333.wordpress.com/


8/20



Russ R.says:

August 28, 2013 at 11:04 am

Id like to know what scientific credentials were held by the individuals who rated the abstracts. Id also like to know how

impartial they were in interpreting those abstracts.

Actually on second thought, I dont really care. Its a ridiculous paper employing an asinine methodology (rating abstracts),

contrived by a delusional author (John Cook) and executed by his cult followers (SkS kidz) focusing on a meaningless concept

(consensus) among a group of government funded alarmists and catastrophe theorists (climate scientists) discussing a physical

phenomenon (global warming) that is so far turning out to be not nearly as big a deal as all the alarmists made it out to be.

Not wasting any more time on this one.

Josays:

August 28, 2013 at 11:11 am

bunch of global warming f-tards

markpro3gersays:

August 28, 2013 at 11:28 am

Just pathetic on multiple levels. To think this guy runs Alarmists favorite science site on global warming.

Matt Berginsays:

August 28, 2013 at 11:41 am

I am surprised anyone would complete a survey consisting of 4000 questions. I suspect most people would be checking random

boxes well before the 2000th question mark

limogerrysays:

August 28, 2013 at 11:49 am

Russ R. at 11:04 am-yes you are. You are going to tweet, facebook, YouTube, email, speak the truth. Just because you know that

its thoroughly bogus stupidity doesnt mean that enough other people to make a difference do. Be implacable to your last

breath. Success is assured.

JohnWhosays:

August 28, 2013 at 11:53 am

Crumbles?

It is as phoney as a $3 (US) bill .

Sadly, as noted, President Obama is handing these $3 bills out and many folks are saying if the Presudent is giving these out,

they must be good.
http://vcvoice.wordpress.com/


9/20



w.w.wygartsays:

August 28, 2013 at 12:09 pm

Richard Tol,

I guess that would give new meaning to the expression Manufacturing Consent[sus]. I guess that could also explain the identity

of the raters belonging to the undisclosed 57% of the data which is why they will never willingly part with it theyll go down

in flames screaming before they do.

Obviously the SkS kidz have great conviction in their ability to stonewall, and it seems they can rely on others to do their dirtywork for them. Of course if, in the long run, it can shown that Cook, Nuccitella, and Honeycutt manufactured half the data

themselves, they have only Peter Gleik to look to to be completely sure that NOTHING will come of it. Just never admit anything

and after a few difficulty months everything will go back to normal except that your partisans will be even MORE convinced

of the correctness of their position. For the rest of us we will have yet another example of the fact that academic institutions are

fundamentally incapable of policing their own worst offenders.

Confidentiality seems to be the new last resort of a scoundrel.

W^3

stan stenderasays:

August 28, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Anthony. You snipped Willis. Holy Cow, that puts me (rarely spanked {snipped}) in very good company.

Beesamansays:

August 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm

The irony is that Syrias President Bashar al-Assad was elected twice by national votes of 97%

philjourdansays:

August 28, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Papers that cannot be verified are merely opinions, not science.


August 28, 2013 at 12:40 pm

@wygart

Note that 23 of the 24 raters are known: 9 are listed as authors, 12 are mentioned in the acknowledgements, and 2 outed

themselves (Tom Curtis and Patrick Lockerby).

The question is whether they all rated in the same way.

KNRsays:

August 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm

Its BS and its effective BS and that is all that matters , for the cause justifies all things and little things like scientific honest or

integrity mean nothing. Given its author is the cartoonists lapdog its hardly a great shock how poor it is .
https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/http://sanityfirst.wordpress.com/http://thecoralinememe.wordpress.com/


10/20



But here is a question how much of a percentage of papers published over the last 25 years does 12,000 papers actual

represent? For if this number is itself a small percentage , it shows its claims are even more rubbish even if the manner used to

produce them was not so poor .

Gail Combssays:

August 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm

w.w.wygart says: @ August 28, 2013 at 12:09 pm

.Confidentiality seems to be the new last resort of a scoundrel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Unless you are on the internet, or e-mail, or on the phone.. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-government-gets-data-

from-facebook-google-2013-6

Pot.. Kettle

Gunga Dinsays:

August 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm

My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I

immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail.

======================================================================

Maybe only the 13% that supported the 97%?

thingadontasays:

August 28, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Im sure Cook would say why should I give you the data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it.?

Jorgesays:

August 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm

KNR, its effective to liberals because they repeat it. Other than liberals, is anyone else repeating it? Just because it gets

exposure doesnt make it effective. Effective would be a policy or strategy that converted non-believers into believers. That

isnt happening. If anything, the more ridiculous and transparent these people get the more average/moderate people begin

peeling away. This is now an ideology for TRUE BELIEVERS and true believers alone. Thats why its INEFFECTIVE. Its a liberal

litmus test and nothing more. The difference now and then is that before it was harmless to believe this stuff and most people

did with a shrug. Now it means your energy bills go up by 20%, regulations stifle buisness and kill jobs. So its not as appealling

to people anymore, and the true believers have responded to these people peeling away with even MORE HYSTERICS. These

hysterics are what get coverage. So the only thing, in my opinion, they are accomplishing is having people see, clearly, how weak

this science actually is. Thus, they are helping to ultimately destroy themselves.

A.D. Everardsays:

August 28, 2013 at 1:53 pm

I very much look forward to the answer by U of Qld. Which way will they go? It must be awfully uncomfortable inside the meme

nowadays.
http://bloodstonescifi.wordpress.com/http://www.businessinsider.com/how-government-gets-data-from-facebook-google-2013-6


11/20



Shub Niggurathsays:

August 28, 2013 at 2:14 pm

One of the authors, Sarah Green, has announced the exact number of abstracts shes rated on her university.

Sort of puts the lie to Cooks confidentiality argument.

Scottish Scepticsays:

August 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

I once did my own survey of climate papers and found that over 98% of those covering the impacts of warming failed to mention

any benefit and 100% failed to cover any benefit in any meaningful way.


August 28, 2013 at 2:53 pm

@Shub

I dont think Cook is concerned about the numbers per se, although Green doing 1 in 6 is a tad embarrassing.

We know that there is drift in the measurement and we know that the team of raters changed over time. Occams Razor suggests

that there are systematic differences in the ratings between raters.

If that can be shown, it follows that this was not a survey of the literature, but rather a survey of how people read the literature.

The paper thus collapses.

Jeff in Calgarysays:

August 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm

The biggest problem as I see it is that the literature is itself biased. As we have all seen from the climatgate emails, any

opposing views have actively been suppresed by the publishing gatekeepers. It is suprising that the number found was only 97%.

..

Dustersays:

August 28, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Matt Bergin says:

August 28, 2013 at 11:41 am

I am surprised anyone would complete a survey consisting of 4000 questions. I suspect most people would be checking random boxes

well before the 2000th question mark

That type of survey can be considered as 1) slave labor (e.g. students drafted for the duration), 2) beer and booze labor

(colleagues lured to help with a promise of beer, whiskey, pizza, etc.), or 3) conviction labor (laborers passionately convinced

of their cause). The latter reminds me of R.A.Wilsons dictum convictions make convicts. From the drop-out rate I suspect the

labor pool was drawn from groups two and three. Since members of three are likely to hang in there simply through shear

bloody mindedness, that could explain the drift as well.
http://zazzle.com/titus_andronicushttps://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/http://scef.org.uk/http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/


12/20



Jimbosays:

August 28, 2013 at 3:41 pm

I saw the letter a few days back on JoNovas site. Tol in the comments says:

Richard Tol

August 28, 2013 at 2:05 am Reply

Actually, Graeme3,John took the survey himself, so it should be John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11

others) found

Richard Tol

August 28, 2013 at 3:39 am Reply

John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 mates) found

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-

unrepresentative/#comment-1311439

Oh dear.

Jimbosays:

August 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Cooks paper has been cooked, it is crap, worse than fairy tales. Below is an essay that clearly shows that Cooks paper is

horseshit.

The Paradox of Consensus a novel argument on climate change

Theories that can be easily tested should have a high degree of consensus among researchers. Those involving

chaotic and less testable questions climate change or economic growth, physiology or financial markets ought

to have a greater level of scientific disagreement. Yet this i s hardly the case for climate science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/the-paradox-of-consensus/

To test the questions you need to have the data. What about it Cook?

JCRsays:

August 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm

@ZT and @DaveF

Plus Queensland University of Technology, Griffith University, University of Central Queensland and University of Southern

Queensland. We arent quite the academic cavemen that ZT seems to think :-)

To my regret, after what they did to Bob Carter, I also have to admit that James Cook University is my alma mater.

Gail Combssays:

August 28, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Jorge says:

August 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm

KNR, its effective to liberals because they repeat it. Now it means your energy bills go up by 20%, regulations stifle buisness

and kill jobs. So its not as appealing to people anymore, and the true believers have responded to these people peeling away

with even MORE HYSTERICS.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/the-paradox-of-consensus/http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/#comment-1311439


13/20



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The problem for the masses is there are two different mind sets. One is The Philosophies Of Karl Marx and Hegelor if I REALLY

REALLY BELIEVE than it is TRUE (and I click the ruby slippers three times) IT WILL COME TRUE. For those not insulated inside

government bureaucracy and Academia, Mother Nature has a tendency to whomp you up side the head with reality so you lose

this belief, especially the belief in the pure Hegelian philosophy.

According to this philosophy, the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement. The one universal

phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel

accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no

consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the

stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the

mind, and any change was a change in ideas.Therefore, to account for these changes in ideas was to account for

change in the universe.

To Marx the thing the mind perceived was realty in itself.

The Marxian dialectic is a universal explanation in two senses. First, it constitutes a philosophical explanation of

all categories of realistic phenomena. It could be applied to physical, chemical, astronomical, mathe-

matical, geological, and all other phenomena as a universal explanation of what exists and is occurring in

the universe. Second, it includes the mind of man as a part of the universe within which change through

thesis, antithesis, and synthesis constitutes the never-ending creative process. Nothing within the dialectic

itself excludes any category of phenomena from its scope

. within the scope of social institutions and processes, Marx contended that one species of phenomena

had incomparably greater creative potentalities than any other. These were the economic phenomena, or,

to use a Marxian term, the mode of production. According to Marx it was within this economic realm that

the basic theses, antitheses, and syntheses existed, and all social institutions were the offshoots of economic

forces..

The IPCC and the CO2 climate control knob has to be view with those philosophies in mind. From their point of view the basic

theses, antitheses, and synthesishas already occurred We have a ConsensusTherefore it is time to move on to the

implementation phase. This is why those of us still stuck in the thesis, antithesisphase are called D*ni*rs. It is not that we deny

climate change but that we deny the PROCESS of reaching a Consensus

You can see the fingerprints of these philosophies in this NUSAP(Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree ) definition.

POST-NORMAL SCIENCE Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity

In relation to policy, the environment is particularly challenging. It includes masses of detail concerning many

particular issues, which require separate analysis and management. At the same time, there are broad strategic issues,

which should guide regulatory work, such as those connected with sustainability. Nothing can be managed in a

convenient isolation

To engage in these new tasks we need new intellectual tools. A picture of reality designed for controlled

experimentation and abstract theory building, can be very ef fective with complex phenomena reduced to their simple,

atomic elements. But it is not best suited for the tasks of environmental policy today. The scientific mind-set fosters

expectations of regularity, simplicity and certainty in the phenomena and in our interventions. But these can inhibit

the growth of our understanding of the problems and of appropriate methods to their solution. Here we shall introduce

and articulate several concepts, which can provide elements of a framework to understand environmental issues. They

are all new, and still evolving.

The leading concept is complexity. This relates to the structure and properties of the phenomena and the issues for

environmental policy. Systems that are complex are not merely complicated; by their nature they involve deep

uncertainties and a plurality of legitimate perspectives. Hence the methodologies of traditional laboratory-based

science are of restricted effectiveness in this new context.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://www.economictheories.org/2008/12/philosophy-of-karl-marx.html


14/20



The most general methodology for managing complex science-related issues is Post-Normal Science (Funtowicz and

Ravetz 1992, 1993, Futures 1999). This focuses on aspects of problem solving that tend to be neglected in traditional

accounts of scientific practice: uncertainty and value loading. It provides a coherent explanation of the need for greater

participation in science-policy processes, based on the new tasks of quality assurance in these problem-areas..

The insight leading to Post-Normal Science is that in the sorts of issue-driven science relating to environmental

debates, typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. Some might say that such

problems should not be called science; but the answer could be that such problems are everywhere, and when science

is (as it must be) applied to them, the conditions are anything but normal. For the previous distinction between

hard, objective scientific facts and soft, subjective value-judgements is now inverted. All too often, we must make

hard policy decisions where our only scientific inputs are irremediably soft.

The facts that are taught from textbooks in institutions are still necessary, but are no longer sufficient. For

these relate to a standardised version of the natural world, frequently to the artificially pure and stable

conditions of a laboratory experiment. The world as we interact with it in working for sustainability, is

quite different. Those who have become accredited experts through a course of academic study, have much

valuable knowledge in relation to these practical problems. But they may also need to recover from the

mindset they might absorb unconsciously from their instruction.

So hard scientists need to recover from the mindset they might absorb unconsciously from their instructionThat is

the philosophy imbedded in the scientific method must give way to the New Philosophy

The fact that most people have no training in science or logic and very little training in math makes this Consensus Process or

Post-Normal Science with its appeal to authority a very strong argument. It is only when reality intrudes and bites them on the

behind that they reluctantly engage the brain and question what the heck is going on.

JBirkssays:

August 28, 2013 at 4:10 pm

> It is no longer a survey of the literature, but rather a survey of Mr Cook and his friends.

You can say that again!

Chad Wozniaksays:

August 28, 2013 at 4:58 pm

If it werent for its being believed by uninformed people, with regrettable results -

Id say I wouldnt give a rats sphincter even if 97 percent did agree with the CAGW meme and Cooks conclusion were correct.

Like Einstein said, it only takes one experiment and by extension, one person to prove a theory wrong. And weve got lots of

those experiments and persons on the skeptic side.

No amount of consensus can alter a physical fact.

mpaulsays:

August 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm

4000 questions? Lets say I can answer 10 questions a minute, thats 400 minutes or 6 2/3 hours to complete the qustionaire. If

the questions were something along the lines of which of these three numbers is largest, then I think an average person could

achieve 10 answers per minute maybe a bit better.


15/20



But I thought the questions were basically asking the respondents to place each paper into a category. So presumably, the

respondent would need to read the abstract, comprehend it, think about it a little bit and then place it in a category. Lets say that

take 10 minutes per abstract. Now were talking 40,000 minutes or 667 hours or about 100 days assuming you put about 7 hours

per day into it.

What am I missing?

johanna says:

August 28, 2013 at 5:31 pm

I worked with the now Vice Chancellor some years ago in a previous life. He was an ardent warmist/alarmist. Unless he has

changed his views, dont expect too much in the way of impartiality there.

oracleoflibertysays:

August 28, 2013 at 7:32 pm

Reblogged this on Oracle of Libertyand commented:

Bjorn Lomborg, a global warming skeptic but does believe somewhat in AGW, is one of the worlds foremost experts on climate

change and its actual true effect on humanity but moreso because the alarmists have hijacked the message concentrating effortsto empower the global elite whereas he shines light on where the focus should be. The poverty stricken people around the

world who are neglected so that the Hollywood types can feel good about contributing money to a solar panel farm in Malawi

vs using that money to build a clean coal plant or produce clean drinking water. The latter truly helps eradicate poverty and

increase living conditions while the solar farm only increases the charitable effect of those that sit in the clean coal fired

energized homes sipping their cucumber infused clean drinking water.

Bjorn chooses to make a difference on what will actually make a difference. Not what will make a liberal greenie feel better

about saving the environment.

Brandon Shollenbergersays:

August 28, 2013 at 7:49 pm

Ive tried asking thiselsewhere, but I havent gotten an answer yet. Ill try here.

How does one conclude 57% of the data is unreleased? According to Tol, all were missing is timestamps (which we dont know

were collected) and rater IDs. Thats ~60,000 data points. There are ~125,000 data points in a single data file released by Cook

et al. Thats far more than what Tol says is unreleased. How can more data be released in a single file than is missing if 57% of

the data hasnt been released?

As an additional point, I see Richard Tol says:

The later data release reveals that what the paper describes as measurement error (in either direction) is in fact

measurement bias (in one particular direction).

Tol says the suposed measurement error is actually measurement bias. That is, he says there is no random error, only bias. How

could this possibly be true? Even if there is measurement bias, we would still expect there to be measurement error.

RoHasays:

August 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/#comment-1311477https://twitter.com/Corpus_no_Logos/status/371721614682902528http://oracleofliberty.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/http://oracleofliberty.wordpress.com/


16/20



@ZT

You wouldnt expect it, would you?

But we have.

University of Queensland (very highly rated Cook not withstanding)

Queensland University of Technology

Griffith University

University of Southern Queensland

University of the Sunshine Coast

Central Queensland University

Bond University (Private!)

James Cook University

Australian Catholic University has a campus in Brisbane.

Southern Cross University has a campus in the Gold Coast.

(Ive actually taught in six of those.)

JimFsays:August 28, 2013 at 8:44 pm

dccowboy says:

August 28, 2013 at 9:56 am: This paper appears to be an example of the new post-normal science. I think the term may

be post-moral science.

Richard S.J. Tolsays:

August 29, 2013 at 12:35 am

@mpaul

Thats indeed one of the key points. The raters read, on average, 2,000 abstracts. Sarah Green read more than 4,000.

This raises two questions. (1) What human would do this voluntarily? Can this person be considered impartial? (2) Can even a

highly motivated human do this without loss of focus?

I lose patience with a survey that is too long. I then rush to the end. In a good survey, this is noticed as the time taken to answer a

question is recorded.

Given the way this survey was conducted, Cook must have had time stamps. I dont know whether he saved the data, or saved it

and destroyed it later. But it is crucial information to assess the quality of the answers.

cdsays:

August 29, 2013 at 3:29 am

Richard Tol excellent work following letter.


August 29, 2013 at 4:46 am
https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/home


17/20



Strangely, Richard S.J. Tol says:

Given the way this survey was conducted, Cook must have had time stamps. I dont know whether he saved the data, or

saved it and destroyed it later. But it is crucial information to assess the quality of the answers.

Theres is nothing about the way this survey was conducted that would require timestamps have been collected.

tomwyssays:

August 29, 2013 at 6:52 am

I admire Richard Tols tenacity, but I feel somewhat like Sancho Panza observing it all.

The question to ask is whether the reviewers realize that we are entering year 17 without atmospheric warming increase.

Think 97% would agree???

Marc77says:

August 29, 2013 at 8:12 am

In reality, the scientists who do not take position could possibly take the position that the data cannot support a clear conclusion.

So they would be against a clear conclusion that AGW is real.

It is a three sides debate:

1- AGW is true.

2- AGW is false.

3- There is no way we can tell if AGW is real or not.

Number 3 might be the best conclusion right now.

Stephen Raseysays:

August 29, 2013 at 8:25 am

Marc77 8:12 am

No, no, no. It is not a matter of TRUE or FALSE.

It is literally a matter of DEGREE.

1a AGW is true and is a planetary emergencyto all life.

1b AGW is true and a mild discomfort for which life will adapt.

1c AGW is true and is benificial to most plants and animals

1d AGW is true, but a political mountain made from a ecological molehill.

1e AGW is true, but its affects are nearly invisible.

1f AGW is true and will put off another ice age by at least a thousand years.

Stephen Raseysays:

August 29, 2013 at 8:33 am

Brandon Shollenberger 4:46 am

Theres is nothing about the way this survey was conducted that would require timestamps have been collected.
http://wiserways.com/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/http://wiserways.com/http://colderside.wordpress.com/


18/20



What if the subjective responses were recorded at super-human rates?

What if the subjective responses are highly correlated sequentially?

What if the subjective responses correlated with the days weather?

I can think of NO circumstances that would NOT require timestamps to be collected, particularly given the ease of collection.


August 29, 2013 at 11:27 am

@Brandon

It was a distributed, computerized survey. Hard to imagine that time stamps were never recorded. Besides, Cook has never told

me he could not give me time stamps. Only that he would not.


August 29, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Stephen Rasey, timestamps may have been recorded. They certainly should have been recorded. But unless we know they were

recorded, we cant say theyre being hidden. Cook et al cannot hide data they dont have.

Richard Tol, it may be hard to imagine timestamps werent recorded, but that doesnt mean we know they were. And if wedont know they were, its inappropriate to say theyre being hidden.

By the way, why do you respond to that comment of mine yet not the commentof mine that raises substantial issues with your

claims? I argued youve massively exaggerated a criticism of Cook et al; you ignored me. I pointed out a minor issue about what

data exists; you responded. Thats silly.


August 29, 2013 at 10:57 pm

@Brandon

I suspected time stamps were recorded, so I asked for them. Cooks response confirmed that they have them.

As to your other point, Ive told you before that youre wrong. No need to repeat that discussion.


August 30, 2013 at 3:45 am

Richard Tol:

I suspected time stamps were recorded, so I asked for them. Cooks response confirmed that they have them.

Its weird you never said this before. You didnt say it when you arguedwe should believe timestamps were recorded. Unless

youre claiming Cook told you this in the last twelve hours, youre being inconsistent.

As to your other point, Ive told you before that youre wrong. No need to repeat that discussion.

You told me Im wrong so thats the end of the story? Thats a fun approach to discussions. Just say, Youre wrong! and leave.

John Cook should try it with you. Im sure youd react with as much disbelief as I do.

The data you say hasnt been released is approximately 60,000 data points. Over 125,000 data points were released in a single
https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/


19/20



file (you even host that data yourself).

Your numbers dont add up.

Richard S.J. Tolsays:

August 30, 2013 at 4:54 am

@Brandon

Calculations are here http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/rt220/consensus.htmldata and graphs, data

The calculations were done on the basis of the information in the paper. These numbers turn out to be only roughly correct but

youd only move far away from my 57% if you count classifications or key strokes. I do not, because Im not interested.


August 30, 2013 at 11:34 am

Richard Tol, Ive looked at every file listed on that page, and I didnt find any such calculations. There is no data and graphs

file. There are two files listed with that phrase included, Data and graphs on abstract ratings and Bootstrap data and graphs.

Neither has a data tab. And as far as I can tell, neither has any sort of calculation that comes up with your 57% missing value.Its possible I missed something amongst the dozens of tabs in those spreadsheets, but if thats the case, you ought to provide a

reference I can actually use.

Ive provided numbers for people to use to check my claims. If they dont bel ieve those numbers, they can look at the data

provided and verify it for themselves. Its simple and easy for them to replicate my work. Its simple and easy for you to do so. If

my numbers are wrong, all you have to do is say so.

These numbers turn out to be only roughly correct but youd only move far away from my 57% i f you count

classifications or key strokes. I do not, because Im not interested.

Im not quite sure what you mean by classifications, and nobody other than you has suggested keystrokes be recorded.

Regardless, the question at hand is how much of the data collected by Cook et al has been released. You dont get to changenumbers by saying youre not interested in certain data so you wont count it.

Shub Niggurathsays:

August 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm

I believe fatigue, among other things, has an important role in shaping the results of this project. The other major factor is the

difficulty accurately classifying the most abundant categories, 3, 4 and 2. The two are inter-related: difficulty in classification

worsens rater fatigue, and fatigue forces the raters hand and makes them commit errors and/or make stereotypical rating

choices. Rater time stamps would settle this issue once and for all, out in the open.

It is quite evident Cook et al, in their amateurish manner, anticipated none of the difficulties in performing a study of this type.

They have neither the expertise to design a study of this kind, nor the experience to anticipate and plan around the analytic

issues. The data that comes out of exercises of this kind is more a reflection of the methodology than the true content of the

abstracts.

Examining time stamps or keystroke logs should provide a lot of the information required to examine the process (because the

process is the result). Now Im inclined more to think Cook had absolutely no clue such things might be done, or useful, or

required. But there is a chance he did record keystrokes and timestamps. If so, he should release the data. If they were not

recorded, he should come out straight and say it. Instead of jerking people around and leading them on.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/rt220/consensus.htmlhttp://staff.feweb.vu.nl/rtol/http://t.co/JREpiXq7TI


20/20


Watts Up With That?

The Twenty Ten Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.
http://wordpress.com/?ref=footerhttp://theme.wordpress.com/themes/twentyten/http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Documents

Cook’s 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination _ Watts Up With That_