Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

So that "97% consensus" carries the day for you??

 

No, the Cook study has no impact on my acknowledgement of AGW.

 

If there is so much evidence, why would the warmists make up and propagate a whopper of a lie like the 97% claim??

And then have every leftwing fraudster in the world, from Barack Obama on down, repeat the claim like a mantra??

 

Or another question for you - why would Jones, Mann, et al work to rig the publishing process and refuse to share their data??

Is that normal "scientfic" procedure??

If the data speaks for itself, why hide their methodology and programming??

 

The Cook study isn't a lie. It's been corroborated multiple times over. It's just that most people misinterpret what the study concluded. That's not Cook's fault though.

 

Mann's and Jone's work is already in the public domain already. They've already shared their data. That's kinda the point of peer review publications.

Their methodology and programming is documented for anyone who wants to see it. For example, you are free download Mann's famous 1998 and 1999 publications here and here.

 

Come on now, you can do better than that...

If Cook's study doesn't say 97%, what does it say??

And if Cook's study is valid, it must be that all of the scientists who debunked it, including a Nobel Laureate, were either paid by the fossil fuel industry or lying??

If you stand by the study, you must be able to defend it, no??

 

It says that of the publications in journals that publish climate related material and which declared a definite position 97% of those sided with the broad conclusion that the Earth is warming and that humans are primarily responsible. It wasn't a solicited survey issued to climate scientists or anything like that. And it was never presented as such. You can read the Cook study here. He cites many other similar studies plus some that were solicitation based surveys in this paper that you can review as well.

I don't believe anyone has debunked it though. What you are probably reading is dissent regarding Cook's methodology. Cook only sampled peer reviewed publications in journals that publish climate research by actual climate scientists. Dissenters don't like the way he did it because they want all scientists represented regardless of their expertise on the matter. And that's fine. You can make an argument that biologists, medical doctors, geologists, or whatever should be included in the mix, but you can't say Cook's conclusion is wrong because it isn't. It is what it is so to speak and it's been independently corroborated.

I guess the only thing to defend would be his methodology. He limited the breadth of his study to just climate scientists. I happen to agree with that approach. Afterall, if I wanted to know what the consensus prognosis of a specific type of cancer I may get in the future I'd only sample medical doctors and specifically those who are experts in cancer. I wouldn't solicit feedback from a geologist. Likewise, I wouldn't ask a medical doctor for advice on the climate. I'm just saying. So I guess I don't really have a problem with that specific element of the study. If I had to gripe about one thing it's that this 97% figure is based on publications and not on authors. Many authors are represented multiple times in the publication counts both for and against AGW. But, in regards to whether his conclusion is correct based on his methodology I have no choice but to accept it. Like I said. It is what it is.

 

There you go making logical sense again...come on.....you know the rules.