From email:
My name is Yonatan Dubi, I am a professor of chemistry and physics at Ben Gurion University, Israel. I am also one of Israel’s leading advocates for rational environmentalism and climate realism. Together with a few colleagues we have conducted a very nice research, detailing and quantifying the flaws in the famous consensus study by Lynas et al, which (falsely) claimed the ridiculous 99% consensus. After a year long journey, our paper was finally published in the peer reviewed journal Climate, the link is https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215.
The conclusion does not follow from the data”: Israeli study trashes extreme global warming consensus claim.
Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change
David Dentelski , Ran Damari , Yanir Marmor , Avner Niv , Mor Roses and Yonatan Dubi
Climate 2023, 11(11), 215; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215
Received: 16 September 2023 / Revised: 24 October 2023 / Accepted: 26 October 2023 / Published: 30 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Policy, Governance, and Social Equity)
Abstract
Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.
The original study, to which the above is a response;
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 11Citation Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966Abstract
While controls over the Earth’s climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
…
Read more: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
What a surprise – a study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored.
Lynas, et. al., is probably the worst case of confirmation bias ever published. Of course, we all knew that when we first saw it. The Lynas paper was all about grabbing headlines, not science. Now watch the fun as Lynas et. al. tries to defend their paper, with even greater levels of nonsense.
The continued need to show a consensus ‘that the science is settled’ just shows that in reality it isn’t. And every one of these ‘consensus’ papers has been busted bigly. This is just the latest example.
Who was it to jump the shark and claim that consensus had anything to do with science in the first place?
A long list. Among the notables I just checked are the IPCC, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and of course climate.nasa.gov.
Two whore houses, three whores, and two Nobel prize winners, not necessarily in that order.
Anyway, I’m in full agreement with what Michael Crichton said. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
Anyone who has not read that talk by Michael Crichton should do so. “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”. If that isn’t clear enough for you, there’s lots more in the talk.
. . . and let’s not forget climate-change-is-a-current-existential-threat Joe Biden.
And not only is it a current existential threat, according to John Kirby (spokesidiot for the president) it is a GREATER THREAT than nuclear war!
This brief essay on the philosophy of science is able to explain, without going into great detail, using a cosmological model example, the general majority viewpoint which considers consensus the closest approach possible to truth — i.e “scientific realism”.
https://iai.tv/articles/cosmologys-crisis-challenges-scientific-realism-david-merritt-auid-2651?_auid=2020
And “… it just takes one to prove me wrong,” Rud.
Ahhhh . . . if only . . . if only Richard Feynman was alive today to
comment ondecimate the meme of “human-caused climate change”.“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” — Richard Feynman
And he would be cancelled.
NASA wishes they could have cancelled him when he blew apart the careful cover up that they were building regarding the Challenger explosion.
That press conference was a beautiful thing to behold.
There is more to the story. Feynman was clued by engineer(s) about the problem. While the government and company wanted a launch, the salary dudes warned against it. They were told to shut up.
A small clue set Feynman up to become more famous than he already was.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!”
Feynman is right, of course. The only problem with your interpretation of his comment is that, regarding climate change, experiment does indeed agree with theory. Globally, we are warming in line with averaged modelled projections, no matter what nonsense you may read here,
You’re on fire today!
A flawed climate model is not an experiment. No matter what nonsense you might believe.
Basically the models use partial information to produce invalid projections. That’s all. Nothing mysterious about it.
The average of 30 models that are all running hot cannot possibly predict something realistic. About that there is 100% consensus.
“averaged modelled projections”
So, all the models are wrong, but averaged together they’re spot on. Is that really your conclusion?
Only in climate “science” can you average a bunch of wrong answers in order to get the right answer.
Nor should it be overlooked that NOAA repeatedly adjusts the base data trying to get reality to match their broken models.
“If speculative answers can not be tested, they are not science; they do not even rise to the level of being wrong.” Wolfgang Pauli.
Ideas not answers. D’oh.
“experiment does indeed agree with theory”
WRONG.. on so many levels !!
1…. There is no evidence human enhance atmospheric CO2 causes warming… PERIOD… you have shown that many, many times with your abject inability to present any.
2…. Models based on the erroneous “theory” are provably manifestly WRONG when compare with real world data.
3…. Every prediction made by the AGW cult has been a total zero outcome.
“Globally, we are warming in line with averaged modelled projections,”
You are typing nonsense.. that is for sure. !! !
Model averages are a complete and absolute NON-SCIENCE. !
TFN, you comment is absurd.
Paleoclimatology scientific data shows that there is no correlation of CO2 levels with “global temperature”, including periods when CO2 atmospheric levels were in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 ppm (compared to today’s level of 420 ppm). See attached graph.
Furthermore, UAH satellite date for monitoring “global temperature” (the best measurements we have a such a ridiculous single value) have demonstrated no statistical “global warming” over the last eight-plus years (ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/05/the-new-pause-remains-at-8-years-10-months/ ), despite total atmospheric CO2 levels increasing from about 400 ppm to 423 ppm (about a 6% increase) over that same time period
In case you are especially dense, nature is “running the experiment” for us. You may not like the “experimental” results but Feynman’s comment holds true.
“experiment does indeed agree with theory.””
We are all still waiting for the “experiment” that matches the erroneous theory.
FN has never been able to produce one.
No fair, you want to use all the data.
A proper climate “scientist” knows that only the data that matches your theory counts.
No, in TFN’s world, you INVENT the data to match your theory.
This isn’t “all the data,” though, is it? It appears to be a singular reconstruction of temperatures from a single geologist using a single method (essentially using geologic evidence to binarily assign ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ to global temp) plotted against a model (uh oh) of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Could you or anyone else in the thread expound on why this particular reconstruction is to be taken as the be-all end-all dataset that supersedes all others? It seems to be at odds with, e.g., Royer et al. 2004 and others.
AlanJ,
Assuming your comment to MarkW was made in reference to the plot of “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 Over Geologic Time” that I posted in a preceding comment, I simply invite you to see at the bottom left border of that image these notes:
“Temperature data after C.R. Scotese (with reference URL provided)
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)”
(note: similar notes are also provided on the bottom left face of graph itself)
I think you will find that Scotese incorporated a variety of sources of scientific paleoclimatology proxies to obtain his graph of temperature over time (specifically, such was not a singular model “reconstruction”), and that Berner likewise incorporated a range of sources of scientific paleoclimatology proxies to obtain his graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration levels over time (again, specifically such not being a singular model “reconstruction”).
Also, please note the graph of global temperature over time has a numerical y-axis scale on the right side of the graph, thus falsifying your absurd statement “using geologic evidence to binarily assign ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ to global temperature.
Given the above defects in your understanding of what was presented, why should anyone attempt to reply to your sophomoric question:
“Could you or anyone else in the thread expound on why this particular reconstruction is to be taken as the be-all end-all dataset that supersedes all others?” Hint: such a statement is commonly known as a strawman argument/logical fallacy . . . look it up.
Scotese is using forms of geologic evidence such as sediment deposits to infer when the earth was in an icehouse or hothouse state, he is not providing a quantiative paleoclimate reconstruction using temperature proxies. The scale on the y-axis is extremely approximate and in divisions of 7 degrees C. It’s a very dated approach that doesn’t yield a result that can be directly compared with atmospheric CO2 models like GeoCarb.
And of course you deftly evade my question. Disappointing, but expected. If your graph is meant to represent the best available reconstruction of past climate states, then surely you must be able to articulate why it is a better representation than reconstructions that are inconsistent with it. But you can’t do that, so instead you put up a bravely patronizing facade and pretend that you aren’t answering because you’re too smart to be bothered. Typical evasion.
Lots of words . . . got any data . . . any data at all? . . . to support what you so easily state?
BTW, I did NOT evade your question, deftly or otherwise. I just presented my argument for it being sophomoric (i.e., stupid).
The IPCC AR6 has a nice graphic illustrating CO2 and temperature correspondence over the past 60 million years:
Royer, 2004, 2006 demonstrate a close coupling between temperature and CO2 across the Phanerozoic. With the caveat that the data become exponentially more uncertain the further back in time we go (a fact which is completely absent from the reconstruction you provided above).
Oh, you very much did. You’re evading still, and just digging your heels in.
ROFLMAO..
3 cherry-picked meaningless periods.
Then back to meaningless non-science models.
If this is what passes for “science” in your feeble little mind, no wonder you “believe” in such idiotic fantasies. !
Your serious, right? Or pretend to be serious in presenting this graph fronted by the IPCC? Really???
I just observe the following in the text label for the graph you presented as “data”:
1) “CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years through the mid-20th century are from air trapped in in polar ice.” and “Global maps for two paleo reference periods are based on Coupled Model Intercomparison project Phase 6 (CMIP6) and pre-CMIP6 multi-model means . . .” Again I have to ask, you got any data for time time periods prior to 800,000 years ago, considering that climate models do NOT produce data? Hint for you: the last 800,000 years ago is only 0.1% of the paleoclimatology timespan covered by the Scotese & Berner combined data graph I posted.
2) There are too many science-based websites to mention that discuss the problems of using “air trapped in polar ice” as any kind of accurate proxy for past global atmospheric CO2 concentration. More importantly, the oldest continuous ice core records extend to 130,000 years in Greenland, and 800,000 years in Antarctica . . put that in the context of discussing global paleoclimatology proxies going back some 500 million or more years . . . just laughable!
3) “CO2 concentrations from millions of years ago are reconstructed from multiple proxy records (grey dots are data from Section 2.2.3.1, Figure 2.3 shown with cubic spline fit).” Yet there is a complete absence of “grey dots” or reference to how the “correlated” (yeah, right!) temperature curve “from millions of years ago” was obtained other than perhaps the CMIP6 multi-model means stated in (1) above. Again, models do NOT produce data.
3) The Scotese & Berner graph I presented covers the last 550 million years of paleoclimatology data, whereas the IPCC-fronted graph that you presented covers only the last 60 million year of asserted climate “data”, or less than 11% of the period under discussion. Do you see any problem with that?
I asked for data, and you provide this sh*t.
Finally, yes, I do “dig in my heels” when I encounter stupidity. Piling it on does not help your cause.
Too many sites, but you can’t name any of them. Got it. And no peer reviewed papers to cite, either.
Well, they cite the very exact section of the report (2.2.3.1) describing the multi proxy CO2 data:
But I guess reading is too much to ask of this crowd.
I think you’re digging in your heels in because you can’t answer the question, which you make more and more obvious with each comment.
Oh, and you completely ignored my references to Royer, 2004 and 2006, which both demonstrate that CO2 and temperature covary across the Phanerozoic. Another evasion.
Here you go for both, since you “asked” so nicely:
“Three main CO2 and temperature relations are suggested with supporting evidence, but uncertainties and outside factors need to be taken into account. These ambiguities make it unclear whether CO2 is a forcing factor on climate . . .
“Flaws in Data
In ice core analysis, researchers run into uncertainties and possible errors that obscure the recorded data. Mentioned before, the age of the trapped CO2 is found by the age of the ice it is enclosed in. There is an age difference between the age of the ice and the age of the CO2 but the difference varies by glacial period. Monnin points out . . . that the uncertainty of the age of the ice increases in older ice cores . . . In analyzing ice cores, both Monnin et al. and Indermuhle et al. report that chemical impurities in the ice need to be taken into account when measuring CO2 concentrations. High resolution Taylor Dome ice core measurements show that CO2 produced from chemical reactions between these impurities masks the actual atmospheric CO2 concentrations . . . Another flaw is noted by Veizer et al. reporting that it is unclear whether the relationships between CO2 and temperature found in ice cores reflect a global or local phenomenon. Veizer found that oxygen isotopes measured in calcite and aragonite shells show oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the ice core climate records from Antarctica, thus providing evidence to support the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon. But, this data is at odds with temperature models that depend on CO2 as a forcing factor. Therefore, whether climate change is global or local depends on whether CO2 is a forcing factor on temperature. This further complicates any hypothesis taken from ice core analysis.”
— https://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html
[my bold emphasis added]
and
“Ice cores from Greenland provide unique records of rapid climate
events of the past 120 kyr. However, because of relatively high concentrations of impurities, Greenlandic ice cores do not provide reliable atmospheric CO2 records. Antarctic ice cores, which contain an order-of-magnitude fewer impurities, provide reliable records, but existing data from the deglacial period from Antarctica either provide only low temporal resolution or are of relatively low precision . . .
“METHODS . . . Prior work in Greenland has demonstrated that CO2 records can be compromised through in situ production when
abundant concentrations of calcium carbonate are present. Calcium is delivered to the ice in the form of carbonate dust that blows onto the ice-sheet surface and is buried by subsequent accumulation . . . each ice core from Antarctica is both geographically unique and affected by distinct atmospheric processes that can deliver various chemical species to the sites . . . In addition to calcium carbonate, the oxidation of organic compounds can also affect the CO2 concentration from ice cores.”
— NATURE | VOL 514 | 30 OCTOBER 201
(free download available at https://earthscience.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MarcottNature-2014.pdf)
[my bold emphasis added]
Finally, as for your comment:
All the following blah, blah, blah that you cite is specific to CO2 and CO2 proxy data, but you missed the fact, clearly given immediately above by you quoting my comment, that I specifically was asking about the paloeclimatology temperature curve in the graph you posted, and it having an absence of any indicated data points or described derivation.
Too funny!
Now, you were saying something about making something more and more obvious with each comment . . .
This reference is to an essay written by an undergraduate bioengineering student. And of course there are uncertainties and challenges when dealing with paleoclimate archives. Nobody doubts this. The claim you’re making is that such challenges have never been overcome, not merely that they exist. Paleoclimate scientists are well aware of potential contamination of ice core samples or myriad other uncertainties, and spend an enormous amount of time and effort ensuring that they are properly accounted for. The exact same point applies to Marcott et al. (who, incidentally, open their abstract by noting “Global climate and the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are correlated over recent glacial cycles.” Oops).
The section of the report you quoted is referring to CO2 data, so you probably should proofread your comments more carefully before hitting submit:
““CO2 concentrations from millions of years ago are reconstructed from multiple proxy records (grey dots are data from Section 2.2.3.1, Figure 2.3 shown with cubic spline fit).” Yet there is a completeabsence of “grey dots” or reference to how the “correlated” (yeah, right!) temperature curve “from millions of years ago” was obtained other than perhaps the CMIP6 multi-model means stated in (1) above. Again, models do NOT produce data.”
The caption quite clearly states that “Global surface temperature prior to 1850 is estimated from marine oxygen isotopes.” See, e.g., Zachos, 2001 for an example. You really do need to read more carefully.
And, of course, all throughout this you are still desperately avoiding actually answering my question, and are still desperately avoiding the references to Royer 2004, 2006. I expect your attempts at deflection will extend indefinitely.
Again, AlanJ, you are just too funny!
I cite a webpage—a Massachusetts Institute of Technology webpage, no less—that features discussion of the problems of using using “air trapped in polar ice” as a proxy for determining past global atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and you turn around and criticize that because it has “an essay written by an undergraduate bioengineering student”?
That’s commonly known as the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack . . . look it up.
And you completely dismiss that author’s numerous references to the published works of other scientists.
I guess I need to point out to you that in Albert Einstein’s 1905 annus mirabilis—wherein he published four groundbreaking papers on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, his special theory of relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy—he had not yet received his PhD and was employed as a patent clerk.
But please do carry on. Oh, and you may once again want to make reference to Royer 2004 and 2006 in any reply.
Again, AlanJ, you are just too funny.
I cite a webpage—a Massachusetts Institute of Technology webpage, no less—that features discussion of the problems of using using “air trapped in polar ice” as a proxy for determining past global atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and you turn around and criticize that because it has “an essay written by an undergraduate bioengineering student”?
That’s commonly know as the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack . . . look it up.
I guess I need to point out to you that in Albert Einstein’s 1905 annus mirabilis—wherein he published four groundbreaking papers on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, his special theory of relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy—he had not yet received his PhD and was employed as a patent clerk.
But please do carry on. Oh, and you may once again want to make reference to Royer 2004 and 2006 in any reply.
I did not criticize the website for being an undergrad essay submission, I pointed it out because it is amusing – you claim there are “too many science based websites to mention” showing that ice cores are poor archives of paleo CO2 levels, yet you can only dredge up an essay written by an undergrad. An ad hominem would be to say, “the kid is wrong because he is an undergrad,” which I did not say.
The actual criticism I lodged, which you again deftly sidestepped (you’re quite good at never confronting the actual argument, aren’t you?) is that the existence of potential contamination in ice core records does not preclude the use of such records as paleo archives, and scientists are very, very well aware of the potential issues and work very hard to ensure that the results of ice core analyses are robust.
Oh, yes, thanks for bringing it up. You did ignore it once again. Royer 2004, 2006 shows that CO2 and temperature covary across the Phanerozoic, completely demolishing what little argument you’ve actually managed to muster in this thread. But do please carry on deflecting and evading, it does seem to be the only tool in your arsenal.
All the other proxy reconstructions come to similar results.
And therein lies the rub for your argument. Feynman would have no sympathy for your cause.
Only after cooking, does the data somewhat look like what the models predicted.
Ah the ‘spaghetti hypothesis’ – nicely proven!
It has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. Saying it is going to continue warming doesn’t take a computer model.
The average person has one testicle and one breast, and yet no one is born that way.
Very rarely some are born with only one testicle, or only one descends, breasts can be of different sizes, in fact anything we have two of can be differently sized.
As someone with differently sized feet only a single shoe is a good fit the other is always too big. Oversize is more comfortable than undersized.
Attached is the 21st century “warming” of the GISS dataset (as good, or bad, as any other GMST reconstruction from thermometer readings) compared to the “projections” of both the CMIP5 models using RCP inputs and the CMIP6 models using SSP inputs.
Note the offsets to align everything to AR6’s “2010 = 0.99°C above the pre-industrial [ 1850-1900 average ]” level.
GISS has a definite “step”, oscillating around 0.95°C from 2002 to 2013(-ish) before quickly rising then oscillating around (or just over ?) the 1.25°C level from 2015/2016 to “now”.
The models, on the other hand, show (relatively) smoothly rising “warming” trends …
Loftily declaring that “we are warming [ present tense ] in line with averaged modelled projections” is a subjective opinion, nothing more.
_ _ _ _ _
A reminder of the NASA Apollo team’s motto :
“In God we trust, everyone else has to bring data”
You really ought to try their approach yourself every now and again.
Wrong.
“Averaged”? So, if I shoot at a target four times, and I’m 6″ high on the first shot, 6″ low on the second, 6″ left on the third, and 6″ right on the fourth, my average is a bulls-eye?
Except they don’t average all of the models and all of the runs.
Out of the dozens of models and thousands of runs, they pick a couple of models that best fit what they expected to happen, then they pick a couple of runs from each model, that even better fit what they expect to happen.
Then they average them all together, and lo and behold, the results fit what they expected to happen.
The models overpredict the amount of warming, and the warming only seems to come with every El Nino not steadily with every CO2 ppm.
During the first decade of the 21st century, China and India and pretty much the rest of the developing world turned up their coal and steel plants to 11, and yet temperatures remained flat. Climate models, not so much.
Am I the only one to point out that an experiment cannot prove a hypothesis correct, it can only falsify?
I can predict it always rains on a Tuesday and even a long series of wet Tuesdays does not validate my theory!
“Am I the only one to point out that an experiment cannot prove a hypothesis correct, it can only falsify?”
Probably not. I’ve lost count of the number of times I state such.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve stated such.
(The edit feature would be nice.)
https://co2coalition.org/2021/10/31/97-consensus-what-consensus/
Con-sensus!
I always think of it as being a con census.
It strikes me that “consensus” is just the old appeal to authority fallacy, multiplied.
The man who thinks for himself endorses the consensus — because everybody else does.
That doesn’t make sense.
Poe’s Law strikes again? 🙂
Which was IMO the point of the sarcasm.
Taking people’s word as given is broken when people later claim their word(s) are sarcastic.
I take his sentence given as stated.
Unless the author of the sentence appends a /s as a hint.
Our deciding someone else’s words are sarcastic apply their own personal opinions. Actions that confuse the original meaning.
Broken NOAA model runs produce illogical graphs. So the desperate NOAA team and their sycophants immediately proclaim that they “average” bad model runs for an “average” broken model run. This is broken NOAA science.
Their claim is pure science sarcasm made in desperation, but virtually no-one recognizes the sarcasm.
I believe it is supposed to be ironic.
“I’m not”. (The best line from the whole of Monty Python?)
Personally, I’m partial to “Alright I AM the messiah! Now **** off!!”
… and shows himself to be a fool.
Even though consensus isn’t everything, it would still be interesting to know what the results would look like if the ‘neutral’ and ‘skeptical’ contributors were added to the study. That consensus would be interesting, even taken with a grain of salt…
Yes, imagine the consensus one could produce regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if you excluded any viewpoints that disregard the existence of angels, or are skeptical of their existence.
David Dentelski , Ran Damari , Yanir Marmor , Avner Niv , Mor Roses and Yonatan Dubi:
Thank you for your efforts. And please accept our prayer that the Eternal One, who is Israel’s guard, keep you and you loved ones from all evil through the current ordeal.
Thank you!!
Yikes!
Shades of John Cook’s claim that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made” (the actual claim was that ‘man had caused at least half of the 0.7 deg-C of global warming since 1950), that was soundly, scathingly and scientifically shown to be wrong back as far as in 2013.
As the saying goes, some people never learn.
Remember the goal has nothing to do with the climate – the real goal as put forth by a former head of the UNIPCC is the destruction of capitalism – CO2 is just the tool to scare everyone into submission
‘Some people never learn’ must include all climate alarmists. Everything predicted to have happened by now didn’t. Renewables are grid ruinables. Yet they keep predicting stuff that cannot happen and pushing renewables.
Climate alarmists are a large doomsday cult.
There have been at least 10 of these ‘scientific’ studies going back to Oreskes in 2004. In each case they have been found to be so badly flawed as to be pretty much worthless. And yet these muppets keep trying to flog that poor deceased old nag. Are they just trying to convince each other that their cause is just, are they trying to build a better echo chamber? I can’t understand the mentality of these people.
I thought it was since 1850?
Did you even think to consult the Cook, et.al, published paper to see what the specific criteria of his “study” was?
Here it is, taken verbatim from the section “Methodology” of his 2013 published article (available at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 ):
“We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
(my bold emphasis added for the benefit of responding directly to your question . . . mid-20th century would be 1950, arithmetically)
The methodology of Cook et.al. was so flawed—among other things, being restricted to “surveying” abstracts only—that it’s no wonder this publication received the scorn and criticism that it has from the science and mathematical communities, starting in 2013 and continuing up to today.
What did they attribute the other half or whatever % to?
Story tip
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2023/10/31/orsted-horsea-three-wind-farm-blamed-for-river-glaven-pollution/
Renewables are not eco friendly
“[we] are taking active steps to ensure that mitigation measures in place on our site can handle extreme weather.”
Looks like a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Well no surprise here – everything the left promotes is all propaganda – think COVID policies, non-vaccines vaccines, J6 “riots” and lots more
“Acidification” of the oceans is the most blatant propaganda I have yet seen in the climate space.
And yet while this nonsense is patently disinformation (malinformation?), people such as chemistry teachers etc who are supposed to be the custodians of pH scale comprehension are not correcting it or calling it out.
Rather, they’ve taken to enthusiastically teaching kids that a selective, dubiously-detected small reduction in alkalinity is “acidification”.
Goebbels would be impressed.
It is easy to disprove Ocean Acidification experimentally. All it takes is a pH meter and a beaker of seawater. Measure the pH before and after blowing across the surface – little or no change from pH 8.3.
1) Diffusion from atmosphere to air is not instantaneous.
2) The water that does pick up CO2, likely evaporated due to your breath.
If you want a better experiment. Put that beaker of water in a container with enhanced CO2 for a week, then remeasure.
You have clearly never done any electrochemistry. I have. Conductivity water, which is stringently purified and free of dissolved games, and is kept under argon, has pH 7 by definition. Exposing it to the atmosphere even for a few seconds causes the pH to drop measurably.
But ph =7 water has absolutely no chemical equivalency to ocean seawater, with pH typically in the range of 8.0—8.3 and containing free OH-, carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Consult the Bjerrum graph:
“100 (German) scientists against Einstein” is the most famous 99% of scientists’ consensus on the wrong side of the argument. This is another one, although, there isn’t one climateering scientist qualified to clean the blackboard for any of the 100 German scientists of the day.
It was “100 Authors against Relativity.” There were actually 121 in total and you’d be hard pressed to find even a small handful that made any contribution to science. They were the ‘climate scientists’ of their day – most were disgusted that Einstein hadn’t mentioned anything about the ‘luminiferous ether’ in his paper which was, obviously, necessary for the propagation of light!
And, like the ‘climate scientists’ not one of them used the scientific method in the construction of their arguments, all are shaped by scientific incompetence and failed to provide any facts to support their arguments, relying on (sometimes) complex mathematical formulae. Honestly well worth looking at an analysis of the ‘100 Authors’, the parallels are quite strikung.
Not quite historically right. The luminiferous aether theory of light propagation in a vacuum was disproven by the Michelson Morley experiment in 1887.
Einstein did not publish his theory of special relativity until 1906.
The ‘100’ expert scientists disagreeing with his relativity theories was published by Nazi Germany in the mid 1930’s, because Einstein was Jewish.
To which Einstein (in Switzerland on way to US) famously replied, “Why 100? One would suffice to prove me wrong.”
If you go through the list of arguments against, you’ll find that many of them really do mention the ether as an objection, despite the earlier work disproving it. Also only about 91 or so were German, many were from other countries, including USA, and although many were published in German, one was in English and a couple more were in other languages. Yes the reason was most likely the fact that he was Jewish but, given the very widespread (and disturbingly popular) anti-Jewish sentiment across Europe and North America, it’s likely that these authors were anti-semitic rather than Nazi collaborators. Also there is no primary source for Einstein having said that last bit – it is attributed to him but there is no evidence that he ever said it.
Wasn’t it standard until the 1950s(?) to publish scientific papers in German then translate into other languages?
I don’t know. Most are in German but it was published in 1931, before the Nazi’s came to power and before they eroded the strong scientific tradition and reputation of German science, but published in Germany. I tend to think that it was mainly German, anti-semitic, sub-par academics with others around the world holding similar views then jumping on the bandwagon.
Richard, how many 100s of scientists have made giant steps in in science in history. Most were alive in the three centuries before Einstein. If these German 100 scientists had advanced degrees in science, it’s safe to say they still tower above the asterisked PhDs of the consensus nummies of c climate science.
Both statements are probably true. They were the equivalent of the climate science incompetents of their day but were way ahead of them. Even so, the many references they made to the ether as if it were still a valid concept and some of the other arguments made me smile.
What is fascinating to me is that none of these 100 (+/-) so-called scientists appeared to have considered that nowhere in The Scientific Method is the word “consensus” found.
I did mention that there was a complete and utter lack of scientific methodology in their attempts, didn’t I? They were making the same mistakes then that climate scientists are now.
The concept of a ‘scientific consensus’ was the first red flag for me. Back then, I was naive, much like any typical 16-year-old, but even then, I found the notion of an apparently solid consensus rather dubious. I understood that Earth’s climate is incredibly complex, which is why we can’t reliably predict the weather beyond a mere 10 days. Some argue that weather is distinct from climate, but I was puzzled by this contradictory argument. If our grasp of weather patterns is limited to just a week or so, how can we confidently make predictions for 10, 20 or even 100 years into the future? If our understanding of the natural world were as robust as it’s presented, we should be far better at long-term weather forecasting. When climate proponents present a model alongside the global surface air temperature data, and they seem to correlate exceptionally well, almost too well, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow and wonder if there’s more to the story than meets the eye. Studies like this only bolster my skepticism, making it increasingly challenging to accept these findings at face value.
Yet a couple of days ago we had an article featured on this very site from Joe Bastardi, predicting cold winter weather for the whole of northern Europe and he was cheered to the rafters for making it.
So which is it? Predictions more than 10 days are unreliable, or we can predict months of weather in advance?
This from the guy who declares that predictions of 20 and 30 years out are completely accurate.
Projections, not predictions. And the multi-model average of the climate model projections are doing very well, despite what you will read on this site.
Semantics is heavily relied upon in climate prognostications.
(see how I make use of semantics as well?)
Desperation drives the alarmists to ever more distant examples of misrepresented or twisted semantics.
Model projection are absolute JUNK-SCIENCE.
You cannot average multiple “guesses” and say you have the correct answer.
That is moron-level anti-science at best…
But we expect nothing more from you. !
Like there’s a meaningful difference between the two.
Model averages just means that all the models are bad, but by selecting the ones you want you can get the result you are after.
There are dozens of models and thousands of runs.
Yet there are only about a dozen runs used in these “averages”.
Basically out of all the runs available, select the ones that come closest to what you want to see, then average them together.
The predictions aren’t evenly above and below the actual values so they are biased.
Using averaged bad model runs that they then compare to adjusted and pseudo data.
”So which is it? Predictions more than 10 days are unreliable, or we can predict months of weather in advance?”
Both.
Right, so we can reliably predict regional weather patterns months in advance? Is that what you are saying?
You are the one saying we can project/predict 20 years, 30 years into the future.
Glad that you finally realise what a totally moronic suggestion that is. !
You’ve never actually looked at any of these projections. Not that you’ve ever actually studied any of the stuff you push.
Reliable enough for companies to pay Joe Bastardi the big bucks for making such predictions months in advance.
Do businesses normally pay for invalid information?
In the other article, TFN was making the claim that since Bastardi did not get last winter’s prediction right, that this proves all his predictions are bad.
On the other hand it doesn’t matter how many bad predictions his climate scientists make, they are still right.
ANother point is that weather forecasts are trying to predict what the weather at a particular point at a particular time in the future is going to be.
Long range forecasts try to predict what the average climate for a region is going to be for a few weeks to a month at a time.
Completely different beast, and much closer to climate forecasting than it is to weather forecasting. Though in truth it is a mixture of both.
“Predictions more than 10 days are unreliable,”
So prediction 20, 30, 40 years in the future are totally and absolutely MEANINGLESS.
Thanks for utterly DESTOYING the whole AGW meme.
Well Done Foolish Nit-Wit !
Bastardi’s prediction is testable in his own lifetime. Climate modellers, not so much.
Wait and see.
Early WINTER for the USA. !!
60 Million Americans Under Freeze Alerts As Powerful Arctic Blast Crashes Temps Nationwide | ZeroHedge
From what I recall, Joe didn’t predict what the temperature was going to be, just that it would be colder than average. There’s a vast degree of difference in predicting rain on Tuesday versus how cold winter will be based on past weather patterns, and in both cases there is no certainty – and there never will be.
Bearing that in mind, the idea that some SimCity playthroughs, averaged together, are somehow indicative of the future 80 years from now is ludicrous.
Predictions of specific high and low temperatures for a given area are a whole different animal than simply predicting “colder” and “hotter”. To compare the two is idiocy or deception.
Good for you, Walter. You have figured it out. You are right to be skeptical about human-caused climate change claims. There’s a lot to be skeptical about.
Are flawed 97% not enough ? Next bid ? 😀
101%!
When all agree no-one has thought deep enough.
If two people agree on everything, one of them is redundant.
More good news. Am I missing something? There were 88125 climate related papers from 2012 on. They randomly selected 3000, about 3%. How did they randomly select them and did they take into consideration that the gross majority of skeptic papers are turned away?
They rigged the game. The 97 percent consensus is really less than three percent.
The only way the climate change alarmists can stay in the game is to rig it by lying up one side and down the other.
Nothing random about it.
Cook’s team was a small group of basement dwellers.
They and Cook self selected papers they wanted to include.
Others pointed out that their papers were included and did not contain any support for AGW temperature increases. Those opinions are all dependent upon the small group of alleged reviewers.
We’ve often wondered how long it took Cook to twist the numbers to make it appear alarmists have more than zero relevance.
All of Cook’s “reviewers” were hard core climate catastrophe believers.
If they had facts and evidence they would argue those. Clearly all they have are unfounded claims so they argue based on manufactured consensus so as to avoid debating objective evidence. A paper like this is a straight admission of having no convincing support for their theory of CAGW. Dubi et al have shone a bright light on the dishonesty, incompetence or both of the authors of the consensus paper.
I think there are seven or so IPCC reports online with tens of thousands of references to peer reviewed scientific papers.
So odd that you missed those.
He didn’t. Many of those references go to other IPCC reports and of the few that don’t, many have been debunked previously. Of those seven or so IPCC reports, most cite the same papers again and again so redundant of you to mention all of them really.
Most references are to independently produced papers, as far as I can see.
I also looked. They reference IPCC reports, many reference the previous working group report and some reference reports that reference back to the same report in a weird circular argument. I suspect this happened as a result of trying to pad the reference section.
“as far as I can see.”
It is patently obvious that you have never even looked.
He probably did a quick scan of the titles.
“Most references are to independently produced papers, as far as I can see.”
Yeah, and none of them have any evidence that CO2 is doing what climate alarmists claim it is doing.
Speculation, assumptions and assertions are not evidence of anything and that’s all that is contained in those papers.
You could prove me wrong by providing some evidence from those papers. But you won’t, because you can’t, because none of those reports contain any evidence.
Plus, IPCC’s authors waffle worded every conclusion as CYA.
If those papers were as good as you wish they were, why are the leading alarmists not trotting them out as proof.
Instead they keep trotting out the non-existent consensus as their proof.
We are still waiting for Flamin’ Nit-wit to actually produce some real science to back up its gibberings.
Seem it is totally incapable of doing so.
“If those papers were as good as you wish they were, why are the leading alarmists not trotting them out as proof.”
Yeah!
Final Nail could trot some evidence out if he had any. But we know he doesn’t, he just pretends evidence exists. He has a lot of faith in Hockey Stick charts.
The best way to make a climate alarmist go silent is to request that they provide evidence for their claims.
After that, it’s “crickets”.. And we know why.
“tens of thousands of references to peer reviewed scientific papers.”
And yet you STILL cannot produce a single one that proves atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Really is a sadly pathetic state of affairs, isn’t it, Fungal Toenail..
Correct, BN200. Moreover, there is ANTI-proof countering that conjecture. Ice core data shows that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle (~800 years).
You are not drawing conclusions from fact. Yes I am familiar with IPCC reports. Reports aren’t facts though they may contain facts. The actual scientific reports from IPCC find no adverse changes in any important climate parameters – only a gentle warming over the past several decades. There is nothing in the reports that proves human activity is mostly responsible for that warming – that is only found in climate models which have never been validated.
Just a comment in solidarity with colleagues at Ben Gurion University, and indded with all Jewish people at this very troubling moment; who are again threatened with genocide, this time by islamofascists and their comrades, the western “progressive left” elite.
Leftwing Billionaires such as George Soros, and others, should be mentioned as persons who are funding the hatred of Jews at colleges and universities all over the United States, in addition to funding coming from Qatar and the Mad Mullahs of Iran for the same purpose.
They are paying to propagandize Americans into supporting Islamic terrorists, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Children are easily influenced. Those that have been fooled are marching in support of beheading jewish babies and burning them alive in ovens.
But now we are on to them.
We need Trump to straighten these people out. If anyone can do it, he can.
Thank you!!
Let me guess… Open Access, right? Meaning ‘self-published’. They pay an internet-based ‘journal’ a few bucks and it gets published with zero meaningful review.
But it says all the right things for this site; so it’s waved through without question. Carried shoulder-high from the building, so to speak.
Seen it so often here before, haven’t we?
Can you refute the facts presented in the paper? Are any of them wrong?
If its such a bad paper ought to be easy for you….
Can you point to a ‘fact’ it pertains to present that you feel I should dispute?
If I were you, I would be more interested in why this paper wasn’t published in a proper scientific journal. Not one that the likes of you and I can simply buy.
It was published in a peer – reviewed journal called ‘Climate’, I believe it is one that the likes of you and I can simply buy. If you’d bothered reading beyond the first line you’d have found the link.
Aren’t you ever embarrassed with the crap you write?
Evidently he isn’t.
Probably…. Otherwise, we would know his or her REAL NAME. 🤨
I’m thinking of a paper that was withdrawn after publication about a month ago. Why was it pulled, from the internal e-mails, it was pulled because several prominent climate activists were concerned about the implications of the conclusion. Not because they found any flaws in the math or science, but because of it’s implications.
Proper journals have become little more than gate keepers of orthodoxy.
Wow, your abilities at dodging and weaving are improving. Won’t be soon till you catch up with Nick.
You were the one who claimed that the paper isn’t worth looking at based on nothing more than your pathetic opinion. You are also the one who is bending over backwards to actually put some facts behind your opinion.
Continue ducking and weaving, since it’s all you can do.
So the Foolish one now admits it hasn’t even read the paper.
Hence has absolutely ZERO POSSIBILITY of countering anything in it.
Seen it so often here before, haven’t we?
I think we can all be absolutely certain, that FN has never read a single “scientific” paper in its lifetime.
Science is a total anathema to FN..
… doesn’t know what it is, and would not understand it if he ever had the ability to read it.. !
That has to be one of the dumbest answers I have ever seen on WUWT and I have been here for a looooooong time.
There was a time we go PhD’s in chemistry and physics coming to argue science here. They lost over and over and over and they all went away. Now we’re left with this guy? LOL.
Well, I’ve been here a loooooong time too–but off and on. We know what a PhD is: piled higher and deeper. If you haven’t studied Thermodynamics, then you are a basic loser. (My Thermodynamics prof must be rolling in his grave. I really sucked in his class.) Mr. End-All-Nails thinks that a correlation between temperature and CO2 is absolute proof. There are other reasons for a possible correlation, and alarmists don’t give a damn about the possibility.
Several times I’ve pointed out how temperatures were rising before CO2 started rising and that there was no increase in the rate of temperature rise after CO2 started rising.
The usual response from the true believers that whatever was caused the earlier rise went away and CO2 took over.
How did they know this?
The models proved it.
Then you have NOTHING to offer in the way of counterpoint.
That is the reality YOU are avoiding with your stupid deflections.
As usual, TFN can’t be bothered to argue the actual science, since he has none, instead he tries to refute the paper based on nothing more than where it was published.
Given how hard the climate alarmists work to make sure that nothing that challenges the consensus will be published.
Let me guess. You are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of countering one thing in the paper. !
Seen it
so often hereEVERY TIME before, haven’t we?The Lynas et al paper is also open access.
But that’s different. He agrees with the Lunas paper.
You don’t know, at all, do you?
Instead you speculate and instead sling ad hominems and insinuations.
Typical alarmist pretend science.
Actually, we didnt pay a nickel. The journal “Climate” is becoing a very popular journal, has a very good impact factor and very good scientists publish in it. The paper went through 3 rounds of peer review, with 4 different reveiwers (actually 3 reviewers and one “Academic Editor”). So we can debate about the content of the paper, and whether our statistical analysis was useful, but why the Ad Hominem (or Ad Journalem, in your case)?
RE (Ruinous Energy) ruining the environment one lithium battery, one solar panel, and one wind turbine at a time. 10 million of each of these is wasteful, a 100 million of each is environmental destruction. Does anyone honestly believe we’ll be using this technology for 50 more yeaes
I touched my screen and it posted. I knew the typo was rhere, we need to be able to make corrections.
“RE (Ruinous Energy)”
I like it! That’s what it is! That’s what we should call it.
The fabled consensus has been beaten to death so many times now. It never got up after the first thrashing. Apart from the fact that it has no meaning anyway, it has absolutely no credibility due to its flawed research.
If it wasn’t for the fact that monthly warmest global average surface and satellite temperature records are falling like ten-pins, you might have a point. But since they are, you don’t.
If it wasn’t for the fact that monthly warmest global average surface and satellite temperature records are falling like ten-pins
It’s about AGW consensus. Not AGT. The lights are on but no one’s home.
You seem awfully proud of a series of computations based on fatally flawed datasets that didn’t bother to seperate temperatures from urban activity. Until there is a dataset that has been ‘cleaned’ of corruption, it’s all junk.
Have you seen the number of COLD records broken recently !
Or are you blind as well as ignorant.
Surface records are meaningless in urban areas.
Satellite data is only 45 years old, and we have had a strong El Nino on to of the HT eruption
NO WARMING in the satellite record apart from at El Ninos…
… so there is NO EVIDENCE of HUMAN-CAUSED climate change in the satellite data.
The planet has been warmer than now for nearly all the past 10,000 years.
Get some reality and perspective into your tiny, petrified, chicken-little troll-mind. !
When the data appears to support what he wants to believe, he looks no closer.
When the data does not appear to support what he wants to believe, he doesn’t look at all.
It really is amazing how much mileage alarmists can get out of a single myth.
About as much as a small EV hauling a big caravan uphill on a really cold day. 😉
A golden opportunity for you to demonstrate just how erudite you really are.
What is the difference between “weather” and “climate” ?
Out of the thousands of model runs that have been done over the years. They pick a dozen or so that look most like what they want to see, then average them together and proclaim the problem solved.
As always, ToeFungalNail cites UHI-biased, computed Global Average temperatures rather than reality-based local temperatures to support his case.
How are satellite records contaminated by urban bias, exactly?
Probably by averaging 0 and 1.
They won’t even bother defending their paper, they won’t have to.
This paper will be so completely buried that we here at WUWT will probably be the only ones to hear of it.
If burying it doesn’t work this time, they will just proclaim that either, the authors aren’t climate scientists therefore nothing the say is worth listening to, or that they were bought off by oil interests. If not both.
I was talking about the original, “consensus” paper. Not the one being discussed here. Sorry for the confusion.
All old news. The most obvious aspect…”Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%.” They used the inverse to calculate. However 2,104 papers held NO Position. So suddenly they became pro-AGW.
Now watch as Mann et al pressure the journal to retract the paper
It’s deja boo all over again. See Cook et al (2013) described as multiply fraudulent by the GWPF. That was the famous 97% of course
To clarify, for anyone reading silently, trying to learn: GWPF did not merely “describe,” they identified the Cook, et al. paper as being fraud.
As always on WUWT, there will be no critical analysis of the critical analysis, its conclusions will be accepted as indisputable fact.
Dentelski’s primary objection seems to be with the “non position” papers in Lynas et al., and Dentelski argues that an analysis of the bodies of each manuscript should be undertaken to ascertain whether the paper is truly “no position” or not. This is a fine idea, but Dentelski hasn’t done it. Claiming that “doing the study a completely different way might or might not possibly produce a slightly different result, we have no idea,” is not quite the same thing as “busting” a paper.
I’m guessing that you only read the summary and didn’t read the paper itself? Sloppy, very sloppy, but predictable.
I read the full paper. It is short, and superficial. You should go read it, too, then try actually responding to my comment instead of deflecting.
I have read it, very interesting reading and so completely unlike your description that it made me wonder if you’d even seen it. The paper sets out to analyse and critique the Lynas paper as a scientific study, not to compete with it on the same ground. From that limited perspective they successfully prove that Lynas’ methodology was too vaguely worded, relied on just a preliminary scan of the introduction (in this I disagree with Dentelski, et al. in that they credit Lynas with reading through all 3000 abstracts, whereas I think he used a basic word-search program instead) and then goes on to discuss the flaws in choosing the papers and with the neutral/sceptical papers. It all seems very straightforward – Lynas was far too sloppy in his methodology and analysis, so the conclusions he draws can not possibly follow from the way he analysed the papers.
Very much like your comments – vague and sloppy work that fails to support your conclusions.
They don’t prove this, they claim it. They suggest that a complete analysis of the text of the full manuscripts might possibly result in a different figure than the 99.8% that Lynas derives. Nowhere do they actually demonstrate that this is the case. It might well be true, or it might not be true, Dentelski makes no attempt to prove this either way. Of course it might also be true that an analysis of the full text of all the manuscripts would produce an even stronger consensus, but Dentelski never raises this as a possibility.
Dentelski are simply proposing a completely different methodology, not rebutting the methodology that Lynas uses, and they make no effort to actually demonstrate that their alternative produces materially different results. Dentelski does not show that the results do not follow from the data, but rather that some other hypothetical set of data might hypothetically produce a slightly different hypothetical result, maybe.
They don’t need to set up a competing study doing the same work. They have conclusively shown thay Lynas’ methods were badly done, flawed, and the conclusions drawn are not supported by the data and analysis methods Lynas uses. It is up to Lynas to redo the study, correcting the flaws and tightening up the methodology, in order to produce a workable paper. That is how science works, it’s not up to other scientists to do the work that Lynas should have done in the first place, that’s just absurd.
Again, they’ve shown nothing of the kind. Lynas et al. laid out their methodology and reported their results. Dentelski is claiming that a completely different methodology than that used by Lynas et al. might hypothetically produce different results, and that this invalidates Lynas et al.’s approach. Lynas et al.’s abstract rankings follow the definitions Lynas et al. lays out and are valid (i.e. it’s not shown that they’re miss-classifying abstracts based on the contents of the abstracts). Using Dentelski’s proposed “full text analysis” approach, there might be differences in the classifications of some papers, but to say that these differences in the classifications “invalidates” Lynas et al.’s results, it has to be shown that the differences in the these classifications produces materially different results. Dentelski doesn’t do this.
And, yes, it is completely up to Dentelski to do the work if he is proposing that his methodology is better and produces different results. That’s 100% on him. You generally don’t see papers published that are nothing more than a critique of an existing paper unless the new paper is substantively adding new information in addition to the critique (i.e. “we think our methodology is better and here are the results using our method”). A critique like Dentelski’s is more appropriately submitted as a letter or comment to the publisher.
Anal the Desperate.!
Hilarious. !
You are now suggesting that Dentelski plagiarise Lynas’ work just to satisfy your unrealistic view of what you think science should be?
Stop being a prat – accept that Lynas submitted a very sub-par paper and Dentelski has exposed the areas that need to be fixed. Simples.
Yet you couldn’t defend it because you are too busy trying to be important here with your dumb word salad.
“It is short, and superficial”
Your comments are boring, tedious, meaningless… and superficial.
Well done. !
Okay. SECOND ATTEMPT to post the below. More evidence that “AlanJ” is someone with access to WUWT’s software: I could NOT post the below comment as a direct reply to AJ. The comment box simply remained on the screen, never converting to a completed comment form.
**************
Query: Why is it that when “AlanJ” comments, the – and + functions malfunction? When I try to + someone who responded to AJ, their minus count remains unchanged. When I try to minus AJ, I get an ERRONEOUS error message saying: “You’ve already voted for this comment.” No. I had not.
My guess: AlanJ is someone with Editor (or higher) access to WUWT. Someone whose arguments are so weak that he or she must rely on CHEATING (with the minuses and pluses) to create a false impression of having any merit at all.
Janice. I can’t explain the erroneous error message, but AnalJ has several little Trollop friends who go beserk on all the down-votes. If they’ve done the usual red-finger shuffle since you last refreshed the page, it might register a group of votes all at once. Try refreshing the page and watch the vote count before you vote?
Take care.
Well. First of all, thank you, Mr. Page, for taking the time to inform me. Very likely true and good advice. Just FYI (more evidence of “something fishy”), just now, your “score” was 0. When I hit the + it: 1) did not change to a +1; and 2) I got the “You already voted for this comment” “error” message. Odd, to say the least.
I refreshed the page. Tried to plus 1 your comment just above. Same result: no plus 1 and “You’ve already voted for this comment.” And more info. — when I refreshed, the page took extraordinarily long to refresh (a copy being sent to someone to peruse, perhaps?).
And it is ONLY when “AlanJ” is the troll. Hm.
Well, not a BIG deal. Just felt like saying something about it, this time.
Well thank you for liking what I wrote Janice, much appreciated. Apart from that though I’m all out of ideas – ask one of the mods to check the site to see if there’s something iffy going on?
WordPress works in mysterious ways.. sometimes updates the like counter, sometimes doesn’t.. sometimes seems to have a delay.
Wouldn’t sweat it too much ! 🙂
Access to computers with different IP addresses/ ISP providers…
… same person can down-vote a few times.
As usual from AnalJ.. unable to do anything but whinge because he doesn’t like the reality.
Do you really think CONcensus is any part of “science”.. ?
Especially when that CONsensus is utterly FAKE anyway.
Do you really think the Linus paper should EVER have passed anything by propaganda review. !
Is it possible that he’s a troll?
Or a complete anti-science moron, that likes to whinge mindlessly about irrelevancies.
No scientist with any self-worth would ever waste its time pretending to support a CON-sensus propaganda paper.
As always, AlanJ won’t even bother to look at any of the posts, he’ll just assume he already knows what everyone is going to say, and that’s good enough for him.
My recollection was that the Cook/Lewendowsky study suffered from the same bad assumptions and process (aside from the absurd “crowd” sourcing of reviewers drafted from an alarmist site).