The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.
Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.
This one’s a stunner.
h/t Douglas
So What does this mean? Who reads those papers … who is influenced by them …. where are they … who paid for them …. I know what the effort is … to shut down modern life and obviously population reductions …. am I close …. there is so much information out there who even has time to check it all out. When I read something like this … I wonder whether it matters or not … the evidence of no global warming is all around … what do you call an issue that is simply worn out but doesn’t die … some sort of zombie issue …. but back to my first question, what do these papers actually mean in real life … anyone?
Bull-shit papers like these are causing AGW to loose entire continents and their colorful stimulating currency grants..
–
http://sppiblog.org/news/abbott-shuts-down-australian-climate-commission
“Shutting down the Climate Change Authority, ahead of its first report on fair and science based emission reduction targets for Australia, is cowardly and an attack on current and future generations.”
$50 says they counted their own paper in the tally and they probably double counted it “in error”.
As James hinted, the 97 per cent number came from the biased nature of the referees. They were all Cooke’s own friends doing the judging of whether or not a paper supported AGW. Nor to my knowledge were there any clear established standards by which the paper abstracts (they didn’t actually look at the papers) were judged.
WUWT has been all over this for months. It’s more pure scam from the University of South Wales, which is fast getting a reputation as unsavoury as East Anglia.
Think I will forward this one to frienemy I haven’t communicated with for a year or two. The long time protagonist’s Son and Daughter-in-law are doing serious science in biology. When I would try to convince him the Globull would seriously affect their careers he would reiterate the bull. Cheers;
Not really.
Anything from the Skeptical Science (SS) children is agenda focussed to begin with, that Cook gets any credibility is indicative of the media.
One could call him the Teresa Spence of Climatology.
Future generations will use the Cook Loo papers to showcase delusion and desperation in Academic pursuit of persuasion.
‘what do these papers actually mean in real life … anyone?’
Well the American president for one has expressed his confidence in the 97% paper. These sorts of papers are for the AGW faithful to use as a talking point against those who may have doubts about the whole global warming fundapaloosa.
The mass hysteria and will to enslavement association is pernicious enough that science has become irrelevant. Lies work well enough within the evil of such relationships.
So if I interpret this correctly, only 3% of Bangladeshies are skeptic that cooking with cow dung actually causes GW. That’s just shocking.
If someone ever refer to the 97% consensus WRT climate change you should ask them the source of that number. There’s the fake paper, the bogus paper or the really fraudulent, political paper. Which one?