|If you like
[Other Ways To Support]
Goldmoney signup adress:
Hashflare signup adress:
Feel free to
for me to be able to
journey down the rabbit hole with you / / TheFreedomMatrix
How many actual climate scientists make up the 97% figure? How was that number derived and by what methodology?
8 juni 2017
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly
peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think
tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogo-sphere.
The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well
known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.
It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately
poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister
should cite it.” -
Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers
(not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW [Anthropogenic, or
human-caused, Global Warming] and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only
65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they
falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more
about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed
the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.