Skip to content

Getting To The Bottom Of Cook’s 97% Lie

June 30, 2013
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 

WUWT, Steve Mac, and many others have already taken John Cook’s 97% claims to the cleaners, but unfortunately the media seem to have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Therefore, I am doing some more analysis, which I will be reporting on shortly.

However, I have come across this little gem, which I have to share. Cook arrives at his 97% by:-

 

1) Excluding all the “don’t knows”.

2) Including all of the following three categories:-

1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% 
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it.

Only 65 papers out of 12000+ appear under category 1, so I though I would investigate what is in the other two categories. And under category 2, I found this paper by A Carlin.

 

image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=2&yf=2011&yt=2011

 

The full abstract is below.

 

A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change

Alan Carlinemail

 

Abstract: Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives to the change proposed. These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses, as follows: The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting. The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified. Geoengineering such as solar radiation management is a controversial alternative to CO2 emissions reductions that offers opportunities to greatly decrease these large costs, change global temperatures with far greater assurance of success, and eliminate the possibility of low probability, high consequence risks of rising temperatures, but has been largely ignored by economists. CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the very modest benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used. The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985

  

I suppose, in theory, the paper acknowledges that AGW may exist, but to claim that it “endorses the consensus” is so far from the truth to be not only misleading, but almost fraudulent.

Unfortunately this is the sort of nonsense you get when the babies who read Skeptical Science are allowed to rate the papers, on which the survey is based.

45 Comments
  1. June 30, 2013 8:04 pm

    Fraudulent? Doesn’t that mean that Cook knew what he was doing when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 30, 2013 10:16 pm

    I parked my truck near a walnut tree and a small squirrel carried nuts into the engine area and used that as her lunch room. Made a mess. I was cleaning it out with a garden hose and the neighbor came by and said he was having a problem with his car not starting – could I, apparently well versed in engine things, help? Now I know nothing about cars except dirt can be removed with spray from a garden hose. However, for a promised beer I went next door and under his car’s hood was a pile of walnut husks and shavings. I knocked these away with a dirty rag. Drank my beer. Slammed the hood. And said, try her now. He did. And she started right up. He said, You are an incompetent fraud. I said, Yup, thank you very much; appreciate the beer too.
    So, Cook is an incompetent fraud. But we already knew that.

  3. Paul Matthews permalink
    July 1, 2013 1:42 pm

    Paul, there is a good blog at poptech where he has a list of papers that cook et al misrepresented, with comments by the authors. Carlin is there, at the end of the list.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

  4. Bob Atch permalink
    July 1, 2013 3:05 pm

    Guess “Grumpy” is still duped. Have some friends who react similarly; they live in an “enclosed information” world of their own beliefs. Don’t send them this stuff anymore; will get satisfaction out of their future surprise as this political fad subsides. Wonder if Grumpy could expound on “overwhelming evidence” ? Grumpy, after you get finished paying your inflated Lib energy bills, try going to Climate Depot and reading Monckton’s piece of “heavy lifting” analysis on the Cook piece of fabrication.

  5. Curt permalink
    July 1, 2013 7:52 pm

    I started looking into the Peterson and Connelley 2008 paper rating climate papers from the 1970s into warming, neutral, and cooling categories, and immediately found some stunners like these in that paper as well. That paper is widely cited as demonstrating that there was no real 1970s cooling scare, among scientists at least.

  6. ianh permalink
    July 1, 2013 9:07 pm

    Come off it, it’s obvious that 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. Even Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen do. Even Monckton.

    Look at the pie chart on the left. That’s the problem. The public have been misled by climate skeptics into thinking there is huge disagreement among scientists that man is warming the climate.

    Hell many of the public don’t even think the world has warmed.

    • July 1, 2013 9:39 pm

      There is a huge difference between that and “endorsing the consensus” (unless you are saying the consensus does not support CAGW).

      Pretty much all scientists, for instance, accept the UHI effect and therefore cannot deny AGW.

      But whether your 97% claim is correct or not, Cook’s paper has fundamental flaws and should be withdrawn, corrected and properly vetted before it is resubmitted, which it obviously was not originally.If that is not done, it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific work.

    • Trevor permalink
      July 2, 2013 2:00 pm

      Ianh your being misleading yourself, all these scientists would agree on two things, 1 the earth has warmed over the past century and 2 that Co2 is a greenhouse gas after that you get everything under the sun. Lindzen and others do not believe man made Co2 is the main cause or only cause of any warming or that such warming is a bad thing.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      July 2, 2013 2:35 pm

      “Hell many of the public don’t even think the world has warmed.”

      Possibly because according to every temperature dataset, for over 17 years (23 if you use RSS lower tropospheric) it hasn’t, of course.

    • ianh permalink
      July 5, 2013 12:10 am

      Have any of you actually read the carlin paper? It’s complete junk. It references WUWT posts for christ sake.

      • July 5, 2013 8:48 am

        What has that got to do with anything?

        It was wrongly classified, along with many others. Full Stop.

        If Cook is not prepared to correct his paper, that makes his junk as well.

  7. Doug Brodie permalink
    July 2, 2013 1:36 pm

    Hello Paul, I followed up your suggestion of a 6th June to crowdsource the PCC with complaints on the Cook 97% lie. I have now had a negative response from the Telegraph. If you reply I can send you their email. I can see you are still on the case on this story. Any suggestions? Regards,Doug Brodie

    • July 2, 2013 1:59 pm

      The PCC have sent me a copy of the reply they have from the Telegraph. I have responded with my comments, and they will now adjudicate.

      I’ll email you to compare notes.

      Thanks

      Paul

  8. July 10, 2013 5:41 pm

    > I suppose, in theory, the paper acknowledges that AGW may exist, but to claim that it “endorses the consensus” is so far from the truth to be not only misleading, but almost fraudulent.

    If the consensus was about CAGW or about CS, you might have a point. But the consensus measured by Cook & al was about AGW. If the paper acknowledges AGW, it endorses the consensus as established by Cook & al. The emphasized bit does show some agreement on that reading.

    The only thing you can argue is if that endorsement was explicit or implicit. Everything else is are strawmen eating red herrings. As long as it fuels indignation, we can suppose that anything goes.

    • July 10, 2013 6:28 pm

      The abstract specifically states “endorsed the consensus position”.

      The introduction goes further

      We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

      This in other words is pretty much the IPCC position, and I am sure is pefectly aware that this is what people will infer from “consensus”.

      Carlin certainly did not agree , as he said himself.
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/alan-carlin-destroys-john-cooks-credibility-if-he-ever-had-any/

      Which raises the question, how many other papers are also misclassified?

      If Cook has deliberately set the “consensus position” so wide as to include Carlin’s paper, then his survey is worthless.

      • July 10, 2013 6:58 pm

        Carlin states:

        > I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW.

        Now, either Carlin did that in the ABSTRACT or in the PAPER, a distinction Carlin does not make. Which raises the question: has Carlin misread Cook & al?

        The sentence Carlin quotes about his ABSTRACT is about CAGW, not about AGW. In his response, Carlin conflates the causes of AGW with its effects. Which raises two questions: has Carlin understood the question, and can Carlin distinguish causes from effects?

        Reading back Carlin’s ABSTRACT raises an even more important question: would Carlin have written a PAPER on the impacts of AGW if he did not presume that AGW was real? If that is the case, the paper should be classified at the very least as an implicit endorsement. If that is not the case, it would be interesting to know the relevance of a paper studying the impacts of something that does not exist.

        See how easy it is to raise concerns.

        ***

        > If Cook has deliberately set the “consensus position” so wide as to include Carlin’s paper, then his survey is worthless.

        If Carlin has deliberately written his ABSTRACT as to conflate causes and effects, paying lips service to AGW while trying to discredit it indirectly by bashing CAGW, then so much the worse for his poor misunderstood soul.

        That even Carlin accepts AGW when writing an ABSTRACT shows the strength of that 97% number. In fact, it might even show that to reject AGW amounts to straightforward denial. FWIW, yes indeed.

      • July 10, 2013 7:47 pm

        “would Carlin have written a PAPER on the impacts of AGW if he did not presume that AGW was real”

        1) He does not say AGW is not real – but he does say it is so minor that it is not worth doing anything about it. If this is the consensus position, then I suggest we all go home and watch football.
        2) Even if he believed AGW was non-existent, he would still have had good reason to write his paper, precisely for that reason. To persuade people that the proposals to address CAGW were a waste of money.

        He also argues that there are negative feedbacks , which suggests that recent warming is not largely due to humans.

        “That even Carlin accepts AGW when writing an ABSTRACT shows the strength of that 97% number”.

        No, it simply shows the strength of the forces that have built up to propound it.

      • July 10, 2013 10:39 pm

        We are anyway rather getting away from the original point here.

        Where in Carlin’s abstract does he agree with the IPCC position, as stated in their FAR:-

        Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

        Or is John Cook suggesting that the IPCC’s position is not the “consensus”?

      • July 11, 2013 1:14 am

        > He does not say AGW is not real – but he does say it is so minor […]

        Indeed, Carlin focuses on the effects of GW. He does not dispute AGW in his ABSTRACT. Nothing in his ABSTRACT explicitly contradicts the statement in the FAR. The stuff about negative feedbacks has little to do with this and only illustrates Carlin’s gamesmanship.

        This contradicts the original point, from which we never departed, if we except the CAGW talking point, which has more to do with the usual contrarian concerns than with Cook & al.

        ***

        Besides, if Carlin claims his PAPER should be classified as a 7, it should be easy to quote a quantified statement of the percentage of GW that A causes. I’m not sure such a claim can be found in his discussion of what he calls Hypothesis 1. (Hint: A != CO2.) So a quote might be needed here.

      • July 11, 2013 8:54 am

        Talk about strawmen and red herrings.

        But I see you have not answered my question, so I will try again.

        Cook’s introduction states

        We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

        So where in Carlin’s paper does he say this is the case?

      • July 11, 2013 4:58 am

        Willard,

        1. What argument is being presented in Carlin’s paper relating to AGW?

        2. Is it acceptable to misrepresent this argument by not reading the entire paper?

        3. Does Cook et al. include this sentence, “The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy” and what is the context of this sentence in relation to Cook et al.?

  9. July 11, 2013 3:54 pm

    Since we’re into free-for-all Q&As and that the indentation squeezes in the comments, I’ll enter a new thread.

    ***

    > Talk about strawmen and red herrings.

    Since Paul has conceded that it is possible that AGW is endorsed in the ABSTRACT Carlin wrote, the discussion switched to Carlin’s testimony, where we read that his PAPER should have been rated as a 7. Readers will see who created that diversion.

    Reading Carlin’s PAPER suffices to show that this interpretation is not trivial. If Carlin has deliberately written his ABSTRACT as to conflate causes and effects, paying lips service to AGW while trying to discredit it indirectly by bashing CAGW, then so much the worse for his poor misunderstood soul.

    ***

    > So where in Carlin’s paper does he say this is the case?

    I have no idea, and this ain’t my problem. Raters only had access to an ABSTRACT. See the next question.

    This question only hints at the possibility that Paul has not read the PAPER, and thus has not verified Carlin’s testimony. As long as it can help raise concerns, anything goes.

    ***

    > What argument is being presented in Carlin’s paper relating to AGW?

    Beats me. The only thing I know is that that Carlin himself says:

    I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW.

    Unless there’s an explict rejection of AGW based on a quantitative analysis in that PAPER, Carlin’s claim is false. Furthermore, it shows that Carlin misread Cook’s questionnaire.

    So perhaps someone can help Carlin here. Haven’t you read that PAPER, Pop?

    ***

    > Is it acceptable to misrepresent this argument by not reading the entire paper?

    Is it acceptable to beat one’s wife simply based on hearsay?

    There are many possibilities here. The raters could have misrated Carlin’s ABSTRACT. Carlin’s could have miswritten his ABSTRACT, paying lips service to AGW while dissing CAGW. Carlin could also have misrated his PAPER after misunderstood Cook & al’s classification.

    As auditors would say, lots of theories. The only thing we know is that Carlin conflates AGW with CAGW over and over again in his PAPER. It’s as if Carlin could not distinguish causes from effects.

    ***

    > Does Cook et al. include this sentence, “The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy” and what is the context of this sentence in relation to Cook et al.?

    Looks like a rhetorical question to me, Pop. Say what you mean instead.

    But since you’re here, please comment Tom Curtis’ analysis of Richard Tol’s self-ratings:

    http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/tols-gaffe.html

    Seems that authors are not immune to error, contrary to what Cook & al claims in their PAPER. (Left as an exercise to readers.)

    • July 11, 2013 6:08 pm

      Willard

      I repeat again. Cook defines the consensus as that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

      As neither of us can seem to find any confirmation of this in Carlin’s abstract, why has Cook included it in the “97% endorse the consensus”?

      What you have actually highlighted is that the 7 categories of “endorsement” don’t actually automatically fit in with Cook’s claim of consensus, as he has defined it. Indeed, only Category 1 does. So how many other papers are wrongly assumed to “endorse the consensus”, just because they are in Cat 2 & 3?

    • July 11, 2013 9:31 pm

      BTW – I have not the slightest interest in what “somebody called Tom Curtis” thinks about Richard Tol.

      If you want comments on it, I suggest you speak to Richard Tol himself.

    • July 12, 2013 2:24 pm

      Thanks for returning to the topic, Paul.

      As I said, it could be an error. I have no idea why they rated this as a 2. But I do know that either it’s been rated as a 2 by two different raters, or it has been arbitrated as such. I’ll ask Dana.

      But I believe you should have some interest in what Richard Tol says. Here’s what he says about impact papers:

      Emission reduction policy presumes a human influence on the climate.

      http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-paper.html

      I’m not sure I agree with this. But I’m quite sure you and Richard need to talk. Also notice the acknowledgements at the end, which answers your suggestion that I speak with Richard Tol.

      All I wish to submit that all this talk about CO2 might very well presume that A is a cause of GW, a presumption that is compatible with the IPCC position.

      You can have the last word if you wish. But don’t think that your op-ed suffices to justify its fall about Skeptical Science.

      Speaking of babies, your silence on Carlin’s 7 is deafening, BTW.

      • July 12, 2013 2:30 pm

        Thanks.

        I guess Carlin’s “7” shows just how subjective the whole exercise is! (But I would give it 6)

      • July 13, 2013 11:03 pm

        Fair enough, Paul, though I’d say it’s an intersubjective exercise, which is par for the course considering they’re studying a consensus.

        I’ll post my exchange with Dana below, in answer to Pop’s rhetorical questions.

      • July 13, 2013 11:11 pm

        Williard, I am not interested in your exchange with Dana but in direct responses to my questions.

    • July 12, 2013 2:50 pm

      Williard,

      Can a paper argue via devil’s advocate and not endorse AGW?

      Can the context of an abstract change based on reading the entire paper?

      Your entire argument is based on not reading the entire paper. Do you feel this is a valid argument?

      Since when does misrepresenting a paper’s position based on only reading an abstract become a valid excuse?

      Is Cook et al. implying the abstract rating to the entire paper’s contents?

      My reason for asking if Cook et al. included that sentence was to show that their paper supports a policy response to the perceived threat of climate change, something Carlin’s paper explicitly argues against.

      Williard, if you have an interest in being intellectually honest, I suggest reading Carlin’s paper as it is explicitly skeptical and should not be included in support of what Cook define’s as the “consensus position”. If your interest is to mislead the public then you would support Cook’s misclassification of Carlin’s paper.

      Is Tom Curtis claiming to know more about those papers than the author Dr. Tol?

      • July 13, 2013 11:29 pm

        Dear Pop,

        When you’ll answer the only question I’ll ask you, I’ll try to answer your rhetorical questions. Unless you have something against Tom Curtis’ analysis, you don’t. After having worked with Richard, I can assure you that he’s no perfectionnist.

        ***

        Meanwhile, I would not wigwag that INTEGRITY ™ flag if I were you. More so that your:

        > their paper supports a policy response to the perceived threat of climate change

        is either false, if you mean a specific response, or trivially true, since even “watching football” would be a valid policy response.

        In other words, you’re conflating CAGW, a concept that belongs more to your branding efforts, than with AGW, which was the topic of Cook & al.

        ***

        This also is false:

        > Your entire argument is based on not reading the entire paper.

        The arguments I put forward hereunder are independent from this claim. In fact, I don’t even agree with this claim. An ABSTRACT that is written well enough should carry the main claim of the PAPER and the most important assumptions. I surmise that Carlin was misunderstood because either because:

        – he was not clear enough about his intention (which ain’t hard to imagine, since he still confuses CAGW and AGW and therefore misinterpreted Cook’s questionnaire);

        – he paid lips service to AGW because God knows what.

        You certainly should pay due diligence to what I’m saying, for you might not appreciate our conversation, Pop.

        ***

        Dear all,

        Let’s disregard Pop’s pop-journalism for the moment. In the spirit of openness, I promised to ask Dana about the rationale behind the rating of Carlin’s ABSTRACT as a 2. Here’s what Dana said:

        It explicitly acknowledges AGW and just says it probably won’t be catastrophic. That’s a 2. […] Talks about economic benefits of reducing CO2 (then says they’re small), “The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” admits AGW.

        I believe this justifies well enough the reading that took place. But here’s Dana again:

        Iit could also be classified as a 5 for minimizing the anthro influence. I’ll be the first to tell you our ratings aren’t 100% perfect.

        I would disagree about that reading, since the minimisation does not pertain to AGW, but to CAGW. But that does not exclude the possibility that other raters could rate this differently. As we just saw, Paul would rate it as a 6, and Carlin himself as a 7.

        Note though that this reading must occur between two different raters, or else would have to be adjudicated as such.

        ***

        So even the authors readily admit that the rating may not have been error-prone. OTOH, the self-ratings clearly show that the ABTRACT ratings were conservative. Unless we put forward more sophisticated test than brandishing anecdotal contrarians who seem to have difficulty understanding Cook’s questionnaire, or even confuse causes from effects of AGW, I don’t think you have a case.

        And that’s the memo for me, at least for the moment.

        Until next time,

        Heads up,

        w

      • July 14, 2013 12:38 am

        Willard, you continue to dodge the questions and inject red herrings about Dr. Tol. No I do not believe Tom Curtis knows more about the paper’s than the author

        You claim that Cook et al. is not arguing for a policy response to AGW yet refused to answer this question,

        Does Cook et al. include this sentence, “The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy” and what is the context of this sentence in relation to Cook et al.?

        I am not conflating anything.

        You claim that my observation is false yet you continue to argue your opinion of the abstract’s purpose. If your argument is independent of relying solely on the abstract then I suggest you read Carlin’s paper and argue from the entire contents of the paper. Yes I have read the entire paper.

        Now please address my questions,

        Can a paper argue via devil’s advocate and not endorse AGW?

        Can the context of an abstract change based on reading the entire paper?

        Since when does misrepresenting a paper’s position based on only reading an abstract become a valid excuse?

        Is Cook et al. implying their abstract rating to the entire paper’s contents?

        Carlin’s paper explicitly states,

        Hypothesis 1: Anthropogenic releases of CO2 are the primary cause of increases in atmospheric CO2.

        Hypothesis 2: Increases in atmospheric CO2 levels interact with the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, to create a large positive feedback capable of creating catastrophic global warming.

        Hyposthesis 3a: Changes in Global Temperatures Are Primarily Influenced by Rising Levels of GHGs Other Than Water Vapor in the Atmosphere […]

        The conclusion from this analysis is that hypotheses 1 and 2 are invalid based on the best current data, and that hypothesis 3a is of doubtful scientific validity and casts still further doubt on the validity of 1 and 2.

        This is explicitly rejection and should of been rated as a 7 as defined by Cook et al.

        I look forward to your intellectual honesty.

  10. July 14, 2013 9:08 pm

    Poptech,

    My last comment was held in moderation, so I’ll be brief. You say:

    > The conclusion from this analysis is that hypotheses 1 and 2 are invalid based on the best current data, and that hypothesis 3a is of doubtful scientific validity and casts still further doubt on the validity of 1 and 2.

    This would be a 7 according to Cook & al if and only if it has been quantified.

    Please find a quote in that article where it is claimed that the A is responsible for less than 50% of the GW.

    If you can’t, that could mean you and Carlin misrated the PAPER.

    Many thanks!

    PS: I still have that moderated comment, Paul. I can break it in smaller bits if need be.

    • July 18, 2013 12:42 am

      Willard, did you miss the point were he said he doubted the scientific validity of Hypothesis 3a?

      Hypothesis 3a: Changes in Global Temperatures Are Primarily Influenced by Rising Levels of GHGs Other Than Water Vapor in the Atmosphere

      If it is not the primary influence than it is less than 50%. The description from Cook et al. 2013 says,

      7. = “Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming”

      Carlin meets this criteria.

      • July 20, 2013 1:35 am

        We might be having a communication problem, Pop.

        I’m asking you for a quote.

        A quote with explicit quantification.

        You know, something like what Scafetta does for instance in this ABSTRACT:

        Global surface temperature records (e.g. HadCRUT4) since 1850 are characterized by climatic oscillations synchronous with specific solar, planetary and lunar harmonics superimposed on a background warming modulation. The latter is related to a long millennial solar oscillation and to changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere (e.g. aerosol and greenhouse gases). However, current general circulation climate models, e.g. the CMIP5 GCMs, to be used in the AR5 IPCC Report in 2013, fail to reconstruct the observed climatic oscillations. As an alternate, an empirical model is proposed that uses: (1) a specific set of decadal, multidecadal, secular and millennial astronomic harmonics to simulate the observed climatic oscillations; (2) a 0.45 attenuation of the GCM ensemble mean simulations to model the anthropogenic and volcano forcing effects. The proposed empirical model outperforms the GCMs by better hind-casting the observed 1850-2012 climatic patterns. It is found that: (1) about 50-60% of the warming observed since 1850 and since 1970 was induced by natural oscillations likely resulting from harmonic astronomical forcings that are not yet included in the GCMs; (2) a 2000-2040 approximately steady projected temperature; (3) a 2000-2100 projected warming ranging between 0.3 °C and 1.6 °C, which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1 °C to 4.1 °C; (4) an equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling centered in 1.35 °C and varying between 0.9 °C and 2.0 °C.

        http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/p7n531161076t3p6/?p=c84512f97a5845ec995057c3818fb1d2&pi=0

        You should find in Carlin’s paper something that looks like the bit emphasized. If you don’t find an explicit quantification, you have at most a 6, which would be just like Paul said.

        I have already checked for every occurence of the character “%” in the paper, in case you’re wondering. Carlin’s paper does not contain an attribution study. As far as I read this sharknado of contrarian trickery (I mean, come on, it even quotes Girma’s curve fitting!), all it does is to raise concerns regarding AGW. To that effect, here’s how the relevant section on hypothesis 3a ends:

        Although the research summarized in this subsection does not disprove hypothesis 3a, it certainly casts considerable doubt on it. The apparent invalidity of hypotheses 1 and 2 suggests why hypothesis 3a may not be more successful.

        This would like a 5 to me, perhaps even a 4b. We’d need to read furthermore.

        That’s it.

        Checkmate, Pop.

        ***

        Oh, and your question:

        > Did Cook et al. accurately rate Carlin’s paper?

        presumes that Cook & al rated Carlin’s PAPER.

        They did not: they rated Carlin’s ABSTRACT.

        Is Carlin’s ABSTRACT representative of Carlin’s PAPER?

        Now, that would be a good question to ask.

        Thanks for playing, Pop.

      • July 20, 2013 1:50 am

        The description of #7 verbatim, “Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming” with an example:

        “The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission'”

        It does not have to give a number, it just needs to imply it is less than 50%.

        The context of this quote as clarified by Carlin supports the above definition,

        “The conclusion from this analysis is that hypotheses 1 and 2 are invalid based on the best current data, and that hypothesis 3a is of doubtful scientific validity and casts still further doubt on the validity of 1 and 2.”

        Carlin further states,

        “I would classify my paper in Cook et al’s category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

        With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2.”

        Are you claiming to know more about the paper than the author?

        I am well aware Cook et al. misrepresented Carlin’s paper by not reading it.

        Willard, I suggest learning how to play chess first as you are admitting regardless that Cook et al. misclassified Carlin’s paper.

      • July 20, 2013 2:49 pm

        What part of does not disprove do you not get, Pop?

        Do you know where Carlin establishes any connection between hypothesis 3a, which he doubts but without rejecting explicitly, and 1-2-3, which he explicitly rejects?

        I don’t think you can find it. And in fact, even if you did, here’s what you can read from his conclusion:

        The conclusion from this analysis is that hypotheses 1 and 2 are invalid based on the best current data, and that hypothesis 3a is of doubtful scientific validity and casts still further doubt on the validity of 1 and 2. As mentioned in Section 1.2.2, however, these conclusions are all subject to case-by-case analysis to determine the validity and relevance of the data used.

        In other words, Carlin has the honesty to admit the limits of using the “CO2 lags temp” claptrap and “here, let’s eyeball some curve fitting”. Carlin would certainly need an editor if he needs to “offer” clarifications that are contradicted by his own PAPER. He would also need an epistemologist, but that’s another question.

        ***

        Also note that you’re still using this as an argument

        > With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 […]

        which still confuses the causes of GW (the main topic of Cook) with its effects (the main topic of Carlin).

      • July 20, 2013 10:57 pm

        Willard, where does Cook et al. say the paper has to “disprove” AGW?

        If Hypothesis 1 is rejected,

        Hypothesis 1: Anthropogenic releases of CO2 are the primary cause of increases in atmospheric CO2.

        How is AGW supported as more than 50%?

      • July 21, 2013 5:00 pm

        > If Hypothesis 1 is rejected […] How is AGW supported as more than 50%?

        I have no idea, Pop. Can you find an explicit argument according to which rejecting hypothesis 1 leads to the rejection of hypothesis 3a? If you do, you win and it’s a 7. If you don’t, you lose, since it’s either a 4b, a 5 (Dana) or a 6 (Paul).

        I read the article, Pop. You won’t find it. In fact, you’ll see that Carlin’s

        > [T]hese conclusions are all subject to case-by-case analysis […]

        is tough to reconcile with what he said earlier:

        > There are either other important factors influencing global temperatures besides changes in CO2 or the CO2 hypothesis is incorrect. Neither explanation is very supportive of hypothesis 3a.

        Either the conclusions are supportive from one another or they are subject to case-by-case analyse.

        ***

        Look, Pop. I’m not here to defend Cook & al. Just as I sent criticisms to Richard, I did send criticisms to Dana too.

        By now, you should get the feeling that I have some editing experience. Carlin’s paper is of low quality, and only wordsmitting can hide the logical gaps in his argument. Such absurd constructions can imply about anything you want: look for “Principle_of_explosion” in thy Wiki.

        So yeah, of course it can be a 5 or a 6. The only thing it can’t be is a 7.

        ***

        Carlin went a bridge too far. Why? The most plausible explanation, to me, is that Carlin misunderstood Cook & al’s classification. This is unsurprising, as even Richard misread it:

        http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/tols-gaffe.html

        This is why I asked you to comment on Richard’s gaffe. If Richard misread it, chances are that lots of Carlins did too. As auditors ought to say: wonder why?

        So here’s what I offer: let’s attribute these misunderstandings to rater’s fatigue (wink wink) and attend to our weekly hurly burlies, shall we?

    • July 18, 2013 12:43 am

      Now Willard, did Cook et al. accurately rate Carlin’s paper?

      • July 20, 2013 1:51 am

        **crickets**

      • July 20, 2013 2:51 pm

        You may have missed this answer above, Pop:

        Oh, and your question:

        > Did Cook et al. accurately rate Carlin’s paper?

        presumes that Cook & al rated Carlin’s PAPER.

        They did not: they rated Carlin’s ABSTRACT.

        Is Carlin’s ABSTRACT representative of Carlin’s PAPER?

        Now, that would be a good question to ask.

        You’re using a badly written ABSTRACT against Cook, Pop. Ain’t cool.

      • July 20, 2013 10:50 pm

        Willard, did Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?

      • July 21, 2013 5:05 pm

        > [D]id Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?

        That depends upon what you mean by “apply”.

        If you mean that Cook & al presume ABSTRACT are representative of PAPERS, then yes, there’s something like that going on. How else would you get the idea to rate ABSTRACTS? One could claim that this might be over-optimistic to think that authors can write well. Carlin’s case shows otherwise.

        If you mean that Cook & al generalized their ratings to the papers, then no: they asked the AUTHORS themselves to self-rate their PAPERS. And they found that the ratings were more conservative than the self-ratings. This precaution protects against cases such as Carlin’s.

        Thank you for your concerns.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: